Also keep in mind that Ping has already successfully sued the USGA in the past. This may not stand.
March 6, 2009
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Frank Thomas
8390 ChampionsGate Boulevard, No. 100
ChampionsGate, FL 33896
Dear Frank:
I remain deeply disappointed that the USGA and the R&A adopted an unnecessary new
groove rule. This decision was made despite the information and facts I (and presumably
many others) submitted demonstrating why the new rule should not be implemented. I
continue to be disappointed by the USGA's refusal to make available to me, and
apparently to you, all the information it evaluated with respect to this inappropriate
decision. In April of 2007 the USGA's Senior Technical director stated this process
would be "open and transparent." Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
Frank, thank you for keeping this issue in the public eye, and for reminding everyone that
the game of golf belongs to all who love it, not just the select few who are privileged to
be placed on the USGA's Executive Committee. In order to keep the rulemaking bodies
strong, the golfing public must speak up when the game's leaders refuse to correct bad
decisions. The game of golf is bigger, and more important, than any of the individuals
temporarily entrusted with the responsibility for its growth and longevity. Over the next
several months, as the reality of this new groove rule begins -- for the first time -- to hit
the radar screen of many golfers, I urge each and everyone to let the USGA know how
they feel about this equipment rollback, regardless of which side of this issue they may be
on.
As you likely realize, the last thing I ever wanted was another groove controversy. I
thought this issue was settled once and for all as part of an agreement reached nearly
twenty years ago. The USGA/R&A must honor their prior commitments, including the
prior approvals of irons and wedges which have been relied upon by tens of millions of
golfers all over the world. It is wrong for golf's rulemaking bodies to harm amateurs in
order to satisfy unproven complaints regarding PGA Tour Pro's. Why not test the impact
of the new groove rule on the PGA Tour for several years? In the meantime, the
application of this rule to everyone else should be put on "hold," including the upcoming
difficult manufacturing changes that will otherwise need to be adopted. That seems like
an obvious idea that would be fairer to everyone. Interestingly, when asked to discuss his
role at the USGA, the current USGA President said that "dealing intelligently and fairly
with people is still the most important thing." Frank, if you and/or the golfing public can
convince USGA officials to live up to their President's own standard, we may yet see
something positive come from your efforts.
I have heard some say that this new groove rule will be a "shot in the arm" for golf club
manufacturers. While I highly doubt that will be the case, it is not the issue. The issue is
what is in the best interest of the long term health of the game. The elevation of the
perceived needs of a handful of Tour Pro's above the real and immediate needs of tens of
millions of amateurs is certainly not good for the game. The reversal of prior approvals
of hundreds of millions of golf clubs is not good for the game. The refusal of the USGA
to release all of their data on this issue is not good for the game. The likely harm to the
credibility of the USGA and the R&A once this unwise decision is felt by millions of
golfers is not good for the game. What would be good for the game -- rule makers that
honor their word; rule makers that realize the game belongs to the amateurs who support
it; rule makers who respect that innovation is -- and has been for over 100 years -- one of
the most important traditions that has resulted in the current wide spread support for the
game; and rule makers who share everything they know about such an important issue,
not just the "filtered" self-serving data.
Frank, perhaps you have some thoughts on whether decisions like this -- decisions that
affect tens of millions of golfers for a very long time -- are ultimately made by just one or
two influential members of the USGA's Executive Committee. It has been my
experience that changing something that seems trivial, such as whether a vote is done by
private ballot instead of a show of hands, can free the decision making process from
undue influence (much like the “peer pressure” a Tour player must experience as he or
she decides whether or not to call foul on a fellow player’s equipment). Peer pressure
should have no place in making the rules of golf or enforcing them.
I thought you, and perhaps your readers, would find it helpful if I briefly summarized
some of the information, data and analysis I submitted to the USGA/R&A demonstrating
why the new groove rule should not be adopted. Several of the points I made are set
forth on the attached "Summary of PING's Opposition to the New Groove Rule."
Frank, thank you again for your efforts, and I know your intended beneficiary of all of
this is the game of golf, and the millions of golfers who support it. I share that goal with
you.
Sincerely,
KARSTEN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
John A. Solheim
Chairman, President and CEO
Attachment
SUMMARY OF PING's OPPOSITION TO THE NEW GROOVE RULE
Set forth below is a summary of some of the points PING made to the USGA and the
R&A during the time they were evaluating whether to adopt the new groove rule:
1. It is simply wrong to place the potentially biased concerns of a small number of
Tour professionals above the needs of tens of millions of amateurs. Why are
amateurs being needlessly harmed and told to reach into their pockets to pay for an
alleged problem that the USGA believes applies to just the PGA Tour? The PGA Tour
has undergone tremendous economic growth and success over the past decades, in
concert with golf club innovation. Innovation is one of the oldest and most important
traditions of golf. Professionals who get their clubs for free should not be causing the
rulemaking bodies to force amateurs to buy new clubs.
2. Once the rulemaking bodies approve a golf club, it should remain approved.
Golf needs respected and responsible rule makers. Respect is earned -- and it can easily
be lost. Tens of millions of golfers purchased hundreds of millions of irons and wedges
based on the fact that the rulemaking bodies said these clubs conformed to the rules. It
simply is not fair to say to the golfing public, "You know those clubs you bought, the
ones we said conformed to the rules? Well, we changed our mind. Sorry about that, and
you will need to get some new ones." This not only harms amateur golfers, but it
damages the respect many have for the USGA and the R&A.
