BOMB: Even though I write primarily about the equipment scene on the PGA Tour, I really do believe that average players could learn more by watching what some of the women on the LPGA Tour do with their set make-up and lofts.

Take this week at the U.S. Women's Open in Newport. Due to the wet the women are going with higher-lofted drivers and millions of high-lofted fairway woods and hybrids. Why? Because the soft conditions require more carry than they thought they were going to need on the links-style course. But when is the last time you saw a weekend warrior at the local muny shuffling a club or two in and out of the bag to match up with course conditions?

Wanna buy a better game, here's the deal my friend: You need about 17 clubs in the trunk of your car, not just the same 14 week in and week out. A second driver with a different loft, an extra hybrid club or 7-wood and a sand wedge with a different bounce than what you currently have in your bag being the extra clubs. And while you're at it, guys, play the forward tees at least once a year. It's good for the soul and helps speed up play.

GOUGE: Is that you getting in touch with your feminine side? What is this? A bleeping episode of The View? Well, I don't mean to go all Star Jones on you, and while I am secure enough in my manhood to carry a 7-wood (just like Vijay Singh), the average golfer can't hit five clubs with any consistency. Giving him 17 to choose from may leave him stranded in the parking lot with the trunk open and only one shoe tied, looking a little undone.

LPGA'ers are more in line with slightly above average men when it comes to clubhead speed, but here's the thing: They don't miss it. Choppers do. Give the average guy 10 clubs and he'll score the same, 9 times out of 10. So here's what I suggest: Get yourself a decent driver, perfectly fitted to your specs by a qualified guy. Get yourself a 4-wood and a 7-wood. Throw in a 6-iron through pitching wedge, a sand wedge and a putter. Can't reach all the par 3s, you say? You hit two greens a round, anyway. Get over your consternation over club selection and spend some quality time with one darn good sand wedge, and you'll get so good with it, you'll be able to get up and down off a water closet, or loo, as you might call it... All things being equal, we're agreed that players need more hollow-heads in their bags than solid metal, er, more hybrids and woods and super game improvement designs than pure forgings or plain-Jane cast heads. And as for playing the red tees, play them once and tell me you don't feel as dirty as someone who's taken something that he hasn't earned. I can beat my kids at Putt Putt, but that doesn't make me a great putter. Playing the game from the baby tees only means you're afraid of failure. Learn the game the hard way instead of approximating it and declaring yourself king. Dig it out of the dirt. When you start shooting 78 with 10 clubs, then and only then can you have a 5-iron.

GOUGE: When's the last time you tried a new golf ball? Given what I do for a living, I'm trying new stuff every time out. Some weeks, the golf ball is a constant, and some weeks, we're looking at the latest options out there. It's a pleasant surprise every time out because every golf ball is consistently good, save for the occasional bouts with scuffing you see with some of the high-end balls. (Of course, in an odd way, that makes sense because those balls are designed for tour players, who can switch to a new ball every hole if they like. And they often do.) The thing is, how much difference is there among ball brands? Truthfully, not gigantic swings. A two-piece ball feels either hard or soft and in most instances the hard balls (Top Flite XL, Pinnacle Gold, Callaway War Bird, etc.) do the same things the same way. Softer compression two-piece balls feel softer, but don't expect them to give you the capability to hit a Geoff Ogilvy U.S. Open chip shot. The tour-style urethane covered balls again can be grouped in a similar way: The shades of difference among the top balls is remarkably slight, and that's why you see several manufacturers being used by top players. Titleist has the most balls in play, certainly, but players are using and winning with Bridgestone, Callaway, Nike, Srixon and TaylorMade, too. Personally, though, it's the emerging third category of balls that I think are the best in the game for the most players. It's a small group, but the multilayer construction balls offer unique distance and feel benefits that average golfers will benefit from. I'm talking about balls like market leader Titleist NXT Tour, but in particular the inner-mantle designs like Bridgestone's e6, Callaway's HX Hot and Nike's new Ignite. Even Callaway's HX Pearl, designed for women, might be a worthy option for the less-Bomb-like among us. It's just me talking, but I'm willing to bet that if the green fee on your course is less than $50 and your handicap is closer to 20 than it is to scratch, you won't miss the tour balls at all.

