BOMB: Hey partner, good to see you still coming in to work. Thought that the results of this weekend's U.S. Amateur might have sent you looking for a hose to stuff in your tailpipe while you sat in your garage. I mean, you had to love it, didn't you? Colt Knost, all of 22 years old, hoisting the Havermeyer thanks to his trusty LONG putter!! Of course, the Barclays probably didn't help your mindset, either, did it? Retief Goosen going belly and Mark Calcavecchia using a belly putter as part of a dual flat-stick strategy. That's right, TWO PUTTERS! Now, I know many, yourself included, feel this is a travesty. But I'll stand fast and firm by saying this -- if the rules let you do it, then there's nothing wrong with it. But I guess you don't quite feel that way, now do you?

GOUGE: If the rules let you do it. Oh, that's rich. Listen, I've waited eagerly for this opportunity, and I hope the governing organizations of golf are suitably embarrassed for their glaring dereliction of duty in this area of the rules. Forget that he's 22 (but for the love of Old Tom Morris, man, where is the outrage?!), but when the winner of the U.S. Amateur feels emotionally and spritually weakened to the point where he must insert the shaft of his putter into his belly to execute the putting stroke, well, friends, we have nothing short of treason and sedition to the integrity of golf. Golf demands a collection of specified skills. Being able to measure the distance between the ground and your belly is not one of them. Being proficient in all of them, on the other hand, should be the requirement for all golfers all the time. Failing at any one of them exposes a weakness. It's been 18 years since the USGA and R&A agreed to allow long putters, and USGA Executive Director David Fay told Golf World at the time, "Putting is a very individualized art form. To inhibit a golfer's individual style would take some of the fun out of the game, and that's not why we make rules." An unfortunate and completely baseless justification, of course. Fun? Golf isn't supposed to be fun. And long putters aren't about increasing fun, they're about compensating for glaring incompetence. Average golfers can have all the fun they want, play with 20 clubs, kick balls out of the rough, pretend OB is a lateral hazard. (Personally, I think all those people who don't play by the rules are fooling themselves, hiding from their own mediocrity and living a lie, but go, have fun, enjoy!) The U.S. Amateur is an elite competition; it's not about fun. They don't force defensive linemen in the NFL to count to five Mississippi when they're facing a slow QB. They don't allow Olympic biathletes with bad vision to move closer to the targets, or worse use a rifle with a mounted laser scope.  They don't say it's OK for Dale Earnhardt Junior to use a rocket car at Daytona. Seriously, I weep for Colt Knost, Retief Goosen, Mark Calcavecchia, Sergio Garcia, Steve Flesch, Nicole Castrale and all those who feel they just can't get it done with the implements God intended us to use. Players of that caliber, players of any caliber frankly, ought to find a way to shove the ball toward the hole, rather than using what amounts to a psychological and physical crutch to shore up their own inadequacies. Wonderful people all, I'm sure, but they can be nothing more than undeserving give-up artists in my book. I'm not calling for a return to persimmon heads and hickory shafts. I'm saying there's something fundamentally wrong that allows a soul to think he's playing golf -- actually playing this great, pure game -- by using one of these disgusting contraptions, these instruments of infirmity, these tools of the devil, as it were. And there's something worse with a sport that continues to allow this artificial, disingenuine, weak manipulation of the rules to persist. Ban any putter longer than 38 inches and do it now. 

BOMB: OK, it’s not quite a year, but it’s close enough to 12 months since K.J. Choi hauled out the toaster known as the Nike Sumo2 and shocked folks not only by using the square-shaped, ear-splitting club, but winning with it. And then winning with it again this year not once, but twice. And there were more. Callaway’s square FT-i, Cleveland’s scooped-back Hi-Bore XL, Titleist’s triangle-shaped 907 D1 and several other shape-shifters. More recently we’ve seen the Cobra Speed LD and TaylorMade Burner. Not quite as outrageous as the others, but still not conventional in shape by any means. Thankfully my daughter was taking geometry last year or I may have not been able to keep up.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of all this has been that what many believed to be a fad might actually have some staying power. In fact, according to the Golf Datatech numbers from June, more than half of all premium driver sales (not counting closeouts, etc.) were of geometry-based big sticks. Repeat: More. Than. Half. And on the big boys tour, some of the game’s biggest names have given them a whirl, namely Ernie Els and Phil Mickelson with the FT-i and Vijay Singh with the Hi-Bore XL. And the TaylorMade Burner is one of the most popular drivers on tour.