3. The skill of driving accuracy continues to be richly rewarded. In proposing this
roll back of the Rules, the USGA stated: "The skill of driving accurately has become a
much less important factor in achieving success while playing [on the PGA Tour] than it
used to be...." That statement is not correct. The data from recent US Opens and from
PGA Tour events (including its improved ShotLink data - which was ignored by the
USGA) establish that there remains a significant penalty from landing in the rough. In
fact, the USGA is able to define, and obtain, the level of penalty ("Cost of Rough") it
desires through its course set up. Any tournament is free to do the same. ShotLink data
also establishes that accurate drives at PGA Tour events continue to result in the ball
ending up much closer to the hole after the second shot (a true measure of an accurate
shot). In short, there continues to be a significant penalty from hitting into the rough,
even for the best players in the world.
4. In targeting grooves, the rulemaking bodies ignored numerous changes that
likely impacted the game over the past 30 years. It is nearly impossible to conclude
that a single variable (grooves) caused any observed changes to the game at the PGA
Tour level over the past twenty five years. To attempt to do so requires that you ignore
all of the other changes to the game since 1984 (the year square grooves were allowed),
including the following: course conditioning changes, driver improvements (such as
large-headed drivers made with exotic materials), shaft improvements, improved golf
balls and golf ball cover materials, improved agronomy, increased athleticism, improved
player conditioning, improved player training aids, launch angle fitting and even
improved coaching. As an example, tremendous course conditioning changes have
occurred on the PGA Tour since the 1970's. According to historical PGA Tour Course
Conditioning Guidelines, since the 1970's the length of the primary rough has been
reduced by as much as 60%. The height of the intermediate rough (also described as the
first cut), is now as short as some fairways used to be. The grass on the fairways &
greens is also shorter. If the USGA/R&A are concerned whether PGA Tour pros find it
too easy to hit out of the rough, why didn't they focus on changes to the PGA Tour's
course set up guidelines? If the PGA Tour's set up guidelines were reviewed, why
weren't they mentioned in any of the reports? It is unfair to make amateurs buy new
clubs, just so PGA Tour pros can continue to play courses without the deeper roughs
yesterday's pros were forced to tackle.
5. The "money list/driving accuracy" rank correlation analysis cited by the USGA
to justify its change in grooves is fundamentally flawed. The downward pattern in this
correlation can not be tied to the introduction or increased use of square grooved irons.
We believe it is more closely linked to PGA Tour player behavior than the introduction
of any particular equipment innovation. We undertook extensive statistical analysis of
publicly available PGA Tour data. We quickly discovered the number of tournaments
played annually by the top 10 money earners has been gradually decreasing since about
the mid-1990’s. In fact, the number of PGA Tour events with 3 or more of the top 10
money earners in the field has dramatically decreased since the 1980's. The decreasing
trend in participation by the top money earners at PGA Tour Events closely mirrors the
decreasing trend in the money list/driving accuracy rank correlations, and could be the
cause of it. All of this was demonstrated, graphically and otherwise, in my letters to the
USGA.
6. The USGA has not demonstrated that any change in any PGA Tour statistic is
due to grooves. If the rule making bodies believe that grooves are wreaking havoc on
the PGA Tour, why is it that among the hundreds of statistics kept by the PGA Tour, no
one has ever deemed it worthwhile to identify the specific grooves each individual PGA
Tour Pro is using in his irons and wedges. If grooves truly are a problem, it seems
obvious that someone would gather and analyze this easily obtainable data before telling
tens of millions of golfers the USGA is reversing its prior approval of hundreds of
millions of golf clubs. The failure to do so suggests there may be something else going
on here.
7. What happens to hundreds of millions of "Used" golf clubs - which have always
been an important asset in golf. I believe it is important to many golfers, particularly
PING customers, that their used clubs maintain a great trade-in value, often for twenty or
more years. I am concerned that declaring that hundreds of millions of previously
approved clubs will later be non-conforming will impact the resale value of those clubs.
It is wrong to diminish the value of these previously approved clubs purchased by hardworking
men and women simply because a few Tour pros (who get their clubs for free)
seem to complain that "golfers today have it too easy." I do not know of a single golfer
who quit playing the game because "it became too easy." This new rule will also harm
the tradition of passing clubs to children and grandchildren. Used clubs are also an
affordable way for many beginners to give the game a try. These concerns may not
resonate with some, but they mean a lot to many who love this game and want to pass the
passion for golf on to the next generation. Again, are we throwing all of that away
simply so the PGA Tour can keep its rough shorter than it used to be?
PING is proud of its 50 year history of developing quality, innovative and custom fit golf
products that are designed so all golfers can "play their best." PING is also proud of its
history of challenging, when needed, golf's rulemaking bodies in an effort to promote
better decision making that will benefit this game we all love. With a tremendous group
of employees, and continuing ideas for golf club innovation, PING looks forward to
leading on both of these important fronts for a long time to come.
Thank you for taking the time to review this information, and for all you do in support of
the game of golf.
PING