GOUGE: I don't know about you, but I'm going to see Speed Racer this weekend. Might even bring the kids. But all the speed talk has me delving into the PGA Tour's stats warehouse, which has been noticeably enhanced with the inclusion of new data from the ballflight monitoring wizardry of Trackman. For the uninitiated, Trackman uses high-tech radar and unique software to track ballflight characteristics on tour, including among others launch angle, ballspeed, spin, smash factor and something called total distance efficiency, which reflects the ratio between swing speed (or technically, clubhead speed) and distance. So in other words, you can swing relatively slower than average but still get good distance and therefore produce pretty good total distance efficiency. For instance, 2.7 is excellent, 2.6 is top 30 and 2.539 is tour average. Anything below 2.45 ranks in the 190s on tour, and you'll never guess who one of the worst is. Although you might want to check Golf World next week. Post surgery, I believe mine is right about 2.0.

But here's what really struck me. The average swing speed on tour is now 112.2, which is fairly neat in and of itself, but is important in light of some changes the USGA made to its golf ball testing procedure back in 2004. Among the changes, which included switching to a titanium driver with a spring-like effect at the current limit, was a big bump in the clubhead speed. It went from 109 mph to 120 mph. Now you can argue that 120 is higher than realistic (not really, given that there are 30 players averaging more than 117 mph already), but you can't argue that while 109 might have been about right for 1976, it ain't in the ballpark no more. In fact, more than 75 percent of the players on tour swing it faster than 109 right now. In short, 120 may be rapidly on its way to the new tour average. It makes you wonder what the biomechanical limits of human potential are, though. Before his latest knee surgery, Tiger Woods was swinging it at 124.627 mph, which I believe was fast enough to win the Indy 500 in the 1930s. But they're not growing any more slow swingers. Average age of the top 30 fastest swingers is 31.9; average age for the 30 slowest swingers is 38.4. Even more telling, the slow swingers don't have a win among them all year. But you have to like the fact that Corey Pavin is still trying to get it done, swinging 23 mph slower than Tiger Woods.

BOMB: You? Speed Racer? I've seen you drive (both in cars and on the golf course) and somehow that strikes me as the last movie you might see. But enough about you. What really strikes me about this is that swing speeds are clearly getting faster, but average driving distance on the PGA Tour has been flat for the better part of three years. That makes no sense because we all know that distance at tour-player swing speeds increases about 2 yards for every mile-per-hour. So what gives? Perhaps they're swinging at it fast but launching it like crap despite all those hours on the launch monitor.

But it is disturbing that those at the bottom not only don't have a win, they haven't really had a whiff of one except for Heath Slocum at the PODS. But again, golf is a SPORT. The bombers should have an advantage. Instead we talk about it like it's dirty, disgusting thing like gas at $4 a gallon. But it's not. A high swing speed is a beautiful thing. You should try it sometime.

BOMB: With a little digging, here's the full text of the R&A/European Tour survey of tour players on grooves. The questions, undiluted, are even more loaded than we originally thought.

GOUGE: And just as clueless.

BOMB: Here you go. I love how they put forth the USGA and R&A findings in the intro and then expect to get unbiased answers? What a crock.

GOUGE: Well, it's generally been proved that U-like grooves do spin the ball more from the rough than V-like grooves.

BOMB: But that's the point. Why poison the survey with that information stated at the top in big letters? Why couldn't they ask them that without putting forth what their research shows.

GOUGE: Good point. And like I've said before how valid are these opinions if most players have never played with V-like grooves, certainly not grooves that would approach what the new rule proposes? Ad seriously, what do we suppose the R&A plans to do with the answers to Question 12 (Leave the grooves alone.)? If the overwhelming majority strongly agrees with Question 12, does that mean the proposed rule is dead? If the overwhelming majority strongly disagrees with Question 12, does that the mean the proposed rule has the green light? I'm sure all of this paperwork has a purpose, but since the R&A isn't answering questions about the proposed rule (they're just asking them, as it turns out), I guess we won't know until it's too late. Again, grooves is a difficult and complex subject, but this survey doesn't make it any easier.

BOMB: Maybe we should let the questions speak for themselves. Although if the most common answer to Question 15 is "Don't know," we may have a different problem on our hands. Here's the full survey, including the preamble.

