"This rule change is great for me."

Phil Mickelson came out very assertive in his press conference today and while I believe the tone is justified in one sense (toward the USGA for making the club conformity subjective), as you'll see I think he's got to work on his case when it comes to the idea of regulation and the intent of the rule.

First, some housekeeping. As Doug Ferguson writes, he's dropping the PING wedge, acknowledging "My point has been made." Oh and by the way, overlooked in all of this: he's going for three straight wins at Riviera, which would have to go down as one of his great career feats if he pulls it off. Hogan didn't do it. Neither did Snead. 

Now to the press conference highlights. Phil, let it rip:

In regards to the groove and playing the club and whatnot, I have been very upset over the way the entire groove rule has come about and its total lack of transparency. I'm very upset with the way the rule came about, the way one man essentially can approve or not approve a golf club based on his own personal decision regardless of what the rule says. This has got to change. To come out and change a rule like this that has a loophole has got to change. It's ridiculous. It hurts the game, and you cannot put the players in a position to interpret what the rule has meant. That's why we have a decisions book, to decide this stuff.

This should have been decided well before this came out. It put me and it put all players in a bad spot, and it needs to be changed. This rule-making process needs to be changed.

So the background on that is here. Phil's right, and the USGA's subjective approach is a problem.

Here's where Phil's case begins to weaken a bit. Jaime Diaz asks:

Q. In a perfect world would you have preferred the rule was left alone so that the new grooves out there in 1990 were the ones instituted, or would you have liked a roll-back?

PHIL MICKELSON: I think it was a ridiculous rule change and even worse timing. It's cost manufacturers millions of dollars. It continues to cost them money as we now have to hire people to scan, document and store data of every club of every groove on every single club. It was unnecessary. It was an attempt to show power. And the arbitrary judgment of one man can take a conforming club and rule it non-conforming based on his emotion, this type of lack of transparency has got to change. It's killing the sport. It's killing the manufacturers, the players. We don't understand the rule, and it needs to be changed.

I'm hoping and believing now that the pressure has been put on by the Commissioner, by the PGA TOUR, by the manufacturers that this won't be tolerated anymore.

Q. So even if it had been a really efficiently-run rule change, you still don't think it was necessary, that there was no need to go back to V-grooves so to speak?

PHIL MICKELSON: Not only was it not necessary, the timing of it was terrible.

And here's where I chimed in:

Q. Do you understand the USGA's position that they're trying to put an emphasis back on skill in doing that through this groove rule change or perhaps some other modification? Are you opposed to any kind of effort on their part to protect skill?

PHIL MICKELSON: This rule change is great for me. It's great for me. But that doesn't mean it's right. You have to remove yourself as a player and decide is this good for the game, not is this good for me.

Q. How so? Elaborate. How is it good for you?

PHIL MICKELSON: Because first of all, I grew up with V-grooves, I have played V-grooves these last however many years. My clubs from last year are legal. It's no change for me, other than a wedge, but even that's nominal. It's no change. Guys who have never played them have a big adjustment to make. Reading lies, deciding how the ball is going to come out could take a long time to learn that, and being an older player and growing up with those clubs and not having to change those clubs in my bag, I have a huge advantage. But it doesn't mean it's right.

Q. All those things you listed, though, add interesting elements to the game and are all skill related, emphasize experience, a lot of different elements. So in a sense you are being rewarded for your skill, so can't you see why the USGA was trying to do what they were doing?

PHIL MICKELSON: Just because it was good for me doesn't mean it was good or it's right. 

So Phil's admitting that as an incredibly skilled player, he stands to benefit from this rule change. Which then would seem to validate what the USGA was trying to do. That doesn't mean their execution was perfect, but based on what Mickelson is saying, they will have an impact in preserving the role of skill. Yet, he seems opposed to that for reasons he won't fully elaborate on.