GOUGE: Like every golfer, the week of The Masters always means the start of the season for me. Not just golf season, but Hot List season. That’s right, we get started on our research for the 2010 Hot List with our annual swing through Georgia visiting some manufacturers and getting an early read on what they’re working on. (Early word: It’s all about perfecting the fitting process. In the very near future, if you're not being fitted for a new club with some kind of adjustable process, you're pretty much just pretending to be getting the right clubs. And if you don’t believe that fitting matters, I offer you the wisdom of Dana Upshaw of Dana Golf in Warner Robins, Ga., who showed me by tweaking the shaft in my 5-iron, I could suddenly hit it 20 yards farther. I didn’t believe it either, but it was right there on his computer screen. Fact is, there are probably plenty of right shafts, but if you’ve got the wrong shaft inefficiency is going to happen, guaranteed. Impact is enough of a random event for me. I don't need equipment increasing the likelihood of a mis-hit.)

Masters Week also reveals a healthy supply of early equipment stories, and it got started ignominiously enough with another episode of journalistic incompetence perpetrated by the sports section of the New York Times. A frequent offender, the old gray lady offered up an op-ed piece from former USGA Senior Technical Director (and current putter manufacturer) Frank Thomas last Monday. Thomas complained about the new groove rule, which goes into effect for tour players next January and for all new equipment starting next year.

Specifically, he writes, “The U.S.G.A. has not shared its evidence that a problem exists, nor has it demonstrated that this solution addresses the problem while doing the least damage to the golfing population as a whole. Never has a change of such consequence been made with such a lack of transparency or without appropriate input from those affected.”

An interesting perspective, but only because it’s completely wrong. Not only did the USGA research reveal how less effective grooves might affect average players (not at all for most, not much for a few), the USGA sought and received opinion from manufacturers throughout this process (highly dis-similar to its charade of a process over the spring-like effect rule in the late-1990s) and made its decision and changed its thinking specifically based on input from manufacturers. Moreover, every page of its research was made available to all manufacturers throughout the original research phase of the process and is available today to anyone looking for it. Even enterprising media members could find the documents and publish the USGA’s findings more than a year in advance of the final outcome.

Finally, to suggest the groove rule is some kind of hardship on average golfers because it asks them to purchase new irons and wedges sometime in the next 15 years (it could be even longer) is laughably off-base. If golf consumers aren’t buying new clubs once in the next 15 years, they’re either not golfers or the golf industry is already dead, regardless of any perceived slight at the hands of the rule making bodies.

But that was just the beginning of the week. We chatted with some who believe the groove rule might not be all that big a deal, as it turns out. One expert predicted it might affect wedge spin by five or 10 percent. Not a hardship, and not exactly what the USGA is predicting. Who's going to be right? Hard to say, but I guess the point is manufacturers are hard at work trying to solve the challenge of a less efficient groove (with perhaps a combination of ball and club adjustments), and the early word is they’re making some genuine progress. Of course, solving one problem may mean compromises in another area.

But you might know more, my friend. You hung around Augusta for the rest of the week’s festivities. I was off to Myrtle Beach to visit with Mom and Dad, and play a little golf. I barely broke 100, and I don’t care what kind of grooves I was using, it wouldn’t have made one bit of difference.

BOMB: Yeah, nice 98 at Tidewater chopper. Those springy drivers, hopped-up golf balls and U-grooves sure are a threat to society as we know it, aren’t they?

One of the things that struck me hanging out under the tree by the Augusta clubhouse was the seeming change in philosophy regarding bifurcation when it comes to equipment. Once taboo, more and more people in the industry appear to feel it’s an idea worth at least batting around. But that’s what happens when technology gets boxed in. As I’ve said before, I hope we have the discussion.

Regarding grooves, some tour pros have already started fiddling with the new design, but many haven’t. Those waiting until the off-season may be in for a bit of a shock. Or perhaps not. As you said, one person we respect says the effect may be 10 percent or less. But if it is the 50 percent some claim, well, watch out.

But enough of that. The real fun at the Masters was some of the equipment tweaks made by some players. Angel Cabrera became the first player to use a belly putter (although he didn’t stick it in his gut) to win a traditional major and the putter he used, Ping’s I Series 1/2 Craz-E just went back in the bag last week. Cabrera also was using a new Ping wedge, the Tour W TS, a thin-soled design that responds well on tight lies such as Augusta. Other changes of note included Vijay Singh hauling out a new putter (Never Compomise’s new X-Ray design); Jim Furyk adding a 4-iron to his bag for the first time all year (he normally carries a 3-iron, skips the 4 and starts up the set again at the 5) and Padraig Harrington making a driver change for the second week in a row (Titleist’s 905R being the club last week). Note to Paddy—when you’ve won two majors with the same Wilson driver you might want to stick with it. Oh, and Golfsmith didn’t have to worry about a run on TaylorMade drivers with its Sergio Garcia campaign. As predicted, Garcia was a non-factor.

GOUGE: Maybe they picked the wrong TaylorMade guy. Kenny Perry might have sold a few R9s on Friday and Saturday, no? While I have your attention, now that the May issue has started to circulate we're getting some comments from readers about our Hot List for golf balls. Here are some keys:

1. 28 balls made the Hot List. That's less than a third of the balls we reviewed for this year's list. In short, every ball that is in stores now was considered for the Hot List. Every one. If it's not on the list, it didn't make our grade. If it is on our list, it should be seriously considered as a candidate for your bag.

2. People want to know which was the longest ball in our test. Our answer: Yes. Seriously, in our robot test at 95 miles per hour the average smash factor (ballspeed to clubhead speed ratio) varied from 1.41 to 1.46. Now that's about 10 yards, which might matter to some, provided it doesn't come at a cost elsewhere during the playing of the hole. What we found is that speed didn't rule the day for overall Performance based on our input from our panel of 22 players. Just as many of the balls finishing in the top half of our robot testing in smash factor received the highest Performance scores as did those finishing in the bottom half in smash factor. It's also probably not much of a surprise that six out of the "fastest" 15 balls didn't make the list at all. Why? Because you have to hit wedge shots with them, and neither the robot nor our players favor the rocks.

3. So which ball do you buy? Three rules: 1) If you swing slower and your handicap is higher, ignore spin. Choose the ball that launches higher off the driver and the wedge. 2. If you swing faster and your handicap is lower, choose the ball that spins the least off the driver and the most off the wedge. 3. If you're in the middle, choose the ball that feels the best around the green, both in terms of the putting surface and your wallet.

Keep those e-mails coming.