European Tour Player Survey
       
Introduction & Background

Clubs are currently permitted to have V-grooves or U-grooves (also known as “square” grooves). 

The R&A and USGA have proposed a change to the regulations controlling grooves on the face of irons and wedges.  Extensive research has shown that square grooves used with modern construction golf balls allow a higher level of spin to be maintained when hitting shots from the rough.

The proposed change would make it necessary for clubs to have grooves whose performance characteristics would be similar to V-grooves. 

For the purpose of this survey you will be asked to compare the performance of V-grooves to U-grooves (or “square”).      

1.    V-grooves make shots from the rough more challenging.  (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

2.    Having to play V-grooves only would make me try to stay in the fairway more than I do today.  (choose one)   
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

3.    Having to play V-grooves would make some of the longer hitters try to stay in the fairway more than they do today.  (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

4.    Square grooves add significantly more control on full wedge shots from the rough.  (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

5.    Square grooves help a lot on short wedge shots around the green. (choose one)         
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

6.    Square grooves help a lot out of the rough on short iron shots. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

7.    Square grooves help a lot out of the rough on mid-iron shots. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

8.    Square grooves help a lot from the fairway on mid-iron shots. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree   
  5=Strongly Disagree

9.    Square grooves help a lot out of the rough on long-iron shots. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree   
  5=Strongly Disagree

10.    Square grooves help a lot from the fairway on long-iron shots. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

11.    Making V-grooves mandatory would make play on the European Tour more challenging.  (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

12.    If it was up to me, I would leave the grooves alone. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

13.    If it was up to me, I would require all irons and wedges to have V-grooves as soon as possible. (choose one)
  1=Strongly Agree
  2=Somewhat Agree
  3=Neither Agree nor Disagree
  4=Somewhat Disagree
  5=Strongly Disagree

14.    How many years have you played on the European Tour?    ___________

15.    Do you use U-grooves or V-grooves in your irons?
  1=U-grooves
  2=V-grooves
  3=A mixture
  4=Don’t know

BOMB: Well, say this about the way the R&A and USGA are going about their work on grooves—it's inexhaustible. Latest project: A 15-question survey on grooves asked of players at this week's Open de Espana on the European Tour. Although neither the R&A nor European Tour would provide the questions asked, I got the following from a tour rep who spoke to one of the players interviewed. But get this: it was a verbal interview with the questions asked and answers written down by Mike Stewart of the European Tour. I mean, is there a reason the players couldn't write down their own answers?

Not that Chris Matthews has to worry about losing his job on “Hardball.” Not with questions such as these:

    What type of grooves do you use?
    What do you think would be fair in terms of which grooves?
    What do you like about square grooves
    Do you think it would be harder to play shots with V-Grooves from
the: -
        Rough?
        Fairway?
        Sand?
        Tight, bare lies?

    Where are the biggest benefits of square grooves seen:
        Rough?
        Fairway?
        Sand?
        Tight, bare lies?

I’m sure you have more than a thought or two on this.

GOUGE: Here's my take: We're talking about potentially the first rollback in rules in 75-plus years and you've got one of the two organizations charged with effecting this rule asking questions that someone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the rule in question would dismiss as laughably useless. How is this moving the debate forward in any meaningful way? Besides, you're asking players about something they have no chance at all of understanding. How would they know what the proposed grooves might play like? And by the way, are you asking them could a different type/length of rough create the same level of difficulty? And, really, what do you suppose the answers might be to the ill-phrased question, "What do you think would be fair in terms of which grooves?" You might as well ask them, "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" Every golfer in creation thinks it would be fair if the rough was a penalty. You need a survey to answer that?

The issues are clear about what grooves can and can't do in terms of spin. What remains less clear is how they might affect play, if at all. You don't need any more knowledge or data to make an informed decision about this, unless you're just afraid to step up and stand your ground. I don't know what answer makes the most sense about grooves, but I do know that a verbal survey is a complete waste of time, given that your survey group is certainly likely to be an ill-informed collection of tour players (and only those dumb enough to stand still and answer questions from some tour flunkie). At some point, you have to stop and say why are these things being done now, let alone at all. Important decisions require courage, even the courage to decide not to do something. They require intelligent discussion by people with a clear sense of not only the game's history but its future, as well. Half-witted surveys, as the Monty Python boys used to say about a dead parrot's plumage, don't enter into it.

