GOUGE: It's a new year, and I suppose in the spirit of New Year's resolutions we could promise to post our thoughts a little more regularly in 2009. It's not a promise, just something to shoot for. Making it a little easier are stories like the one out of Scotland floating across my desk yesterday. Seems a bunch of physicians based in the home of golf think thin-faced titanium drivers "may produce sufficient sound to induce temporary or even permanent cochlear damage in susceptible individuals." One physician recommends the use of earplugs or even reverting to thicker-faced steel-headed drivers.

Well, friend, every day I lose faith in something else. Now, it's the medical profession. Seriously, though, there's no question sound is one of the great concerns in modern driver design. We are presented with entire papers on the engineering of sound in driver heads when we look over company research for the Hot List. Speaking of which, the 2009 Hot List is on newsstands now, and in a few days, an amped-up web version of the Hot List will be on golfdigest.com. And wouldn't you know? One of the changes in this year's process is adding a new criterion for our judging, a little thing we call Look/Sound/Feel. Rest assured, if you didn't do well in Look/Sound/Feel, it hurt your score.

BOMB: There's no doubt that Look/Sound/Feel is an important criteria. Need evidence? How did Callaway's C4 driver fare? It wasn't a horrible club, it merely sounded that way and it was one of the biggest busts in the company?s history. I also remember a number of years back that Vijay Singh hit a drive with a prototype of Cleveland Golf's original Launcher driver. When the shot produced a tinny echo, the TV announcer said the ball sounded like it was struck "with an empty Pepsi can." Not exactly the reaction clubmakers are seeking. But the difficult part of all this is that Look/Sound/Feel is a tangible intangible. It's there, it's just difficult to grasp.

As such, manufacturers spend endless hours and resources to get the sound just right. In addition to computer and acoustic testing, TaylorMade, for example, employs experts in the area of engineering vibration and acoustics, including several PhDs with expertise in those fields. I know at one time they even employed one versed in oceanic seismic activity. It?s this kind of brain power that has led to some significant advances in this area that we saw during this year?s Hot List process.

GOUGE: You can check out the Hot List on our site, and look for an expanded, interactive version in the coming days that will let you set your own budget. But the technology of what makes a significant club has been my personal fascination, and this year?s list is chock-a-block with technology stories. No. 1 is the idea of customization. We want every golfer to have the best chance to put together the perfect driver, and we think the best companies do that with expanded fitting systems. But our leader in technology is the combination of square and traditional (DYMO) drivers from Nike that feature a system called STR8-FIT, which is basically an adjustable hosel that changes orientation of the club in eight ways to produce eight different ways of correcting ballflight. Furthering the optimization game are the new IWI line of putters from Ping, which incorporate a weight kit that allows players to manipulate weight to better match up with conditions and stroke type. Not just an idle bunch of screws, Ping researchers determined the precise weight differences golfers feel and built their kit based on those differences. And in irons, you have to like the initiative shown by TaylorMade in trying to find a way to improve the distance for iron shots by average golfers without resorting to shovel-like clubheads. Sadly, not all the new technologies were available for this year?s Hot List. Our friends at TaylorMade chose not to show us their new driver, the R9, that?s all the rage on the webosphere.

BOMB: First, you're a piece of work. This time last year you're giving me all sorts crap for being all in on adjustability. I swear, with all the grief I got you would think I was using something as evil as a chipper or long putter.

I said then that the early efforts were cursory at best, but I wanted to see what the second wave of adjustable clubs brought. The Nike Dymo-STR8FIT is a great example of adjustability that works. Now here comes The TaylorMade R9, with the following recently posted on one of the chat sites. Notice the use of the word "we" within the copy so clearly this was posted by a TM staffer seeking to create early buzz. Sounds eerily similar to the STR8-FIT tech story, but we all know the equipment world  which begs the question of whether someone is infringing someone?s patent in all this:

"In stores mid March. Retail street price: $399 (R9 TP will be $499)

This is the most advanced and finest performing driver in the history of golf club design. The R9 will feature full adjustability in that it will combine 3 moveable weights with our newest technology-Flight Control Technology (FCT). FCT gives the golfer the ability to adjust the club head to affect face angle and loft. MWT and FCT give 75 yards of left to right adjustability, 3 degrees of launch angle adjustability, and up to 1800 rpm of spin adjustability. The club head can be rotated into one of eight positions, giving the ability to adjust from 2 degrees closed to 2 degrees open (actual measured face angle will be square to four open, though visually, 4 open looks 2 open to the golfer). This is done by a wrench and turning the club head onto the axis of the shaft. The three moveable weights are in similar positions to r7 Limited. The result to the golfer will be the ability to have an open club face while still promoting a draw, for example. It's really 24 drivers in one.

