GOUGE: Why is a blade 2-iron a better (read: easier) choice off the tee then a driver with close to the highest moment of inertia of any club in the game? That's the one that is the great irony about Tiger Woods' victory in the British Open last week, even more than the tears at victory (Tiger seems totally in control as a competitor, dominant, merciless, and then he shows you in an instant, he still is as fragile as we all are, crying and needing to be held). Is there some validity to the idea that shorter is better? Look at it this way: 1. A shorter shaft is easier to control. 2. A lower ballflight is more achievable with a 2-iron and a bonus in a potentially windy British Open. 3. Shorter yardage off the tee was a smarter play to take the bunkers out of play. Here's what he said. BUT the interesting thing to me from an equipment perspective is this little nugget: The moment of inertia of Tiger's driver (in the heel-toe direction) is about twice that of his 2-iron, but that also means that the moment of inertia in several other directions is much higher in the driver than the 2-iron. This drawing explains my point. Can super high MOI make clubs feel mid-swing a little too klunky, perhaps so much so, that a long-time blade iron virtuoso like Tiger might like the feel of a small-headed iron much more than the feel of a big-headed driver? I don't know about you, but why is the guy who ranks in the 150s in driving accuracy when he uses the big MOI club suddenly No. 1 when he uses an iron? It can't be that much easier, can it?

BOMB: Tiger’s use of the 2-iron at the British was smart, effective and falls into the category of “don’t try this at home.” That goes for him as well as everyone else out there. Hoylake was a perfect storm of conditions (burnt-out fairways that made golf balls run like they landed on an airport runway, fairway bunkers positioned where errant balls struck with a driver might find them). But I doubt we’ll see a similar strategy from Mr. Woods upon his return to the competition in the States. But to answer your question of is shorter better, well, that depends on what you’re looking for. If you want distance, heck no. But if you want straighter, sure. Look no further than Phil Mickelson. Although he didn’t put it in the bag, Philly Mick had a shorter (about 43.5 inches), higher moment of inertia Callaway Big Bertha Fusion FT-3 driver made for him before the U.S. Open. His “straight” driver, he called it. Gee, wonder if that puppy could have come in handy anywhere at Winged Foot? Bottom line: swing like a banshee with the big stick and all the MOI on earth probably isn’t going to help a heck of a lot. But for choppers like you (and, at times, me), it does. And that makes the driver a much better choice than a 2-iron off the tee any day.

BOMB: Remember the other day when you were telling me about how the golf geeks at bombsquadgolf.com were yapping about how they wanted a return to metal spikes? Well, the more I thought about it, the more I have to wonder what these guys are smoking. What do they want, a return to putting on greens that look like minefields instead of billiard tables? And the “traction” argument is just plain ridiculous. I mean, have you ever seen a PGA Tour player slip when taking a cut at the ball? And if metal were so wonderful, then why has metal usage on the tour dropped faster than one of my current stock holdings? Fact is, metal-cleat usage on the PGA Tour is down to about 25 percent (continuing a trend that saw metal fall from 73 percent in 1997 to 40 percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2002). But although the high majority of the tour has gravitated toward lighter, less-damaging plastic cleats (with those made by Softspikes and Champ accounting for nearly all of them), some players stay in metal simply because it's what they’re used to. And it isn’t just hard swingers such as Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. Players such as K.J. Choi, Todd Hamilton and Mike Weir—guys who swing easy enough to play in street shoes (maybe even flip flops) if they wanted to—also are in metal. Still, the numbers for metal gradually decline each year—kind of like a metal spike that eventually gets worn to the nub. And as older players leave the tour, the amount of steel on the soles will continue to drop. Combined with the fact that the majority of young players have used nothing but plastic (NCAA men’s and women’s golf rules prohibit the use of metal spikes), metal’s future would appear to be a short one.

GOUGE: But it won't be if guys keep mouthing off about wishing they could still wear them. Metal spikes should have been killed a long time ago. And those who wear them should be viewed as pure evil. Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson don't need metal spikes if Vijay Singh doesn't need metal spikes and they sure as heck don't need metal spikes if Bubba Watson doesn't need metal spikes. Softspikes research says the metal spike is dead everywhere in America. Of course the exception is the PGA Tour. Certainly, the relentless pursuit of traction (all in the name of, some would say slighltyh self-absorbed elite players because most average players don't need it and don't care) has taken the plastic cleat too far on occasion. There are rumors that some of the sharper cleats have been selectively banned at the occasional club. In my opinion, traction is largely a function of a balanced swing. If you need stakes in the ground to enable you to make a golf swing, you have swing problems, not shoe problems. All I know is I have seen decent players shoot in the 60s in wet conditions with shoes that are completely free of metal. The best shoes solve traction issues while maintaining green friendliness. And expect more improved solutions to come from FootJoy, HiTec, Adidas, Nike and Etonic, to name a few. In truth, the PGA Tour should be embarassed that it still allows its players to wear metal spikes. At least the USGA stipulates that the spike policy of the host facility is maintained in local and sectional qualifying for all competitors. That includes you, Steve Elkington. (Seriously, dude, break down and buy another pair of shoes. The rules couldn't have been a shock to you.) There is clear evidence metal spikes harms the greens. As such, it is not a stretch to suggest that their continued use is unfair to fellow competitors. Lee Trevino once offered a solution to the metal spikes problem and tapping down spike marks. But that doesn't go far enough. There is clear evidence metal spikes are not a necessity for distance or control, otherwise players wouldn't be winning tournaments on the toughest tour in golf without any metal on the soles of their shoes. We don't allow smoking in public places anymore not because we're discriminating against smokers. It's bad for public health. Metal spikes are just about as damaging, equally unnecessary and infinitely more stupid.