BOMB: True, those mid-level balls are acceptable behavior for most players for most rounds—like those where you’re raking in four-footers for par and begging for the mulligan off the first tee. You probably want a water ball in your bag, too, for those shots over hazards. But when you’re playing real golf for a real score, I have these words for you. In fact, next time we play, you go ahead and use one of those pellets, and instead of the Nassau being $2-$2-$4, I say we up it to car-car-house! Bottom line: there’s a reason those high-end urethane balls are called “performance” golf balls—they’re just better. For you, for me and for virtually every golfer on the planet. If buying them means you have to steal from the kids college fund, then the other balls will do just fine. But if dipping for the extra $15 only means the wife has to tone down her QVC addiction, and you’re looking to shoot the best score you can, the high-end balls are worth the extra dough.

BOMB: I feel like what my mother used to tell me when I was being a pain as a child: Hot, Tired, Cranky, Sick and Crazy. But that's what hanging out at Winged Foot for a week will do to you. And as all the other scribes in this media center are banging out copy about Philly Mick and Monty puking all over the 18th hole, my mind is elsewhere (as a good equipment geek's mind should be). I'm thinking Winged Foot proved what me and many others have been saying about equipment regulation: why don't you try growing some rough first and see how it goes? Mike Davis and the USGA set-up squad did a heckuva job here taking on modern technology and winning. Think about it: Five over par is a winner and no one is barking about the golf course. Might just be what was needed for the USGA to put the brakes on any talk about clubhead size reduction.

GOUGE: Well, well, well. What a difference a week makes. A week ago, we were just fine with the old Great Big Bertha, and now, well, we're not so sure any change is necessary. Oddly enough, I could be persuaded to say "Hold on," too. Maybe the rush to rollback isn't necessary. But that's only if you're worried about score and not skill. Has the level of skill required to execute a driver swing diminished? The evidence is clear that you don't have to hit it as squarely on the face to receive a satisfactory result. But clearly the modern, souped up driver doesn't swing itself or Philly Flub wouldn't have hit one into a trash can and another off the roof of a corporate tent. But let's just look at the recent historical past of driving distance at the U.S. Open. Since 2003, driving distance has averaged 288, 296, 295 and 291 this week. But it was just 265.5 at Bethpage four years ago. Of course, it rained that week. So distance is down about four yards from last year to this. But in 1984, Greg Norman fanned a 6-iron into the rough at 18. In 1974, Hale Irwin smoothed a 2-iron into that green. And Geoff Ogilvy in 2006? Couldn't have been much more than a 7-iron. In other words, about what we got 22 years ago. Of course, talk to Winged Foot members and they'll tell you, for example, that players were approaching No. 1 green from unbelievably short distances. Roll the ball back? You can if you want. Roll clubhead size back? You can if you want. But I do know this, from the back tees, I'm still hitting 3-wood into half the holes at Winged Foot, including my third at the 640-yard par-5 12th. But then I'm not playing in the U.S. Open, and I shouldn't be playing the back tees. And I definitely won't be playing the back tees if they roll anything back. You want to hit it like the pros? You need speed. Speed plays a bigger role, than elevating your launch angle or reducing your spin, and it pretty much doesn't matter where your center of gravity is positioned or how stable your clubhead is on off-center hits if you can't make the clubhead move like a semi on the loose on the downswing. Fitting is nifty, but speed is the key to distance. Pros have it. I don't. No amount of technology is going create pro-like speed. Of course, no amount of technology can account for stupidity, either.

GOUGE: If you want to know what you should buy because the U.S. Open winner used it on his way to victory, well, you've got a mixed bag, as it were. There's Mickelson's Callaway Fusion FT-3, a 460 cc driver with a multimaterial, carbon composite shell, titanium face construction. Or there's Kenneth Ferrie's movable weight TaylorMade r7 425 driver. Geoff Ogilvy recently switched to a Cobra X Speed all titanium driver that's 460 cc. Same deal with Ian Poulter. Vijay Singh is back to his trusty Cleveland Launcher Comp, again a multimaterial, carbon composite crown, titanium face model. And Colin Montgomerie's toting another multimaterial, carbon composite 460 cc head from Yonex that's got a name straight out of Star Wars (Cyberstar Powerbrid).

That's three multimaterial drivers, if you're counting. Jim Furyk's got a new age Srixon driver (W-506) that's 450 cc, and Steve Stricker is in with Titleist's 460 cc 905R. And Padraig Harrington is using a Wilson Pd5 that's "just" 400 cc—and also utilizes carbon composite in the crown. 