GOUGE: Because my partner-in-crime is taking a little well-deserved R&R (after making five birdies while playing Augusta National on Monday) and because in my diminished post-surgery capacity all I can do is stare at computer screens like a video-game-addicted 10-year-old, I've spent a little time staring at some numbers regarding the annual Masters rite of spring and what if anything it says about the state of the game. In truth, it's a snapshot at best and it gives us only enough information to raise our curiosities. But let's look at a few key points:
Driving Distance: It's clear to anyone who's watching distance numbers that we've reached a bit of a plateau. We don't know why that is (could be more 3-woods off the tee, could be that drivers can't be made any hotter per USGA regulations, could be that distance off the tee isn't much of a primary motivator for today's players). But it is a fact that driving distance is flat. Looking at PGA Tour average driving distance through the Masters over the last six years, the number has hovered around 283. It dipped to 280 in 2005 and was as high as 287 in 2006, but this year's 281.4 might even be considered on the low side. Where was driving distance this year at the Masters? Well, if you only count those who made the cut, it was 277.5. Count everybody and it was 275.7. Neither are alarming, of course.
The Boredom Factor: The constant lament, even from the No. 1 player in the universe, is that the lengthened and strengthened Augusta National no longer allows for excitement and charges and a festival of eagles, like in the good old days. I wonder. There were 19 eagles this year, which matches the average number of eagles during Masters week since 2000. And the good old days, like Jack Nicklaus's charge in 1986? Well, that year there were 24. Five more than the current average, yes, but five fewer than there were in 2006. And if the winner of the tournament has come from the final pairing 17 of the last 18 years, are we really correct in remembering the Masters as the annual occasion of back-from-the-pack charges? There's no question the number of birdies produced Masters week has gone down. It was 872 in 2000 and 919 in 2001, but just 758 this year. Just looking from the outside, I believe the fear factor has been ratcheted up a notch or two, but the 758 birdies this year is not all that far out of line with where it used to be back in the good, old days. Like in 1986 when there were 767 birdies. In fact, the 758 birdies is higher than the average for the 1980s. It plays not as easy perhaps as it was playing in the 1990s (when there were well over 800 birdies a year and even more than a thousand in 1992), but is that a bad thing? I'd suggest for a major championship, it's about where it should be. Sure, there were more birdies at Oakmont last year, but there also were 60 more players in the field, so relax. If there is a failing in Augusta National, it's that its yardage has no flexibility. It's either 7,445 yards or 6,300 yards. More tee boxes mean more options. For example, you can't make it play 150 yards shorter one day if you'd like, given conditions or whimsy.
The Most Amazing Performance in Golf History: Gary Player averaged 195 off the tee on Friday and still shot 78. He should have been given a trophy just for that.

BOMB: Just prior to last week's Safeway International, Stacy Prammanasudh and her equipment sponsor, Ping, parted ways and Prammanasudh played the event with just one Ping club in her bag (her Rapture driver). A new set of Tour Edge Exotics irons as well as TaylorMade wedges and putter were pressed into service.

The reason for the split? Prammanasudh--a Thai-American--signed an endorsement deal with Singha Beer and Ping's company policy does not allow for any alcohol-related logos on their staff bags. It's unclear as to whether Prammanasudh knew of this before inking the pact with Singha, but regardless, I give the Solheims and Ping a big, healthy round of applause. Not because I don't like Prammanasudh. The two times I've spoken to her she has been nothing short of cooperative and pleasant and she is a fine player. Not because I have anything against booze, as I personally enjoy a lovely beverage as much as the next person. No, my admiration comes because I find it absolutely refreshing that a business entity simply did not sell out its principles for a change.

Make no mistake. Prammanasudh is an asset. She's currently 15th on the Rolex Rankings. But Ping has a policy, they're sticking to it and I say good for them. And if Prammanasudh did not know of the policy, I don't blame her as much as I would her agent. After all, it' Sports Agent 101 that prior to signing any new deal, the agent needs to know how it might impact existing contracts.