Can a remake of the Power Pod be far behind?

GOUGE: Gag. I’ve always believed these bizarre shapes never should have been allowed, not because they threaten the skill level in the game (that could still come, I suppose) but because they just aren’t golf. Nevertheless, if you’re going to look for ways to maximize performance as measured by USGA limitations on moment of inertia and clubhead size, a different shape may be the key. That doesn’t mean exclusively square, of course. Square drivers clearly have lasted longer than 90 days, despite the predictions of TaylorMade CEO Mark King, but even TaylorMade is going shape driven. See its soon-to-be-revealed r7 CGB Max! And Nike will take the Sumo2  to even greater dimensions in the next few months. Of course, the dirty secret behind many of these shapes is the 46-inch shaft they come with. To me, 46 inches creates more problems than it solves. But my sense is we're clearly in a transition period. The pear shaped driver is on its way out, and in five years, the crop of new drivers will bear as much resemblance to an R580 as the original Big Bertha did to an old MacGregor Eye-O-Matic.

GOUGE: You probably may have missed this but the USGA and R&A went ahead with implementing the proposed rule that relaxes the restrictions on clubhead adjustability. They sent word to manufacturers today that the rule will go into effect starting Jan. 1, 2008. Not sure what it means and some of the manufacturers I've talked to aren't sure what it means either. Not that they don't know what adjustability is, but the rule doesn't make clear what kinds of adjustability are OK. USGA Senior Technical Director Dick Rugge is keeping the door open on this one, saying it really is a rule designed to help average golfers. But we all know that door is a swinging door, and is apt to close when you least expect it. So manufacturers need to be pretty buttoned up (read: show the USGA and R&A all your cards fairly early in the process) before committing serious resources to an adjustable clubhead design idea. Maybe clubhead adjustability will be a boon to us all, but I don't see it. I can't use the 14 clubs I carry now. If I get more options, it only makes it harder for me to decide which driver I'm going to top off of No. 2 tee today.

Here's the official language, if you're interested:

August 22, 2007
Notice To Manufacturers
Club Adjustability Rule Amendment

The proposal to amend the USGA Rules to permit additional forms of club adjustability dated February 26, 2007, has been approved for implementation by the USGA Equipment Standards and Executive Committees.  The new Rule regarding club adjustability allowances will become effective on January 1, 2008, as originally proposed.  There is no change to putter rules which already allow additional forms of adjustment.

After consideration of all comments received concerning this proposal, the USGA believes that permitting additional forms of club adjustment will help many golfers obtain clubs that are better suited to their needs. 

The new Rule will state the following: (Appendix II, 1.b. Adjustability).
“All clubs may incorporate mechanisms for weight adjustment. Other forms of adjustability may also be permitted upon evaluation by the USGA.

The following requirements apply to all permissible methods of adjustment:
(i)                the adjustment cannot be readily made;

(ii)              all adjustable parts are firmly fixed and there is no reasonable likelihood of them working loose during a round; and

(iii)            all configurations of adjustment conform with the Rules.

During a stipulated round, the playing characteristics of a club must not be purposely changed by adjustment or by any other means (see Rule 4-2a)”

Further clarifications:
1. No adjustment may be made during a stipulated round.

2. It should not be assumed that any and all adjustable features will be considered conforming by the USGA. 

3. A manufacturer should communicate its adjustable feature concept to the USGA as early as possible, before beginning any volume production.  A manufacturer should then submit to the USGA a sample of the club which is to be manufactured, for a ruling as to whether the club conforms with the Rules. If a manufacturer fails to submit a sample or to await a ruling before manufacturing and/or marketing the club, the manufacturer assumes the risk of a ruling that the club does not conform with the Rules. 

