BOMB: Interesting debate at my club the other day. Two guys were debating the merits of the TaylorMade R9 and Nike SQ Dymo STR8-FIT drivers. By the way each was entrenched in their respective positions you would have thought they were sales reps for the companies. Although the conversation seemed more like two guys trying to show each other how much they knew about equipment, the guy favoring Nike said one thing that caught my ear.

“OK, so what was the last major won with a TaylorMade driver?”

Hmmmmmmm.

With the Masters coming up and with all the hype surrounding the Golfsmith/Sergio Garcia driver promotion, it seemed like a question worth answering. So after stretching the memory banks I came up with Vijay Singh in the PGA. In 2004. That said, 2004 was a very good year for TaylorMade as it had driver wins in three of the four majors.

Over the last five years the driver-wins-in-majors scorecard reveals a fairly spread-out field. Nike leads the way with seven (thank you, Mr. Woods for six of them), followed by Callaway, TaylorMade and … wait for it … Wilson (thank you, Mr., Harrington). Titleist grabbed a pair, and Cobra and Ping each had one.

Now, should Paddy win the Masters, Wilson would jump into the No. 2 spot all by themselves. Which really just proves that using major wins to determine the quality of a driver is an almost useless conversation. Those two guys would have been better off jumping on a launch monitor than on each other.

GOUGE: I know your club. I doubt a launch monitor would have solved the debate over R9 vs. Dymo STR8-FIT. Just take them both out to No. 7 and let them have a wrench-off to see which driver lets them hit the high hook around the corner of the dogleg. I bet it’s a good bar challenge, too.

Determining the best driver based on tour use is relatively ludicrous, of course. And major wins is somewhat laughable, too. But it all begs the question, of course. How does one determine the best driver?

Here’s a three-step process: 1. Find three heads you love to look at from address. 2. Take all three and after a general fitting for loft and shaft flex by a qualified expert, make 4-6 swings with each on a launch monitor, rotating to a different driver after every two hits. 3. If you see a difference on AVERAGE hits (not just your best hits), take a demo model out to the course to how it works in someplace other than Fantasyland.

Don’t have that kind of time, you say? Would rather just order something online? Don’t know where to get fit? Please. Here are ten websites to get you started on the fitting process for your new driver.

Golfsmith.com

EdwinWattsGolf.com

Golftec.com

Callawaygolf.com

Clevelandgolf.com

Cobragolf.com

Nike.com

Ping.com

Taylormadegolf.com

Fittingworks.com

Go. Now. Don’t come back until you’ve finished your assignment.

GOUGE: Tell me if you've heard this one before: A sport's governing body decides to impose an equipment-based rule change that would essentially and in some cases almost immediately make nearly all current equipment non-conforming. Said industry reacts negatively to the idea. The governing body seeks and carefully considers input from industry manufacturers, adjusts slightly the specifications of the rule change but ultimately makes the decision to go forward with the decision that would leave most current equipment in violation of the rules.

Sound familiar? Sound like a situation golf might be in the middle of right now? Sound like, say, the USGA's new restrictions on grooves? Well, try this on for size: A company in said industry cries foul, sues the governing body for restraint of trade, anti-trust and a few other unmentionables. Lots of heated exchanges, threats and general puffery and bluster. In the end, the judge throws the whole thing out and the governing body's new rule stands. 

Here are the specifics: The NCAA (you know, the guys with the brackets) proposed new guidelines on the dimensions of the head of a lacrosse stick. (Substitute "USGA" for "NCAA" and "groove" for "head of a lacrosse stick" and you get where I'm going here.) The NCAA made a couple of tweaks to the rule over an 18-month period, but essentially adopted a rule that made most current heads in violation of the new rule. The impetus of the rule change was to restore some of the original competitiveness of the game in areas like stick checks and the face-offs, something that equipment advances had perhaps diminished. A company called Warrior (not a stretch to say Warrior is very much like a TaylorMade or Callaway in golf terms) eventually filed suit in U.S. District Court in Michigan, complaining the rule change would force consumers (about 500,000 people play lacrosse in the U.S., according to surveys) to pony up $58 million to change their clubs, er sticks, or about $115 per.

Judge Marianne O. Battani wasn't having any of it, however. You can sort through all the legal-ese if you want to, but her key statements are these:

"The NCAA's rule ... appears not to be subject to antitrust scrutiny, in and of itself, because, it is not 'commercial in nature.'