So to Ping I raise my glass of Diet Coke and say thanks for reminding us that you can still find the word "principles" in the dictionary of today's sports world. It's a word found far too little by far too few these days.

BOMB: Read three things lately that while not earth-shattering, were utterly irksome. First was Jim Achenbach's piece in Golfweek touting the use of nine clubs. Jimbo opens his story with "Enough of the 14-club rule. I challenge all golfers to play with nine clubs."

Nice enough idea. Jim goes on to give some of the reasons. Makes walking easier. You'll probably score the same or maybe better (although where the factual evidence of this is I do not know). Play will likely be faster. Shotmaking will be better. He watched a teaching pro shoot 65 with a reduced set and writes, "It has occurred to me that most of us are missing something by playing with 14 clubs."

Really?

Let us hit the rewind button to the Dec. 14, 2007 issue of Golfweek, a little more than three months ago. The No. 1 item on Jim's Christmas wish list was "A new USGA rule allowing 15 clubs rather than the current 14." The reasoning being "Tour players don't need 15 clubs, but my friends at Take-Your-Lumps Links certainly do. A 15-club rule would stimulate golf equipment sales and benefit golfers who need more clubs to execute a variety of shots."

OK, this is not exactly Hillary Clinton claiming to have been under sniper fire when in fact she was hugging a child and posing for pictures. And I certainly agree that people have the right to change their mind when new information becomes available. But what exactly happened in the last three months for that switch? Dude, make up your mind. Is it 9 or 15?

Next up was Tommy Bonk's piece in the Los Angeles Times on Phil Mickelson's woes off the tee, although as point of full disclosure I read this on geoffshackelford.com and not the LA Times’ site. Bonk cites Philly Mick's stats where he "has found only 55 percent of his fairways, down slightly from 2007 and far off his 62.9 percent in 2004 when he won the Masters for the first time." Bonk continues, "He's also averaging 292.3 yards in driving distance, more than eight yards shorter than in 2006 when he won the Masters for the second time."

Now, I'm a stats guy and here's what gets me about that. Lets not take the cafeteria approach to the numbers. His accuracy is off from 2004. His distance is off from 2006. Jeez Louise, pick a benchmark my man and go from there. How about this for a benchmark. He's played through the WGC-CA this year so lets see where he was at WGC-CA last year with 2008 numbers first. Distance: 292.3 (ranked 17th) to 297.0 (ranked 13th). Accuracy: 55.45 (ranked 171st) to 60.11 (ranked 101st). Still kinda sorta makes Bonk's point but is a slightly more reliable data point.

And finally, we touched on the TaylorMade/Nickent catfight over advertising claims recently, but it has been brought to our attention that a TaylorMade ad that ran in the Feb. 8 issue of my very own Golf World, was not exactly all on the up and up, either, claiming to be "the most-played putter at the FBR Open" with its Spider model. Just like Nickent's ads were likely technically within legal boundaries while stretching the truth, so is this ad. At the FBR there were eight putters designated as Scotty Cameron by Titleist prototypes, many of which were the Newport style. Combine that with those slugged Newport and it's clear which is the No. model at that event. To the TM boys, I’d be careful about tossing those stones at Nickent without reviewing your own ad copy first.

GOUGE: I'm not saying this is enough of a series of outrages to get someone out of a hospital bed, but I hear what you're saying. The whole thing about the club limit is perhaps the most interesting topic for me, and the easiest to understand. To tell you the truth, TaylorMade and Nickent can yell at each other until their logos change colors, and it won't matter one scintilla to Mr. and Mrs. American Golfer. Make clubs, promote them, don't lie. Does it ever need to be any more complicated than that? And as for trying to justify why Phil Mickelson, or anyone else, can't somehow turn himself into a legitimate rival to Tiger Woods, well, it would be easier to make a case for Ron Paul being elevated to King of the World status. Statistics are merely a language for trying to understand reality. As such, statistics are an approximation, like translating a Basho haiku. For instance, do we think players really are driving it shorter on the PGA Tour than they did five years ago? Shorter seems unlikely. The numbers say one thing, indicate a trend perhaps, but they never complete encapsulate an issue. And the issue for why Phil Mickelson is not Tiger Woods ultimately has very little to do with numbers.  Now to the real question at hand. Our technical advisor Frank Thomas has long advocated a reduction to 10 clubs as a way to challenge the better player and not harm the weaker player. Man it would be fun, and the game could use an injection of fun. But how can you advocate 15 clubs as a limit one month and trot out 9 the next month? Stimulate equipment sales? Please. What needs to be stimulated is the ability for average golfers to gain a better understanding of how to maximize the potential of their sets. That means more education, less confusion and a higher premium placed on developing fitters at a level we've reserved for teaching pros and club managers. I have no doubt the right collection is out there for every player. Finding the way to get the right advice on that collection is the game's real silent killer, not that elusive 15th club.