The club head has a large address, similar to the r7 SuperQuad, though we did not make this as large a clubhead as Burner, for example. This is, we believe, the optimal size demanded by the most discerning players.

We are launching this on Tour at the end of January, though many of our Tour pros have been testing the club already. They have declared this the best driver ever produced. We agree.

The stock shaft on it will be Fujikura's brand new Tour platform, called "Motore" and it will be the only club in the market with Motore in the stock offering. TP shafts will be offered at a $100 ($499 street retail) upgrade and will be assorted offerings from Fujikura, Mitsubishi, Matrix, and Aldila.

In addition, we will also launch an R9 fairway, though the fairway will only have FCT, no MWT. It will also have the ability to use 8 positions and can affect up to 35 yards of left to right workability. This club will have the ability to go from 2 closed to 2 open. Retail price on this will be $229 and will have a traditional shape and have the stock Fujikura Motore shaft."

What?s next? Adjustable lofts?

GOUGE: Like usual you attack when we all know I'm a lover not a hater. OK, nobody knows that because, well, I hate everything. Fact is, there is a difference between adjustability and meaningful adjustability, just like there?s a difference between recreational drug use and, well, medicine. Having the ability to change shafts isn?t meaningful adjustability. It's gluttony. Meaningful adjustability is intriguing and possibly beneficial. Turns out Trevor Immelman used a prototype version of the Nike adjustable driver when he won the Masters last year. We?ll see where this takes us, but I don't think we're all that far removed from the end of loft. Fitting is going to be all about the wrench. All of which means a greater emphasis on finding a qualified fitter. But we've sung that song before (and it still rings true). In the meantime, keep those cards and letters coming. We'll respond to any Hot List questions as quickly and authoritatively as we can. Or at least Bomb will.

GOUGE: As noted in Local Knowledge (and ruining my holiday preparations, thank you very much), Callaway scored another victory in its patent infringement case against Titleist's Pro V1 ball. The latest decision is a refusal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to grant a stay in the injunction banning sales of the patent-infringing models of the Pro V1. We've been on this story for the last three years, and it shows no signs of stopping (Titleist is continuing its appeal), but the upshot is that if there are any old versions of the Pro V1 (in other words any models that do not have an identifying mark on the packaging), retailers are expected to return those to Titleist for replacement with non-infringing models, starting Jan. 1, 2009. The ruling also confirms that tour players cannot play infringing versions of the Pro V1 (or V1x) starting with the first U.S. tournament of the year, next month's Mercedes Championship. (In Europe, players can apparently do whatever they want for the time being, but who really gives a rip what ball Richard Sterne is playing?) Callaway says Titleist is lying and proudly points to several court decisions that confirm that position. Titleist says Callaway is lying and points to several decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that confirm that decision. Interestingly, no court system has been all that jazzed about Titleist's position, the latest being the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, whose order reads in part: "In denying the stay, the court is influenced by the failure of the appellant (Titleist) to propose any schedule for expediting this appeal or to take any visible steps to achieve expedition." In other words, Titleist really didn't want to do anything here but hope the Court of Appeals tossed this whole thing out after a cursory review. Not bloody likely. There is no easy answer when reasonable people disagree, and there is definitely not going to be an easy answer when corporate entities start accusing each other of the sort of mendacity that makes Rod Blagojevich look like Tiny Tim. Somewhere in all of this is a man who knows all the answers. His name is Mike Sullivan. He works for Titleist, but he used to work for Top Flite when he created the patents in question in this whole mess. I'd love some honesty, but by the time we get some in this case, the Pro V1 may be as forgotten as the Spalding Dot.

BOMB: Yeah--and a Merry Christmas to you, too, my friend. Sorry for being late chiming in on thins, but things such as wrapping gifts, helping my son track Santa on Norad's website and going to Mass took precedence over this tedious legal quibbling. But hey, it keeps us gainfully employed, right? The bad news for Titleist in this is that they have gotten smacked by the court in just about every phase of this case. That said, why the court chooses to basically ignore what the Patent Office has to say is somewhat confusing to this reporter. But hey, I stopped taking law classes some 25 years ago. Short of some mega-million-dollar judgment down the road I don't see this having much of an effect on, well, anything. Titleist has been deemed by the court to infringe a patent that Callaway owns, but didn't actually create. It bought it in a bankruptcy auction. I just can't get jacked up about that. But ti should be interesting to see what the tour players have to say. Some were playing the 2003, 2005 and quite a few the 2007 version of the Pro V1/V1x last year and now it looks like all of them will have to play the new, reconfigured model. Pros are picky so we shall see. Still, how much different can it be? The USGA deemed the changes so insignicifcant that they didn't even require Acushnet to resubmit the ball for conformance. But a couple of pros apparently won't have to worry about it. Word on the street is that both Vijay Singh and Boo Weekley (who used Titleist balls this past season) will be going with Srixon's new tour ball in the coming season.