GOUGE: It is hard for me to say this, but if a professional golfer can average 207 yards off the tee and make the cut at the most prestigious tournament of the year, then maybe we don't need to worry so much about a rollback of any kind. 207? It is true. Rosie Jones did that this week. In fact, only the teenage wondergirl hit it farther than 280 on some of her measured drives. Hardly anyone else even came close to that. OK, so Rosie was barely in the tournament and retired from competitive golf after putting out on the 18th on Sunday. But still the average drive at the U.S. Women's Open was just 228.7, and that's hardly a threat to any golf course. Indeed, Newport Country Club didn't even play at its maximum yardage this week. Would the best men destroy it at its topped out yardage of more than 6,800 yards? Probably. As an example, at the recent U.S. Open at Winged Foot, the driving distance was 290.9 yards, or about 28 percent longer than the women are currently averaging. You want to know what's the real problem? People who complain that the golf ball is going too far may be short-sighted. The problem is that at the elite level (men) it's not the ball, it's the golf course. If men are driving it 28 percent farther than women, then why (at least in the case of the U.S. Open) are the men playing a championship course that is only about 10 percent longer? Shouldn't the U.S. Open and all significant men's championships be played at courses that are about 8,000 yards long, or at least 7,500 yards long? Well, I guess they're not because there's no room to make Winged Foot, Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Southern Hills and Merion that long. That infatuation with the past is what Emerson called a foolish consistency. Maybe I've oversimplified the argument. Driving distance at the U.S. Women's Open is about 246 yards over the last five years, a number a little shorter than current LPGA driving distance, but not alarmingly so. Driving distance average at the men's U.S. Open over the last four years is a little longer than current PGA Tour driving distance, but again not alarmingly so. Again, I don't see evidence of a tragic trend. I'd like to, but I don't.

BOMB: Of course you’d like to. We don’t refer to you as “The Prince of Darkness” for nothing. But finally, FINALLY you might be coming to your senses. The ball is not the problem. The courses are not the problem. Drivers are not the problem. Know why? They’re ain’t no stinkin’ problem! And we don’t need to go to 7,500 or 8,000 yards, either, to keep it that way.

Opponents of distance regulation have long said “grow some rough.” Worked pretty well at Winged Foot, don’t ya think? Or maybe some courses with doglegs. No one is J.B. Holmes-ing Harbour Town. Hell, we even have the U.S. Open going back to Merion for goodness sakes. To MERION. You know—the defenseless poster child for all golf courses that have been made obsolete by modern technology. Guess the USGA thought otherwise.

But here’s the only stat that matters in my opinion. Throwing out the Match Play where they don’t keep the stats, there have been 26 events so far on the PGA Tour this year. In nine of them—more than a third—the winner has ranked 34th or higher in driving distance for the week. That’s out of about 70 players or so that make the cut. In six of those events the winner ranked 58th or higher. That’s right, 58TH—a lot closer to last than first. The winner has been in the top 10 exactly 10 times. That means sometimes distance wins and sometimes it doesn’t. And when distance is the difference-maker I’m all for it. Golf is a sport. An athletic endeavor where physical superiority should be rewarded. But unlike weight-lifting, it’s not the sole determinant of success. Tiger, Phil and Vijay may blast the cover off the ball, but I don’t think they’d be choppers if they didn’t. Holmes and John Daly and the like will wow us every so often with a week where they whack the ball a mile and hole an equally-lengthy amount of putts. But Fred Funk will win a Players and Jim Furyk a U.S. Open playing small ball. Year after year we see that it all comes out in the wash. And for those recreational players that say courses are getting too long for them, I point you to the words of Pete Dye, who said when confronted with that complaint: “I simply cannot help you if you insist on playing from the wrong set of tees.”

GOUGE: Still, just because we don't want the debate to end, here's the play-by-play for the top three finishers on the 444-yard 18th hole Sunday at the Buick Championship:
J.J. Henry:
Shot 1 361 yds to right fairway, 82 yds to hole

Hunter Mahan:
Shot 1 349 yds to right fairway, 94 yds to hole

Ryan Moore
Shot 1 332 yds to cart path, 110 yds to hole