Implementation:
As previously stated, this rule change will become effective on January 1, 2008.  However, manufacturers may submit product samples to the USGA for evaluation of conformance to the new Rule at any time.

Any questions about this change to the rules governing adjustability should be sent to the USGA, attention Dick Rugge, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ  07931, Fax 908-234-0138, e-mail: drugge@usga.org

Trolling through the fine insights from our web world, we offer the following for your perusal:

From our friend, Chuck, who pretty much thinks we're idiots. Really makes you feel proud of your work.

"Yes, you guys are right about these kinds of rules seeming to be incomprehensible to the average golfer. And yes, you guys are right to worry about the confusing effects of this kind of 'bifrucation' of the rules, in grandfathering older model clubs for 10 years or so. And yes, you guys continue to miss the boat on coming to the realization that better regulation of golf balls would probably avoid both of the aforementioned problems.

"Fix the problems with the golf ball regulations.  Period."

GOUGE responds: Chuck. You are the ultimate one-note song. Changing the ball regulations is a pursuit only justified if you think it important that we keep certain major championship courses relevant. I don't care how far the ball goes. And I'm never going to care until I hit 400-yard drives. At the PGA Championship, there are nine players under par at the shortest major championship course of the year. What do we do? Roll the ball back 10 percent, 15 percent? What does that accomplish other than letting us go to Merion and a bunch of other courses that time has passed by. They don't run the Indianapolis 500 on bricks. They shouldn't play major championships on venues that don't demand the ultimate skills from the competitors. But I'm bored by this argument. Roll the ball back. See if it makes you pedantic luddites feel better. I know it won't make a dang bit of difference to anything that happens in the game at the elite level, but you'll feel better and superior. Great. Let's see if we can get everybody to hit it no farther than 285, what does that accomplish? Reduces the game to a second shot exercise, big deal. Take 15 percent off every tee ball? What does that do other than shift the same rank order down 30 or 40 yards? Why, why is that better off? So we can go back to Myopia Hunt? So we don't have to stretch old courses outside their current boundaries, destroying the charm of these layouts? (Boy, do I miss my tweed jacket.) But keep banging your shoe on the table, Khrushchev. I'm sure you'll get your way for a cause that makes just as much sense as his.

More refined is 86General's response to dear, sweet Nikita:

One of the ironies of today's era is that it appears that the shorter the course is, the more difficulty the "bombers" have with it.  This is a non-scientific, anecdotal observation, but this is how it seems. 

The ball flying straight and the fact that the modern grooves make it easier for the pro to predict and therefore control the distance of iron shots have more to do with low scoring today, I think, than does raw distance.  It has been said that "I'd rather have a wedge from the rough than a 7 iron from the fairway."  Maybe so, but I think the relevant comparison is that a 7 iron from the fairway (and often from the light rough, too) is probably equal to a 9 iron from the fairway from 20 years ago. 

People are obsessed with distance. 

The rhetoric over all of this has the potential to cause more damage to the game than the actual distance does.

We need our pensioner champions to step up to the plate and support the game, and stop urinating in everyone else's canteen.

86General also throws in his 87 cents on the groove update:

"Nice review, boys.  You both make good points...I like Bomb's questioning about whether the groove change will affect scoring patterns, and I wish they would do a couple of years of PGA Tour field testing before deciding on a rule change.  But this would aggravate the equipment makers even more, I suspect, than they already are, having to make 2 types of equipment for a temporary period.

Gouge's point about "past sins" of the USGA is well-taken.  I'm not saying "The Franks" were not doing their best and acting in what they thought was the best interest of the game, but I believe the crux of the equipment issues today (mainly length, and "easier" control of spin by elite players with modern sticks and balls) are traceable to decisions by Thomas and Hannigan on the ball/ODS in the 70s...theirs or their successors' handling of square grooves in the 80's was similarly short sighted, I think. 