BOMB: Well, it wasn’t exactly a happy first day of Spring for the folks at Nickent, now was it? Yesterday TaylorMade filed a suit in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego seeking "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for (a) false advertising, and (b) unfair competition, and demand for a jury trial."

According to the complaint which I am reading right now, the issue stems from claims made by Nickent in ads that ran in Golf Magazine and on The Golf Channel, along with those made on Nickent’s website claiming in various ways that their drivers are the hottest on tour or that Nickent has the No. 1 driver model on the 2008 Nationwide Tour. The suit notes that the claims essentially use a pair of early-season Nationwide Tour events as the basis of their claims.

But cutting through all the legalities of this, here’s my take: whether or not Nickent is on sound legal ground here is almost beside the point. If you’re the No. 1 driver model or brand at a specific Nationwide Tour event, why can’t you simply tout that in your ads rather than try to cloak it in fancy wording that attempts to make it sound like more than it really is. I don’t care if you use an asterisk and run a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of the page—it’s simply wrong to try to make the consumer think it’s something other than it is. Message to all who partake in this kind of activity: Clean up your act.

GOUGE: Sorry, friend, but golf equipment has increasingly become a spin-off of Divorce Court. It's all about the lawyers anymore. Just see the Callaway-Titleist dispute over the Pro V1. Or maybe the Ogio-Callaway lawsuit over golf bags. (Golf bags?!) Or the fact that our friend David Dawsey actually has an entire website devoted to golf patents and golf patent litigation.

It's an ugly business further fragmented by an agency, the U.S. Patent Trademark Office, that is thoroughly outmanned (as anyone would be) when it comes to understanding and adjudicating the intricacies of golf equipment technology. Golf patent applications dwarf those in other sports. Which is interesting, admirable and, of course, a recipe for nightmares in the legal system. We all know who wins (lawyers), but the real losers are consumers, who may end up so confused and angry that they stop believing any claims, assuming everybody is lying. How does that help an industry that's already struggling to attract new players? (I tell you one thing: A truckload of legal issues do little to help the game reach toward affordability.)

Golf's legal morass is a turf war played in a muck-filled swamp. And that's not even getting to legitimate questions of intellectual property rights. This TaylorMade-Nickent thing is just stupid infighting taken public. Here's how it needs to be resolved. TaylorMade makes a phone call to Nickent, saying please stop, what you're saying is misleading (at best). Then Nickent acknowledges the error of its ways and moves on. It's supposed to be a game of honor, last I checked.  Unfortunately, now it's no more sophisticated than two rabid, starved dogs fighting over a bone.

BOMB: You know what blows, folks? Having your partner in blogging getting smacked like a piñata in a car accident. Thankfully, the bruises are starting to heal and with any luck at all he'll be able to swing soon enough and my kid's college fund can continue to grow from the winnings. So pardsy, in an effort to get you back to your old irascible self, here's a couple spring-training-like fastballs down the middle for you take a swing at.

Did you see Johnny Miller's comments in the recent  edition of Callaway Golf's magazine? OK, I know a magazine produced by an equipment company is going to be shill city, but I still was taken aback by the extent of it by Johnny Miller touting the interchangeable-shaft I-Mix system. In particular I liked when after touting it for the everyday player he said, "I can even see somebody like Phil Mickelson using I-Mix on tour because it's spontaneous and he knows exactly what he's looking for."

Helllllllllllllllloooo. That's exactly the point, Johnny. Philly Mick does know what he's looking for. The chopper being sold on this system has no freaking clue and would be doing well just to get properly fit in the first place. I like the idea of adjustability and its potential, but I am far from sold on selling multiple heads or shafts to consumers and telling them to have it. Besides, wouldn't simply switching to a different ball have an equal or greater effect on an everyday player's game given different conditions? And how many players do you know that change balls in different conditions? Not many, my friend. Not many.