GOUGE: The good news? Santa's coming. And he's only interested in 15-ball packs. Season's best to all, no matter which side you're on.

GOUGE: I've been too busy to care about the news of the world (did Obama win the election?), but over the weekend I got copies of the USGA's latest notice to manufacturers on a couple issues. One is really cool, as far as I'm concerned. The Notice, dated today, suggests the USGA will be conducting  "research on high-lofted wedges. This research is being conducted to determine if high-lofted wedges (for example, 60 degrees of loft and higher) can reduce the challenge of the game for shots near the green." I have heard recently that players at this year's U.S. Amateur attacked the bowl-shaped greens at Pinehurst No. 2 with a fleet of high-lofted wedges. Not exactly what Donald Ross had envisioned, I believe. Let's get rid of those wedges. The only people who really know how to use them are good players anyway. Allowing a club to further help a good player more than an average player is unnecessary at this stage, moreover letting a good player not have to develop the skill of manipulating a lower-lofted wedge to hit a particular shot is encouraging a leveling of the playing field that strikes at the heart of what golf competition should be.

The second announcement is not as exciting, just a series of clarifications of what the word "manufactured" means as it applies to the new groove rule. Apparently, manufacturers were questioning how long they can keep selling old-groove clubs and still have them be conforming. Those not playing along might not remember that the new groove rule goes into effect starting Jan. 1, 2010 as a condition of competition for elite events and as a requirement for clubs manufactured from that date. The new Notice allows those clubs to be shipped and/or sold until Jan. 1, 2011. This seems more a case of the USGA being fair about distribution, which I don't have a problem with.

But I can't say enough how much I love the anti-60-degree wedge Notice. This would make the game even more fun and just the right amount of frightening, no?

BOMB: I'm all in the on research on wedges. And it would be nice if they didn't stop at 64 degrees. In my mind 58 degrees should be max.

Back in 2002, Charles Howell III carried a Cleveland 588 64-degree wedge, saying that although the club was effective, it didn't get much call. "I rarely use the 64-degree club--maybe two times a tournament," he said. "But it's perfect when I short-side a green or if there's long rough and hard, fast greens. Then it's almost like cheating--the ball stops wherever it lands."

Whenever you hear a player say, "it's almost like cheating," then it's time to look into things. So we're in agreement on that. As far as the "clarification" on the groove rule goes, not so much. You say the USGA is being fair about distribution. I say they're seeking to close a loophole they didn't realize they had left open.

I use as Exhibit A a Sept. 23 article written by the USGA's Scott Smith and posted on the USGA's website. The article, titled, "The New Grooves Rules Explained" contained the following passage:

Clubs manufactured prior to Jan. 1, 2010 that conform to current regulations will continue to be considered conforming to the USGA Rules of Golf until at least 2024. This includes clubs purchased after that date from manufacturers? existing model ranges. (According to the Darrell Survey of consumer golf equipment only 2 percent of irons in use are older than 15 years.) So long as these clubs continue to be conforming they may be used for establishment and maintenance of a USGA Handicap Index.

Do you see any mention of 2011 in there? Didn?t think so. The article continues . . .

"Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that the path forward was to get the top-level professional tours under the new groove regulations as soon as possible and to phase in the next level of amateur competition four years later, in 2014," said Rains. "This means that clubs you own today will still be conforming for top-level amateur competition for another 5 1/2 years and, for other competitions, conforming until at least 2024, if not indefinitely."

No mention of 2011 there, either.

But more to my thinking is the silliness of even trying to close this loophole. Let's be honest--this rule is aimed at the tour pro and elite amateur. They have to use the new grooves starting in 2010. Do we really think manufacturers are going to stockpile clubs by manufacturing a bunch of them only to hold onto them and sell them in the future? And if they did, so what? The groove rule says it's OK for us mortals to use such sticks until 2024. That's not cheating, it's playing by the rules the USGA set forth. Fair about distribution? Not really. Covering their you-know-whats? Absolutely. 

GOUGE: Truthfully, I think they should take all those clubs that don't conform to the new rule and throw them in a vat and melt them down right now. But you are missing the point. The point is all about the word "manufactured." But it's a loophole that had to be closed only because manufacturers asked it to be closed. Which I suppose is refreshing. Manufacturers working with the USGA because they really want to make only conforming clubs. Doesn't sound like Armageddon to me. Which is nice. And getting rid of high lofted wedges is even nicer.