There may be alot of funny business going on at the USGA today, but the equipment woes--for those who care to see it as such--are a gift from our forefathers."

GOUGE: Once metal woods and non-wound balls were allowed, we were pretty much headed down this path. It's not been all bad. In fact, it hasn't been bad at all. Those who decry modern technology can let me know how it's going with your hickory shafts and hobnail boots. 

Curious contributor "Coverlack" mentions that long hitters seem to be dominating. Interesting premise. But wrong.

"I do believe though, just as you do, that length is not crucial. Golf is a numbers' game - get it in the hole in the least number of strokes, not hitting the ball a long way. However, courses, especially for the majors, seem to have been lengthened dramatically in recent years. I remember Nick Faldo saying a few years ago that he did not see a remote chance of winning the Masters because the Augusta is simple too long for him now. He was never really a long hitter, but he won the Masters in 1996, about 10 years ago, and was definitely not much longer then. The longer hitters seem to have an edge in the majors these days."

GOUGE responds: Newsflash. Length has been a key element to success since Young Tom Morris outdrove his pa. Furthermore, I believe while Faldo wasn't long for his era, he was long enough to be able to reach 13 and 15 at Augusta National in two. And, oh by the way, the correlation between driving distance and success on the PGA Tour remains about as significant as the color of your courtesy car. You can look it up.

And finally, BobbyJohn wants his 60-degree wedge back. Cry me a river. As our namesakes on ESPN Radio say, "Man up."

Why do you two argue against a 60-degree wedge while being just fine with a 56-degree version? Most of the guys I know carry a 60-degree, and if you forced me to choose between them then I'd take the 56-degree out of my bag instead. (I carry four wedges: 48, 52, 56, and 60.)

Maybe we ought to limit the loft on drivers while we're at it.

This seems totally out of whack with where you guys typically come from. Lob wedges have been around for at least 15 years (I think Tom Kite was the first Tour player to use one on a regular basis), and I see no reason to bad mouth them.

GOUGE responds: Dear Rocket Scientist: 60 degrees of loft is more than 56 degrees of loft. Get it? Why not force the best players to hit greenside wedge shots with less loft? Tom Watson doesn't carry a 60-degree wedge and he chipped in at Pebble Beach to win. This would be a change that again, by the way, would have no impact on average golfers. Probably would force them to get a little better with their short games. Again, it's another mistake the USGA made in the era of the 1980s and 1990s. For some reason, that group did not have the ability to envision a future that was as obvious as a prediction that Eldrick Woods might do something when he turned professional. 
And your idea about limiting driver loft is wonderful, too. Nothing less than 11 degrees of loft, how about that? Let's see you optimize launch conditions with 120 mile clubhead speed with one of those senior citizen lofts.

GOUGE: Although it probably went by unnoticed at countless courses and clubs across the known universe, a staggeringly important deadline came and passed a week ago. It is perhaps comforting that the entire equipment industry didn't go all Cinderella on us and turn into a pumpkin last Wednesday, but as I sit here and watch you bake in Tulsa at the PGA Championship, I think to myself: All in due time, all in due time. That's right, the end of the U.S. Golf Association’s Notice and Comment period on the proposal to roll back the grooves on clubfaces was Aug. 1, and while USGA Senior Technical Director Dick Rugge was not especially overwhelmed with the amount of comments he received from the industry, he did concede that it would take two or more months before the organization would complete its review of industry comments and announce any finalization of any rule change.

But rest assured, it's coming. I figure as two people who've watched this whole scenario play out over the last two-plus years, we’re in as good a position as any to postulate on what the rule might be. So here I go:

The proposed rule would essentially return groove volume and groove sharpness (edge radii, in the vernacular) to levels similar to the early 1980s or even earlier. The proposal would apply the new standard to all clubs, and it is generally agreed that 80 to 90 percent of all iron clubs would be in violation of the proposed standards.

In short, industry Armageddon.