"... the rule is only directed towards increasing the quality of play in college lacrosse and, thereby, enhancing interest in intercollegiate lacrosse.

"... the rule relating to lacrosse stick heads has a noncommercial purpose—to promote free dislodgment of the ball."

"... the NCAA's act of reviewing proposed lacrosse sticks is, at most, a promise that approved sticks complied with the rules in effect at that time. The NCAA was not promising never to change its rules in a way that would make a previously approved stick illegal."

This sounds so much like the groove rule it could be a test case. In no uncertain terms, it appears there is now, at least, and may always have been, sufficient legal precedent for the USGA to make any rule it finds necessary. That final statement from Judge Battani sounds to me like a killer for any manufacturer wanting to rail against the USGA over rule changes. One wonders if it might be that extra bit of confidence a ruling body might want in putting forth any future equipment performance rollbacks. (Golf ball and driver head size, anyone?)

And for those of you keeping score, the USGA groove change, in the best of all possible worlds for the industry, chould result in abut $19 billion in new equipment purchases over the next 15 years (based on an estimated $750 in new iron and wedge purchases for each of the 25 million golfers and the fact that the rule change is expected to apply to all golfers by 2024). Which, come to think of it, might be why no one in the industry is really complaining all that much about the groove restrictions. Hmmm...

BOMB: Did anyone ever tell you that you're a windbag? I'll save the readers a lengthy retort. Here's the deal: Governing bodies make the rules. Equipment-makers then live by those rules. Period. Should the governing bodies listen to the manufacturer's concerns? Absolutely. And in the case of golf, I think they have done a fair job of that in the last 10 years which is why there is not the legal threats we have seen in the past--which is a good thing. Lawsuits over the making of a rule is the kind of "I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home" attitude we could all live without. And for any manufacturer that thinks the public is outraged by the rules, well, go ahead and make some non-conforming equipment and see how you make out. My guess is not too well.

Equipment regulations should be points of discussion, not contention. But when the talk is finished and a decision is made, everyone just needs to stop the nonsense and get on board. Besides, a projected $19 billion in sales isn't all that bad, now is it?

BOMB: Oh those crazy Canadians.

One of our co-workers just passed along the following gem, suggesting it might be blog fodder. It's from Callaway Golf Canada and it puts forth that "the answers to a series of fun, lighthearted -- and telling -- multiple choice questions will lead golfers to discover the new 2009 Callaway driver that best suits individuals based on their personality."

Excuse me?

Let's try that again. They will fit you into a driver not by your swing but by your personality trait? It's not just that the hard work of all your engineers goes right out the window, it's that a company that clearly has one of the most innovative fitting systems in the business seems more interested in the touchy-feely stuff instead of legitimate science and technology. "I'm a brute! A basher!" "Get that man a Diablo! Oh wait, you mean he'd be better off with the FT-9? Screw it! His personality screams Diablo!"

They'll even give you an incentive to make a direct purchase. Their website says, "Consumers who register to pre-purchase their driver on the WhatsYourCallaway.ca microsite are eligible to receive a dozen complimentary Callaway golf balls upon confirmation of their order." Nice touch, boys.

In our Golf Digest Hot List we put forth the benefits of being properly fit time and time again. And in no club in the bag is that more critical -- or frankly, easier -- than the driver. I'm sure whatever little pop quiz this website offers (I tried to find it but couldn't) may be fun to see what it spits out, but anyone who actually goes out and purchases a driver on this information alone should have their handicap index revoked.

GOUGE: Oh, my un-hip, set-in-his-ways, soooo 20th-century friend. Get with the program, buddy. Golf isn't about serious, thoughtful consideration of the myriad technologies at our disposal. It's not about understanding how spin rates might be affected by one design structure vs. another. It certainly shouldn't involve something as complex as a launch monitor fitting and some detailed work with your local clubfitter. No, no and no. It's a lifestyle choice, like toothpaste or cologne or what you, er, find sexy about a woman.

I did find the so-called quiz, and it comes with a flashy guarantee so it must be legit: (WARNING: NOT ANSWERING THESE 10 QUESTIONS MAY RESULT IN YOU HAVING TO GO THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WITHOUT EVER HAVING KNOWN THE PERFECT DRIVER FOR YOU!) Still, there's nothing in here about shot shape or swing speed or typical trajectory. Not a measurement to be found. Great. Why mess up the search for my new driver with numbers? Let's just get to the real important stuff, like whether my favorite color is Red, Orange or Black (Question 3) or whether I prefer Commando, Boxers or Briefs (Question 7) or whether women are sexiest in Skinny Jeans and a Silk Top, a Little Black Dress or -- I am not making this up -- their Birthday Suit (Question 9)?

