Monday
Feb012010
That Groovy Phil
Monday, February 1, 2010 at 03:59AM
There wasn't much talk of Indefinite Leave at the Farmer's Insurance Open. Instead it was all grooves, Mickelson, McCarron and slander. Luckily, the slowest player on tour won the event, so there was plenty of time to dwell on the various dramas.
When Mickelson announced at his press conference that he would be carrying a Ping Eye2 lob wedge, an alarm went off. Phil, it was said, was exploiting a loophole in the ruling and looking for an unfair and unethical, though perfectly legal, advantage. But Phil made a point of saying that due to his change to a softer ball he was getting more spin in some instances with his new, conforming wedges. If he is able to generate as much spin with his 56 and 64 degree wedges, why would the 60 be any different? So why the Ping? And what about Callaway? They pay Phil a tidy sum to play their equipment. Wouldn't they have something to say about Phil not playing the equipment he is contracted to play? All interesting questions that should have been addressed as the week wore on. But . . .
Enter Scott McCarron. Seemingly nice guy, wielder of the legal but questionable long putter, member of the Player Advisory Council. He decides to throw the C word (no, not that C word) at Mickelson for carrying the Ping wedge. Oddly, McCarron, who played both the Sony and the Hope, did not call out John Daly or Dean Wilson for using the same club in the previous events. Apparently Phil deserves special attention.
After he catches wind of McCarron's comments, Phil says he didn't expect to be slandered and leaves open the possibility of legal action. Then the debate turns to whether the comments were slanderous and whether Phil might actually file suit. From there it just got sillier and sillier.
The original point of the exercise, I believe, was to highlight the foolishness of the rule change. Clearly Phil does not agree with the change, nor is he happy that the wedges Callaway originally submitted to the USGA were rejected, though Phil claims they were conforming. From his press conference comments, it seems clear that Phil did not believe the Ping wedge offered any significantly better playing characteristics than his Callaway lob wedge. It is also clear that he had put in a great deal of time with the new wedges. Putting the Ping wedge in play was a means of getting the groove issue back in play and of poking the eye of the USGA. To a slightly lesser extent, it was Phil acting as the bulldog for his equipment company.
But McCarron changed the story line.
Now as the Tour heads to Riviera, the question at the Wednesday press conference will be about a potential legal action. But I'll be more interested in whether the Ping stays in Mickelson's bag.
When Mickelson announced at his press conference that he would be carrying a Ping Eye2 lob wedge, an alarm went off. Phil, it was said, was exploiting a loophole in the ruling and looking for an unfair and unethical, though perfectly legal, advantage. But Phil made a point of saying that due to his change to a softer ball he was getting more spin in some instances with his new, conforming wedges. If he is able to generate as much spin with his 56 and 64 degree wedges, why would the 60 be any different? So why the Ping? And what about Callaway? They pay Phil a tidy sum to play their equipment. Wouldn't they have something to say about Phil not playing the equipment he is contracted to play? All interesting questions that should have been addressed as the week wore on. But . . .
Enter Scott McCarron. Seemingly nice guy, wielder of the legal but questionable long putter, member of the Player Advisory Council. He decides to throw the C word (no, not that C word) at Mickelson for carrying the Ping wedge. Oddly, McCarron, who played both the Sony and the Hope, did not call out John Daly or Dean Wilson for using the same club in the previous events. Apparently Phil deserves special attention.
After he catches wind of McCarron's comments, Phil says he didn't expect to be slandered and leaves open the possibility of legal action. Then the debate turns to whether the comments were slanderous and whether Phil might actually file suit. From there it just got sillier and sillier.
The original point of the exercise, I believe, was to highlight the foolishness of the rule change. Clearly Phil does not agree with the change, nor is he happy that the wedges Callaway originally submitted to the USGA were rejected, though Phil claims they were conforming. From his press conference comments, it seems clear that Phil did not believe the Ping wedge offered any significantly better playing characteristics than his Callaway lob wedge. It is also clear that he had put in a great deal of time with the new wedges. Putting the Ping wedge in play was a means of getting the groove issue back in play and of poking the eye of the USGA. To a slightly lesser extent, it was Phil acting as the bulldog for his equipment company.
But McCarron changed the story line.
Now as the Tour heads to Riviera, the question at the Wednesday press conference will be about a potential legal action. But I'll be more interested in whether the Ping stays in Mickelson's bag.
in Golf
Golf
Reader Comments