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?