Well, provided what you find sexy about a woman involves what she's wearing instead of, well, maybe having a conversation with her. Oh, right, now I get it, choosing the proper driver requires you to be a brain-dead horn-dog. Well, I guess that would make it easier.

Did they steal those multiple choice questions from eHarmony.com? There's even a query wondering what's in the drawer of my bedside table where one of the possible answers is "warming gel and a digital camera." Now, I don't get out much, but I'm pretty sure warming gel is something different than grip solvent. Then again, maybe it isn't.

Here's the thing: If even equipment companies have decided to reduce golf equipment purchases to some sort of wheel of fortune/party game enterprise, rather than a considered investigation, why should we really believe that today's technology is improved over last year's? Or is it just that selling anything comes first, regardless of whether it has any genuine legitimate benefit for this particular consumer? I know, I know. Lighten up, Francis. Live a little. Grab a little gusto. Have a little fun. I'm all for fun, but marketing efforts like this don't enhance the message, they destroy it. They essentially make the claim that there is no other reason to gravitate toward a driver other than your answer to the question "When was the last time you cried," and one of the answers to choose from is "Never."

For what it's worth, choosing "Never" apparently makes you an FT-9 man, as long as you went with the Little Black Dress, too.

GOUGE: We knew it would eventually come to this. What we didn't realize was maybe how soon we'd get there. The problem, of course, is just what to do about it. We have reached an era when Super Bowl winning coaches cheat, when home-run king baseball players cheat, and in what certainly reeks of nefarious undertakings the acting travesty that is James Spader gets an Emmy instead of rightful master of the art form Hugh Laurie. Golf now finds itself on the verge of this most uncomfortable kind of cheating, thanks to golf technology's rapid devouring of the moment of inertia standard.

During our visits with some of golf's leading manufacturers last week, we found that some of the latest crop of drivers has approached the USGA prescribed moment of inertia limit of 5,900 gram-centimeters squared. (The rule was designed to limit clubhead stability, which mitigates the falloff in performance on off-center hits. What tragedy is this you might ask? Well, riddle me this, caped crusader: In an industry where "unauthorized manufacturing variances" have led to small production problems with drivers from Cobra, Cleveland, Nike and Callaway, we now find ourselves staring down the barrel of a rule that could be even easier to violate unintentionally. Moreover, those violations might place the full force of the law squarely on the unassuming golfer, instead of the manufacturer. Consider this: If a driver is manufactured to the USGA MOI limit of 5,900 and someone decides to buy such a driver and shorten the shaft (routinely these high MOI drivers are being introduced with 45.5 to 46-inch shafts), he or she most likely will need to add a little lead tape to restore the club's swingweight. Problem is, that little maneuver of putting two or three strips of lead tape on such a driver could push that particular club's MOI over 5,900 and most likely in the danger zone of being non-conforming. Compound this little development with the fact that the tolerance for the MOI rule is 100 g-cm2, which at least to some of the reports we've heard is less than the typical MOI manufacturing tolerance of the biggest companies. In other words, you could easily have a driver that is trying to have an MOI of 5,900 end up with a final MOI of 5,750 or even 5,700, BUT it could also have the tolerance go to the other side, pushing MOI to 6,050 or 6,100, making them of course nonconforming. And how do we know what the MOI of my new High MOI driver might be? Can't know it. Unless I take it apart and put it on an MOI machine. No word yet, of course, on whether the PGA Tour plans to purchase an MOI machine for the first tee (or more precisely scorers' tent) of the Mercedes Championships next year, let alone whether they're planning to stock up on epoxy for reassembling heads. One thing's clear, though. We could end up with a situation that makes last spring's hot-face nonconforming drivers debacle look like using the wrong fork at McDonald's.

BOMB: Well, you must have been sneaking a peek over my shoulder because cutting down clubs and the effect of such is what I wrote about for this week’s issue of Golf World. That said, know what really bothers me about the MOI rule and the proposed groove rule? That neither one can actually be enforced! And if you can’t enforce it, then why have it? Anyone who reads this blog knows I’m pretty consistent in saying that the USGA has the right to make the rules. But these two baffle me a little, especially the MOI rule. For starters, the USGA seems to want to rein in distance on tour. MOI really helps hits about 3/4-inch off center. But tour players almost never hit it 3/4-inch off center. And then no player is going to want his club taken apart to be checked for it. Some may think bifurcation is on the way, but that’s against the USGA’s statement of principles. Me, I just think it will lead to more chaos similar to what we saw this year with the nonconforming drivers.