Now, the USGA has spent a great deal of time and effort examining the issue. As such, do not expect Rugge and friends to come to the end of their study with nothing to show for it. Some kind of rule will happen. My guess? Based on its latest published study (on rough height and grooves) the rule will go through almost exactly as proposed with one important caveat: It will only apply to clubs with more than 30 degrees of loft, or basically anything with more loft than a typical 5-iron. The USGA will perceive this as a gesture of goodwill to the industry for the simple reason that for the most part it frees manufacturers from having to carve the new groove into clubs that have bulge and roll.

But to me that's the simple part. There are a host of other difficulties with this proposal, difficulties that even a hanging judge like me concedes will be problematic.

What about the grandfather period? Will it be 10 years? Doesn't that cause problems because in some competitions (USGA, NCAA, PGA Tour, PGA of America) the new grooves will be required and in others (state, local, club), they might not be, even though some of the competitors might be the same? It really isn't two sets of rules, but it sure sounds like two sets of rules to me, and that's not in line with the USGA and R&A's Joint Statement of Principles.

What about the difficulty of manufacturing to such exacting specifications? Given tolerances, won't many manufacturers have to dumb down their groove designs even more to make sure their finished products stay well under the limit? Or will they have to use precise milling methods on even their most basic level products to maximize performance, thus raising prices? (No, they wouldn't do that. They'll figure out something and I'll bet the result will be that those who want equipment that really maximizes performance will be the ones willing to pay the most for it. Doesn't exactly sound like "for the good of the game," does it?)

What about the enforcement process? The USGA Research and Test Center routinely is busy checking drivers and balls for conforming status, and those processes are fairly straightforward. What happens when the USGA has to go through every new iron set (both from Miura and TaylorMade as well as WalMart and Target) to make sure the groove pattern, groove edge radii and groove volume are legit?  How many grooves need to be a problem before one set of irons is ruled non-conforming? How many grooves need to be nonconforming on a particular set for an entire product line to get put on the black list? Is there a statute of limitations? Will there be a groove reader set up on the first tee or scorer's shed on the PGA Tour? And given that to measure a single groove requires an eight-page procedural guide, should you and I quit our day jobs and sign up to be groove readers for the USGA?

I'm a big believer that the game should be extremely hard all the time (otherwise it's bowling with gutter guards), if only that everyone experience the tragedy that I face every time I tee it up. I think several huge mistakes were made in years past by the USGA when it comes to equipment, not the least of which was the give-up over square grooves two decades ago. I think changing the groove specifications is a fine idea in theory. But in practice, it poses some serious questions. I hope smarter people than me come up with a workable solution, like maybe making it a condition of competition for PGA Tour events only.

Because where is the average golfer in all of this? Dazed and confused, I'd imagine, not unlike how you might feel if you spend another 90 minutes at midday on the range at Southern Hills.

BOMB: Partner, when you and I split paths in Atlanta Monday you chose wisely. The heat here just flat-out sucks. And although I could stand to sweat off a couple pounds, I'd like to do so without the corresponding possibility of heat stroke.

But enough whining about that. In short, couldn't agree more with you for a change. The USGA is not going to spend all that time and money and say, "Guess what? No change needed." Also, the way they have tried to address all concerns, while very commendable and smart, also means they are covering all the bases.

Admittedly there are two things I am consistent on: that equipment is not ruining the game of golf as we know it and that the USGA should have the right to make the rules. In this instance, those two thoughts are opposing forces. This time, though, I think I have to stick with the bat makers. My reasons: It's entirely unenforceable. I mean, it's not even close, for all the reasons you mentioned. Second, I'm not convinced it will achieve the desired effect of returning accuracy to a place of greater importance in the pro game. And unless there is further evidence to support that, I don't think the manufacturers should have to change everything on a maybe.

Still, talking with one tour rep from a major equipment company on the range at Southern Hills today, the sound of inevitability is in the air. "[My boss] thinks it's going through pretty much as proposed," he said. "And he's pissed about it."

Pissed, er, sorry, exasperated, enough to litigate? Doubtful, but who knows. Maybe the practice range in Tulsa this week isn't the only thing getting a little hot. Stay tuned.