Here's another one for you to gnaw on, too. It was written in another publication that our grooves were going to be taken away from us "soon." It's now some two months later. I don't know about you, but soon and two months don't usually go together. Two weeks, yes. Two months, not so much. But the real question now is whether anything will be done at all. I still say yes because I find it difficult to believe the USGA will just walk away after three years of research without doing something. But I think that is exactly what they should do. Driving distance on tour this year is down three yards from the same time last year. Sure, it's a small sample, but I think everyone would agree that by year's end it's not likely we will see an increase of any substance, if any at all. And that would make it difficult to defend implementing a groove rollback, don't you think?

GOUGE: I don't know what's worse. Being drilled in a head-on collision (wear those seat belts, kids, even when you're riding in the back seat of a limo like I was), or having to hold a sneeze for three weeks so you don't fracture a rib. Seriously, a belated thanks to all those get-well wishes from friends near and far. I'll be chunking and slashing like my old self in no time at all. What's that you say? Johnny Miller overstating the case without any facts at his disposal? Shocking. I do think Mickelson and many other tour players will go the adjustable route. One thing I've heard is that a mechanical joint (like in adjustable clubs) is more consistent and reliable than epoxy (let me know when you feel comfortable driving across a bridge made of epoxy). Still, adjustable clubs make for a better fitting tool, and I'm encouraged that Ping, Nike and Tour Edge are getting into the adjustable fitting system game and joining Callaway and TaylorMade. The golfer wins, provided he can find a qualified fitter, which unfortunately is not as easy as it sounds.

I do think it's worth noting that driving distance is once again trending flat to down. Certainly, the argument is that there are just more 3-woods off the tee these days (Tiger Woods hit driver maybe once on the back nine at Bay Hill). So what? If guys don't feel they can hit the driver in play, the ultimate result is that they're still hitting a long-ish club into the green, which is what we all want. It would help if the greens weren't mush pads like they were last week, but I like seeing a few more 6-iron second shots and a few less 9-irons. It is interesting to note that a flat year in average driving distance would mean that figure hasn't moved more than a total of three yards since 2003. The last year that sort of pattern was maintained for that long was pre-titanium 1995. On the other hand, thanks to new Trackman data being made available by the PGA Tour's ShotLink system, what may be most disconcerting is that the No. 1 player in the game hasn't even come close to maxing out his launch conditions with the driver. In short, he's not even as dominant as he could be.

As for grooves, there's no question this issue, which appeared all but signed, sealed and delivered last fall, is about as near a resolution as me not wearing a seat belt anytime soon. Fact is, the best thing that could happen won't. Namely, the groove rule as proposed should be implemented on the PGA Tour for a five-year evaluation period. Only then will we see if it makes a difference. And, by the way, let's get rid of any club with more loft than 54 degrees, too. Just for fun. But keep your eyes open. The USGA will have to deal with this issue by the Torrey Pines Open, if only because somebody will bring it up at their annual press conference that week.

BOMB: I know, I know--where have we been? Sorry, but after celebrating each of the New York Giants' playoff wins I was hardly in shape to blog. But now that the season is over and a photo of Eli Manning is appropriately adorning the door to my son's bedroom, we're back in business.

So, what's happened in the equipment world since the last time we put fingers to keyboard? A few interesting tidbits, actually. First thing to catch my attention was ShotLink's addition of Trackman radar stats to its bevy of information. Although still in its infancy, looking at numbers such as hang time (forgive the shameless plug, but it is the subject of my Golf World equipment column this week), smash factor, ball speed, clubhead speed, flight apex and more is nothing short of fascinating for a golf junkie.

Next up for me has been watching how well Titleist's new AP line of irons has been accepted on tour. When we spoke with the company back in November about these clubs they said they expected a number of their tour staff to gravitate toward the forged, cavity-back AP2 and even some to take a turn with the larger-headed, cast AP1. Well, a few weeks into the season Billy Mayfair is using the AP1s and players such as Ben Crane, Ben Curtis and Tom Pernice Jr. are in the AP2, along with Adam Scott—a long-time muscleback blade guy. For a company that has long been known simply for producing better players clubs, Titleist may have finally turned a corner in its equipment line by producing an iron for players that do—and more importantly, do not—have their tour cards.