Still, I think you’re making a big deal of not much. If there are "manufacturing variances" some company will blow the whistle on the offending party and it will be taken care of, just like those who slipped over the COR/CT limit. And as for golfers unwittingly doing something to their bats to make it go over the limit, well, that’s not the manufacturers' problem. Their job is to make a club within the rules as best they can. Seems to me that’s all they are trying to do.

But I’m totally with you on James Spader winning out over Dr. House himself. That’s just wrong.

GOUGE: In our ever-increasing quest to answer those screaming for a rollback of equipment technology, I found it interesting to look at some of the recent qualifying scores for this year's Mid-Amateur and Women's Mid-Amateur championships. Surely, if technology were rendering the game simple, it would have at least trickled down to the elite class of players over the age of 25. Surely. Just so you know, the low score of all the qualifiers at all the sectional locales for the Women's Mid-Amateur was 72, and there were 86 players who made it into the field with qualifying scores that started with the digit "8," except for the one medalist who got in with a score that started with the numeral "9." (Tough conditions, probably.) The Mid-Amateur qualifying scores surely must have been lower. Surely. Well, you bet they were. A ton of scores in the 60s, as a matter of fact, including a 60 by Steve White at the qualifier at the Black Creek Club in Chattanooga, Tenn. In a way, I have to confess I'm given pause by these low numbers (after all Black Creek Club can stretch to nearly 7,100 yards), but then he was medalist by 8 shots. So I searched further. How low did they go at the 6,659-yard Bandon Trails qualifier on the Oregon Coast? 2-under was the medalist, but 50 percent of the field shot 80 or more. And oh, by the way, they'll be playing the Mid-Amateur over Bandon Trails and Bandon Dunes at the end of the month. Neither of us believes there's room for panic, but I might need a little convincing when a part-time golfer shoots 60.

BOMB: Need convincing? Well, as Underdog would say, "Here I am to save the day!!!" Actually, I think that was Mighty Mouse. No matter. A 60 (with a double bogey on the card, no less)? Well done Steve White. But so what? There’s nothing to get your Hanes in a twist about here. A quick look at ghin.com shows he’s a plus-2.4 index who has shot in the 60s in six of his last 14 rounds. And by the way, Stevie, better post that 60 before the boys back home get a little unruly about you not giving them enough strokes. I mean, what does this guy do for a living? My point being I don’t worry about pros or pseudo-pros. Bubba Watson is obliterating courses? Fine. We’ll find 50 layouts a year to contain him and I don’t give a flip if 50 courses have to be stretched to 8,000 yards to do so. Now, what about the other 15,000 or so layouts that the rest of us mortals play. Holding up just fine, thank you.  Little old 6,500-yard Tashua Knolls not far from our office here in Connecticut recently held qualifying for the State Mid-Am. Medalist? No 60 here boys and girls, but a 1-under 71. What did it take to qualify? 78. In all, 113 teed it up. Only 39 broke 80. A mere 11 bettered 75. Moving onto the finals at Wee Burn CC where it’s all of 6,809 yards when the tees are moved back into the trees, 9 over par won the 54-hole event. The top 32 players in the state at least 25 years old couldn’t post a single round in the 60s. Obsolete? Give me a break.

GOUGE: Gee, I shot 79 the other day. Maybe I could qualify for something.

BOMB: Oh, you qualify for something, my friend.You definitely qualify for something.

GOUGE: Let's not get into particulars, but here's a few others to chew on. 7-over was good enough to get you into the match play portion of the recent U.S. Amateur. Average driving distance on the PGA Tour is exactly the same as what it was a year ago, which was more or less the same as it was the year before and was a yard and a half farther than the year before that. So since 2003, barring something extremely bizarre in the PGA Tour Fall Series, average driving distance on the PGA Tour will have increased three yards. THREE. There hasn't been a five-season stretch with that small an increase since pre-titanium drivers and multilayer, solid core balls 1995. So what we have is the best ams aren't, for the most part, obliterating championship courses and the best pros have hit the wall. You can say we've been there before, but I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming evidence for anything like a rollback.   