What's that say when our top 10 is sporting seven different driver models from seven different companies? On one hand, you could say there's an awful lot of good product out there. Of course, you could also say, everything's so equally good, it doesn't matter what you choose, as long as you get it fit to your specs.

BOMB:  OK, after two days roaming the range at Winged Foot, talking with tour reps and sticking my head in equipment trailers, I'll tell you one thing you're gonna see this week my chopper friend: high-lofted fairway woods and plenty of them. In fact, by the looks of things, the set makeup of some players might be more fitting for a U.S. Women's Open. Expect to see plenty of the 7- and 9-woods that were built for players this week going into the bag. Heck, Thomas Bjorn even has an 11-wood at the ready. An 11-wood! Who does he think he is, Hilary Lunke or Meg Mallon?

Beyond the snickering, though, these puppies might be just the ticket this week. The course is long in spots and a 2- or 3-iron zipping into the undulating greens aren't gonna get it done. Distance with height is required. And in some of that rough, a fairway wood might get through the salad better than a long iron. It's extreme and unusual, but then again, it is the U.S. Open.

GOUGE: Having tromped through the overgrowth at Winged Foot with you, resident longballer, a high-lofted fairway wood might not be enough. A flask of Agent Orange would be a smarter play, although by the 10th tee, your average Open competitor might simply opt for a different sort of flask instead. Nine times out of 10, high-lofted fairway woods might only be good for the shot to the green after you've chipped out from Winged Foot's multi-layered, precipitation-fortified heavy hay, laced with bluegrass, rye and poa annua.

Truthfully, I wonder about the high-lofted fairway wood approach in meaty rough. That's more surface area to get bogged down in the high grass, especially given the size of today's fairway woods, which in some instances is about the size of what metal drivers were when they first started appearing. Opting for lumber from this sort of cabbage may increase the likelihood of broken wrists, not score-saving pars. Certainly, the CG is going to be lower on a typical 7- or 9-wood vs. a typical 22-degree hybrid (that's why choppers like me should consider fairway woods over hybrids), but I like the compact size of a hybrid in the deep stuff.  Reminds me of an old utility 6-wood Trevino used to try, or one that 1992 U.S. Open one-hit wonder Andy Dillard used at Pebble Beach to much good effect.

Tiger Woods benefits from his workout-regimen-produced raw strength to muscle anything from the deep stuff, but most cannot, and even he has opted for a 5-wood in the bag in place of the 2-iron. As Tiger says, speed is a crucial component and a fairway wood's longer shaft may help slightly in the speed department (another reason why choppers like me should eyeball the high-lofted woods over hybrids). But hitting them out of the rough is not their ideal use. And hybrids serve dual purposes, and their shorter shaft makes for better use around the greens as a chipping back-up plan.

But here's the thing about rough: It's supposed to be a penalty. What's wrong with wedging something out and hitting your 8-iron and holing a 12-footer for par? That's too hard, you say? Well, the solution is not to hit it there in the first place. Getting yourself fit for a driver that goes straight most of the time is crucial. That's why in addition to getting the right driver by the numbers from a launch monitor session, you need to see how the driver performs on a real tee box with a defined fairway. It's not just a game of distance, it's a game of accuracy. I'm not exactly all in with what the tour players, in full Winged Foot panic, are doing with their high-lofted fairway woods, but I'll eat a dozen new balls if the winner of the U.S. Open this week touts his 11-wood as the difference-maker. Jeepers creepers, back when golfers had guts we used to talk about 1- and 2-irons. Now, we're theorizing about 9- and 11-woods. What's next? Chippers?
 

GOUGE: I don't care if it's not a full blown proposal. The fact that the USGA in some form or fashion is looking at a clubhead size rollback is courageous, inspired and perhaps a little crazy. It's of course doomed to failure. And that's a tragedy. Everywhere we look, somebody has a new driver and so does somebody else. Are they all better than the ones before? Probably. Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but it's pretty clear to me that you have to be less skilled to hit the driver passably far today than you used to be, whether you're a tour player or not. And there is clear evidence that driving distance has been enhanced by 400-plus cc heads.