And the last thing to intrigue me was something that didn't get a lot of play but in the long run may be significant. Last week before the start of play in Dubai, Tiger Woods cracked the face of his driver. Now, Mr. Wonderful went on to win the event with a backup, but lets not automatically assume everything will be fine and dandy going forward. Fact is, finding backups that are exact replicas of the original is virtually impossible. You can get close, but every head, every shaft, every grip has slight variances that make an exact match difficult. Don’t believe me? Ask Jim Furyk, who was going along just fine with a Srixon driver until he cracked it early last season. Unable to get comfortable with any of the backups produced—despite it being built to the exact same specs of his gamer—Furyk has been using a different make and model ever since. Given that, it will be interesting to see how Woods drives the ball going forward.

Now please, don't make me (and our readers) want to return to a drunken stupor by droning on about moment of inertia or specific gravity or, good grief, cis content.

GOUGE: I could get all self-promotional, but I see you've cornered the market there, so I'll move on. Let's start with what's fresh: J.B. Holmes' repeat mauling of the 18th hole at the TPC Scottsdale’s Stadium Course has caused all sorts of consternation among the intelligentsia (or is it cognoscenti?) that the ball is going too far again. You know what? Maybe it really is. If you’re worried about freaks dominating the game that is. Because that's what J.B. Holmes is: A freak. By my study of the numbers, J.B. hit one 385 last week. He had eight drives longer than 320 yards during the final round. He only averaged 302.5 off the tee, which dropped him out of the top 10 in driving distance average for the week. He is averaging 125 miles per hour clubhead speed, about 14 mph more than the tour average. His ball speed in 184.14 mph, which is 3 mph faster than second-place Bubba Watson. His slowest measured ball speed (182.4) would still lead the tour. J.B. Holmes could still spawn a horde of bomb-and-gouge copy cats--as long as the tour continues to set up golf courses that don't demand accuracy. What did J.B. Holmes have at the TPC that caused him fear and uncertainty? Nothing on the 18th hole, that’s for sure. But the real tragedy of Holmes' win continues to be that grotesque bastardization of the rules he uses on the greens. Say it with me now: The Belly Putter and all who use it should be banned from the game.

Another thing: J.B. might be resorting to the cheater putter because his forearm muscles have been damaged by the brute force of his swing. Check out this report from Bob Prichard at flexibility specialists Somax Sports. This is the sort of biomechanical freakazoid that no governing body could ever anticipate. It also illustrates the difficulty in legislating based on the absolute extremes. You never know the limits of human potential. Until it crashes. Usually on the putting green. It does make one wonder, though. Frank Thomas once suggested that when the USGA changed its ball test parameters and upped the robot swing speed to 120 mph, it might have to keep changing those parameters to match up with tour players' increasing potential to generate clubhead speed. I'm not suggesting a super-race of 130 mph swingers are on the verge of arriving on the PGA Tour. But the potential is there I suppose. But it all comes back to the same defense: The golf course can be made harder--not necessarily miles longer--but harder. That approach is working fine in the tournaments that matter, though.

One final thought: We've been getting a lot of complaints regarding the price of golf equipment, sparked by this year’s Hot List. While I'll be the first to admit that the golf industry is not hesitant about pushing the financial envelope, there are opportunities to trade in your last purchase for your next purchase. But don't expect miracles. Those Wilson 1200 GEs from 1990 aren’t going to trade in at $200. If you haven't bought a new set in 10 years, you're due and you're due to pay a fair, full price. But if it's only been two or three years, and you're itching to upgrade, it's not unusual to get $100-$200 back in trade. You can get $190 for some Callaway X-18 irons, which landed on the market three years ago. For crying out loud, you get $140 in trade on a set of Ping G2s, which were introduced five years ago. If you've got a top-five brand name set of irons that's 5 years old, you're more than likely to get at least $100 for it. The point is, if you want it, you have options. But don't get greedy. If you've got crap in your bag, don't expect diamonds in return. Wake up.