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.

BOMB: Interesting article in last Friday’s USA Today where the paper had Brandt Snedeker play a round of golf at the Plantation Course at Sea Island, Ga., with both his current set and a set of bats and balls from the 1980s. Love the concept and, can’t be shocked at the result (75 with the new stuff to 80 with the old equipment in 15 to 25 mile-per-hour winds). But I have to admit that if I had done this experiment, the test conditions would have been a tad different. For starters, why use Brandt Snedeker? Nice kid, but the 26-year-old admits that the only previous time he had hit a persimmon driver was fooling around with the father’s when he was 8 years old. Further, Snedeker was brought up with the modern swing—a move that simply does not work with the older equipment. Why not Nick Price or Paul Azinger or Corey Pavin? Each still has game and has extensive experience with both types of equipment. Plus, their swings are somewhat of a hybrid between old school and new move. Also, I’m curious about the ball used—the Bridgestone Rextar Pro Model. Was this an old ball lying around or one that was produced just for this test? Finally, what was the element of fitting involved? Snedeker’s current sticks are launch monitor fine-tuned. I doubt the Mizuno Pro 1 persimmon driver he had such trouble with was exactly the right specs for him. And by the way, the score, if done in match play, would have been New Equipment winning 1-up on the final hole.

GOUGE: First things first, applause to Steve Dimeglio and USA Today for even attempting the story. We at Golf Digest did something similar in 1995, testing old vs. new. That test, orchestrated by our old buddy Ed Weathers, showed essentially that the old equipment was a little inferior to the new equipment but that the old ball worked better with the old clubs than the new ball worked with the old clubs. The Rextar Pro Model, for those interested, was introduced at the 1993 PGA Merchandise Show, so it’s not exactly a Haskel ball. Frankly, though, I don’t know what the exercise proves. It’s like wondering whether Barry Bonds could hit Christy Matthewson. Or better how many home runs Home Run Baker might have hit in the live ball era. Or if Chuck Bednarik would have been a better linebacker if he didn’t have to play both ways. It’s a lark, but it’s not a substantive discussion. The game evolves, it’s fields of play change to meet the demands of the best players. Is Snedeker less skilled than say Steve Pate or Keith Fergus were in their eras? Neither more nor less certainly. But different. So what? Those who wish for a return to the past are like the old woman in that classic short story The Monkey’s Paw. What exactly are we trying to return the game to? What we need to do is find ways to adapt. That’s the challenge. The window for innovation is shrinking, for sure. But there are ways to test the best players. We’ll see that this week, for certain. As for me, I’ll not be pining for persimmon and wound balls ever.

BOMB: Well, after spending 8-plus hours with you in a car driving back from Toronto, some of the thoughts are starting to come to the surface. Chief among them is this: Last week saw K.J. Choi using a putter grip about the size of a soda can, Colin Montgomerie using a belly putter and those two plus Brad Bryant all using 60-degrees wedges. We hear lots of people bellyaching that shotmaking is being taken out of the game but they have little problem allowing a putter grip that Choi himself said, “reduces the movement of your wrist.” It’s the golf equivalent of this. And anyone using a belly putter might to grab hold of one of these for comfort, too. And would Choi have made that miracle bunker shot on 17 if it were a 56-degree instead of a 60-degree? Doubt it. I used to be OK with the long putters and the like, but there’s just something not right about these. Of course, watching you three-putt from eight feet the other day, perhaps you’ve changed your position on crutches such as these.

GOUGE: Not at all. More crutches for everyone. Why not set up some netting along the right side of every fairway so those wild heel slices are gently pushed back into play? Why not allow players two or three throws a round (depending on what USGA testing suggests would be most equitable)? Why not let them use some sort of catapult to launch tee shots? I know we harped on the unnecessary clamor over equipment regulation the other day, but sometimes you have to look at technology’s progression objectively. We’re both more than OK with a steady generalized growth over time, but when there are weird affected departures, it’s time to make it just stop, especially when that kind of development is fueled by a desire to compensate for some staggering ineptitude or lack of intestinal fortitude. Bracing the grip end of the club to your gut is not in the best interests of the game and shows an inherent psychological weakness in the individual. Exposing weakness is the whole point of the golf exercise. Holding on to a putter grip about the size of a racing bratwurst is not the stuff of unwavering mental strength. Using a pancake flipper as a greenside chipping club is using technology to overcome a lack of skill. None of us would be the worse for wear without any of these so-called innovations. Or maybe we just need a few more out there. Maybe what everyone needs isn’t a 60-degree wedge. What we need is a 73-degree wedge. Because, after all, a 70-degree just isn’t enough club to let you hit all the shots you need. All I know is I can skull that club across the green, too.