Lawyers, of course, will be lined up from one end of Carlsbad to the next if the USGA actually moves forward with this idea of a clubhead size rollback, and if anything is oversized in golf, it's the influence of money in this whole issue. The USGA is nowhere near any such proposal, and arguably the private conversations where the idea has been discussed are no more a precursor of future policy than a grill-room promise to spend more time working on your flexibility this summer. I think anyone would have to admit that the driving game among somewhat skilled players is teetering on the brink of silly. It's why the rumors about Tiger and Phil practicing at Winged Foot could be true or could not be. Rumors? Yes, we hear that the two best players in the game both hit wedges into the final two 450-yard holes at next week's U.S. Open site. Would they be able to do that with a 250 cc head? Probably. Would everybody in the field? I don't know, but it's getting pretty likely. The percentage of 300-plus drives hit on tour has increased to nearly one of every four tee shots measured this year.

Does it matter to me if they roll back clubhead size and I have to trade in my mailbox for a smaller model? I can shoot 100 or 80 with a 460 or a 250. And I'm beginning to think it just doesn't matter for golfers whose tee shot impact experience is a completely random, isolated and unpredictable event. And I applaud the possibility of today's bright thinkers at TaylorMade and Callaway and Ping and everywhere else to make a 250 cc head that blows the doors off the original 250 cc head, the Great Big Bertha, which will run you about $20 on eBay now.

Sometimes we have to do things we don't want because in the long run it's better for the world. Maybe the USGA made a mistake when it allowed clubhead sizes to reach 460 cc. Correcting it wouldn't be a tragedy or an injustice, not any more than taking out the trash is after you've let the garbage cans overflow. A lot smarter than building an addition just to accommodate the refuse.

BOMB: You are sooooooooo predictable. No wonder they call you the Prince of Darkness. Of course you like the idea of 250cc clubheads. You also liken golf to mountain climbing—a game to be conquered, not enjoyed. Next thing you know you'll be calling for a return to the Feathery. Me? I'll take all
the help I can get.

That said, I'm predictable, too. For the umpteenth time I'll state that the game of golf is hardly in danger because of distance. I don't believe a scoring record has fallen this year on the PGA Tour and plenty of guys are winning without being near the top 10 for the week in driving distance. And for all you morons who say that you can't curve the modern ball, then why am I able to (intentionally) move a 5-iron out of the trees a good 30 yards right-to-left and out of trouble? If my skill level can move the ball one way or the other, I'm sure the pros can do this.

However, you and I did raise a few eyebrows during our round yesterday when we hauled out the Great Big Bertha for a few test drives. Bottom line: the game wouldn't be ruined by going the other way, either. On solid hits the ball traveled virtually the same distance as solid hits with our 460cc behemoths. The mis-hits weren't as good, but mis-hits aren't supposed to be, are they?

BOMB: Remember about two years ago when Ernie Els bellyached about the belly putter Trevor Immelman used to win the Deutsche Bank-SAP Open Tournament Players Championship of Europe? To quote the Big Easy, "They should be banned as nerves and the skill of putting are part of the game." Heck, the furor was such that Golf World even ran it as the cover story.

OK, some players have resurrected careers using the belly or the even longer broomstick. But let's throw a little cold water on the argument that they are panacea for all putting woes and an unfair advantage for those that use them. Basically, ShotLink stats show that those that use them aren't necessarily better off. And if they were such an advantage, don't you think more than five players at last week's FedEx St. Jude Classic would have used them? That's right, five—the numeral five! We've heard some rumblings that the R&A might be looking at a potential ban on these come 2008, but isn't it best just to leave this one alone?

GOUGE: Leave this one alone? For the love of decency and all things pure and holy and true as native fescue and three-jacks, long putters shouldn't merely be banned. They should be burned. And the people that use them should be sent off to their own island. The long putter, the belly putter, the neck putter, the halter top putter, the belt putter, the iron-lung putter, the iron-maiden putter—the whole lot of them need to be trashed. If you can't learn to shake it in the hole somehow with the stroke Old Tom Morris intended you to use (and one that at least in some small way resembles the actual stroke made on the rest of the golf course), I've got three words for you. I mean look at the putters that are out there now that have the moment of inertia of a fully-loaded cement truck. High-MOI on a putter means you can darn near hit it off the hosel and still get the ball to finish in the neighborhood of the hole. And if that doesn't work, there's still this.