GOUGE: The idea that the USGA's rule changed allowing increased adjustability of clubs might somehow fundamentally change the way the industry develops and markets golf clubs is no idle pursuit. It's already big news, as evidenced by this report from Golf DIgest's Max Adler, associate editor for equipment. Let us know your thoughts on how much you're excited by club adjustability, and whether it will be the next big thing in golf.

    Adler writes:
There are Seven Heavenly Virtues and Seven Deadly Sins, so it was only fitting that the first ever Club Adjustability Symposium, an assembly gathered at this year’s PGA Show in Orlando to forecast the glory and/or doom of the USGA’s recent rule relaxing, would have seven panelists to lead the discussion. The seven industry experts with headset microphones were Dick Rugge, Technical Director to the USGA, John K. Solheim, Vice President of Engineering at Ping, Jeff Colton, Senior Vice President of Research & Development at Callaway, John Hoeflich, Senior Vice President of Nickent, Graeme Horwood, Vice President of Engineering and R&D at True Temper Sports, Ken Morton Sr., owner of the retailing giant Haggin Oaks Golf Complex in Sacramento, and Ed Mitchell, CEO of Mitchell Golf which makes club repair and measuring devices.
    Every seat was taken and people stood in rows six deep behind the crowd control ropes. The lights were dimmed and the word that seemed to be sneaking its way into roughly half of Golf Channel chief equipment correspondent and symposium moderator Adam Barr’s introductory sentences was "imagination." As in, within what stretches of imagination will designers make new clubs, only time will tell.
    Before the discussion got underway, Dick Rugge made it clear that better fitting equipment is good for all golfers and for golf, and that in no way is the USGA concerned that adjustable golf clubs pose a threat to the sanctity of the game. Just as on the professional tours, where players regularly enjoy equipment adjustments to meet changing conditions or optimize their swings, skill remains supreme. 
    John K. Solheim voiced the first skepticism. "It (club adjustability) could put greater doubt in the golfer’s mind." The average golfer’s mind is already clouded enough with technique insecurities, the clear message. Solheim went on to assert Ping was very confident with its fitting system, and so that leaving fitting decisions up to the consumer might not be in his or her best interest.
     Graeme Horwood grinned when asked by an audience member if he thought there was any possibility of a 'universal' shaft-head attachment system developing in the future, as this is of major concern to retailers who foresee an inventory nightmare. At the Show, several leading OEM’s like Callaway, TaylorMade, and Nickent all introduced systems that were exclusive. Horwood answered no, but that he hoped shaft-makers at least would stick to a consistent tip diameter for the sake of simplicity.
    One audience member reminded the crowd that fitting could potentially apply to never before considered aspects of the club. For example, perhaps a future technology would allow a player to handily switch his set to cord grips on a rainy day and then back to softer grips on a sunny day.
    The highlight of audience interaction no doubt came from Tom Wishon, whose front row seat evidenced that the component clubmaker arrived early, and whose lengthy, well-organized address sounded like it had been simmering in his chest for quite some time. Wishon expressed doubt regarding the legitimacy of adjustable clubs competently taking the place of traditional club-fitting methods. "If this is going to work," Wishon warned, "every aspect of the club needs to be adjustable at the same time. If you insert a shaft with a different gram weight, the weight of the head needs to be adjustable to preserve the overall swing weight."
    Jeff Colton was more enthusiastic about the possibilities. "I see this ruling as a tremendous benefit," he said. "It allows the golfer to optimize equipment every time he sets foot on the course. The driver is no longer a static piece of equipment."
    The symposium discourse shifted from present technical issues to futuristic, more fanciful possibilities, but in the end came full circle to a simple question: does a $1000 driver help grow the game? (TaylorMade’s r7 CGB Max Limited will be sold as a clubhead with three shafts for that price.) The audience member who proposed the question, noted golf equipment free-lance writer Ted Johnson, likened the industry to a "…a trawler that fishes the same luxury consumer waters over and over."
    Early adopters generally pay a premium, but if adjustable clubs gain in popularity the volume of their production will likely drop the price down to the middle of the market, according to Jeff Colton.
    Dick Rugge answered that expense and pace of play are the main problems hurting golf’s participation. "Adjustability won’t affect people getting into the game."