GOUGE: Remember all that talk about tougher course conditions on tour placing a premium on driving accuracy. By my calculations, (a) those course conditions never happened, or (b) consistent driving accuracy still doesn't matter all that much on a week-by-week basis for earning the most money on the PGA Tour. My numbers say the correlation between driving accuracy and success (i.e., money rank) is still around 0.17. For those of you who didn't major in statistics and made it through college without taking any science or math what that means is that, at least from this statistical analysis, hitting it in the fairway impacts a player's earnings potential on a week-in, week-out basis on the PGA Tour only slightly more than whether he chooses the chicken or the fish for lunch.

I point to the chart I ran in the March 9 issue of Golf World. In other words, it doesn't matter if you're exceptionally accurate or exceptionally straight off the tee. Neither seems to predict consistently high finishes on the PGA Tour. In fact, if you take the top 30 players on the PGA Tour in money, their average rank in driving accuracy right now is 88. If you take the top 30 in driving accuracy, the average rank in money is 81. That to me almost eerily suggests a near inverse relationship between accuracy off the tee and making money.

Even if you look at statistics on a tournament-by-tournament basis, you are not enthused that driving it straight is a prerequisite for success. Only seven times in the 21 tournaments with driving accuracy statistics did the winner of the tournament finish in the top 25 percent of the field in driving accuracy. Only five times did the winner finish in the top 10 percent of the field in driving accuracy. Eight times was the winner ranked in the bottom third of the field in driving accuracy. Assuming an average field of 75 players making the cut, the average winner wouldn't have finished in the top 30 in the field in driving accuracy (31 or so, by my figuring). 
Forgetting for a moment how Ben Hogan would be horrified by that sort of laissez-faire approach to course management, let's just remind everyone that the whole structure of the USGA's argument for changing the design stipulations governing grooves is because of this very premise, namely that hitting it in the fairway at a consistently high rate needs to be one of the four cornerstones of achieving a level of excellence in golf (hitting it far off the tee, hitting it to the fairway, hitting it to the target on the green, putting it in the hole). Is it still true that it's better to attack the green/pin from the fairway than from the rough? It may not be, shouldn't it be? If it isn't that big a deal, then let's dispense with rough altogether. Will a change in groove volume have the effect of making it more difficult to attack a pin from the rough? Clearly, there is evidence to suggest that is the case, to say nothing of the fact that if it weren't better grooves would never have been pursued (and achieved) as a design imperative.

It's a hypothetical, of course, but maybe tour conditions are so much on the edge that getting close to a tight pin is equal part skill and equal part luck, regardless of where your starting point might be or what you're holding in your hands when you try to make contact with the ball. If you grew the grass higher would it solve all these "problems," or would it create others? Look at what's happening in the USGA's showcase event, if you're not sure. (I urge those of you who have an interest in this subject to submit your thoughts to the USGA on this rule change.) Maybe the USGA's grooves proposal is the brightest solution ever conceived. Maybe it's the worst idea ever. Or maybe it needs a little more time. But right now the evidence on one tour seems pretty convincing. Whether that's reason enough to render all current golf clubs obsolete is something cooler heads need to consider.

BOMB: There was a line in “Ball Four” that read, “Tell your statistics to shut up.” Applies here. Now, you know me. I’m a big stats guy. But I definitely adhere to the old saw that “Figures can lie and liars can figure.” OK, fine, accuracy isn’t as important as it used to be. My answer to that is, “So what?” I just can’t take it when I hear things such as the “the correlation between accuracy and success is zero” and “guys can hit it anywhere and make birdie” because I’m sorry, it’s just not true.

The top 10 players on last year’s money list—I think we can all agree that would qualify as being successful—were a cumulative 347 UNDER PAR from inside 125 yards when playing from the FAIRWAY and were a cumulative 52 OVER PAR when playing from the same distance from the ROUGH. But it makes no difference, right?

Further, I also don’t necessarily agree that the lack of accuracy has done anything other than make the better players win more often. In the 20 years prior to the launch of the Titleist Pro V1 and the major shift to solid-core, multilayer golf balls, the average accuracy rank of the top money winner on the PGA Tour was 53. Not exactly Calvin Peete or Fred Funk, is it? Granted, it’s been a lot worse since then, but the top dogs have been Tiger Woods (5 times) and Vijay Singh (2 times). Not exactly choppers. Some of the leading money winners in the 20 previous years were Craig Stadler, Hal Sutton, Corey Pavin and Tom Lehman. All fine players but not exactly a Murderers Row of golf.

My point, if I’ve confused you, is that although accuracy is down I don’t think it matters. A good shot is a good shot, whether from rough or fairway. The chart I previously pointed to shows there is indeed a penalty for hitting it in the rough. About a third of all players who have recorded a top-10 finish this year have finished in the top 20 in driving accuracy the week of their top-10 finishes. About a third have been in the bottom 30 in accuracy the week of their top 10s. The rest are in the middle. The average is 31st in accuracy. There is still room at the inn for the Jim Furyk’s and Fred Funk’s. Is driving it straight a requisite for success? No. But it certainly helps. Ask Phil Mickelson if finishing fifth in accuracy at Pebble helped him win that week. Or Zach Johnson, who finished second in accuracy at Augusta and then sixth at the AT&T. Or Fred Funk, who was first in winning in Mexico, or Scott Verplank who was eighth at the Nelson or Paul Goydos who was second at Sony. Or K.J. Choi who was second at Memorial. I’m sure hitting a few fairways mattered to them.

Anyway, enough. Know what really matters? It’s what you think about all this—especially if you have an opinion on the USGA’s proposed groove rule. And you don’t have to tell us. You can tell the USGA’s equipment czar Dick Rugge. At the end of the USGA’s press release on grooves it states: Written comments regarding these proposed changes governing grooves are welcomed and 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.  Written comments received later than Aug. 1, 2007, will not be considered.

I only ask that you carefully think about the proposal and send a thoughtful comment. In our last meeting with Rugge last week he said that he more than welcomes comments from everyday golfers on the matter. So there you go. It’s like voting. If you don’t vote, don’t complain.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

BOMB: Well, it’s about freaking time we got the redesigned web site up. Least we can do is start the blog thing again.

Lets start with this: Pine Needles last week tipped out at 6,664 yards—that’s 408 yards longer than when it last hosted the U.S. Women’s Open in 2001. OK, sure, the 15th played as a par 5 instead of a 4, but still, that’ a pretty big jump. Consider that across the same time frame, Southern Hills, site of the 2001 Men’s U.S. Open and the upcoming 2007 PGA Championship, will only increase its course length by 158 yards.

I think the reason is this: The women are finally catching up to the men in terms of optimizing their launch conditions and equipment. Evidence? In 2001 Maria Hjorth ranked first in driving distance at the Women’s Open with an average of 247.4 yards. That would have ranked 30th this year as Karin Sjodin led the field at 279.1 yards. More evidence: The top-10 finishers in 2001 averaged 228.1 yards off the tee—or about the length of your tee shots, pardsy. This year the 13 women who finished T-10 or better averaged 250.8 yards.

In short, they may be women but they no longer hit it like girls.

GOUGE: I wish I hit it 228.1. Especially the .1. But here's the thing: Women, men, children and dogs are hitting it farther in 2007 than any of them did in 2001. The ball goes farther and drivers have maximized ballspeed across a greater area of the face. Duhh. Doesn't make it easier (see O-choca's tee ball at No. 17), but the course needed to be longer. Not that it played at its full length for the week. Tees were moved up on the first hole on Sunday. USGA Setup Czar Mike Davis had this to say: “Technology is a part of the reason, but remember that this year the event was held a month later than it was in 2001. We set up the holes one by one without a total course yardage in mind. We simply want the women to play the holes the way designer Donald Ross intended.” Horse. Hockey. Donald Ross wasn't there and John Fought put in several new bunkers. And the USGA can grow grass or not grow grass any way it wants. Facts are facts, and the course was set up for the least common denominator in 2001.Today the number of LPGA players hitting it 250-plus is twice what it was in 2001, so that denominator has shifted upward. But it's not a threat to any championship level golf course. I'd offer this, though: The USGA is only following the lead of the LPGA Tour. In 2001, 27 LPGA tournaments were played at 6,400 yards or less. So far this year, only two events have been that length. Those who want to decry distance maybe should start focusing their anger on the LPGA Tour. Maybe they're progressing faster than their brothers.