BOMB: OK, I know I’m sounding a little like Ronald Reagan, but here we go again. Can people who know nothing about golf equipment please stop writing about it? This time the source of my consternation is not some small, local newspaper but the Old Gray Lady herself, The New York Times—the supposed paper of record, for goodness sakes! In the March 22 edition in the Physical Culture section, a piece appeared on the new drivers. Fine. But author Sarah Bowen Shea fell hook, line and sinker for the marketing hype, writing that “the clubs here flirt with [the MOI] limit,” and that some clubs “embed inserts in the club face.” Excuse me? None of the drivers shown (Callway FT-I, Cobra Speed Pro S, Nike Sumo2, TaylorMade Burner and Titleist 907 D1) come within 10 percent of the MOI limit, and a couple are about 20 percent off the USGA’s 5,900 limit (6,000 if you add the 100-point tolerance). Saying that’s flirting is like saying you’re flirting with a girl by saying “hello.” And as for those clubs that "embed inserts in the face," well, I’m still looking for them. At least they had the good sense to mention for the Sumo2 that you should be sure to buy the “most recent U.S.G.A. approved club.”
GOUGE: I'm sure manufacturers are jumping for joy that the New York Times is providing free advertising these days. But let's not pile on Ms. Shea. She clearly will believe anything, witness her willingness to rely on the expertise of Ben Weir who talks about how much "less topspin" the Callaway FT-i had or the "optimal topspin" on the Cobra Speed Pro. I'm guessing Ben Weir knows nothing about angle of descent and didn't have a TrackMan or EDH Flightscope launch monitor device on hand to compare spin rates and launch angles and ballspeeds of each driver. And don't give me that we shouldn't expect rigor in the Style section. Why do we rage against these journalistic bungles? Because each amazingly weak attempt  to educate diminishes us all, but more importantly, it leaves the golf consumer further confused. Having the input of one golfer, who clearly was not custom fit for each of the drivers he was using, stand as the definitive description of how a club might perform is empty, meaningless and misguided. And yet here the average golfer stands, looking for guidance and walking away more confused than he or she was before. I'm not saying there's an easy answer to any analysis of new drivers, but what might be more helpful is explaining each driver's technology by talking to the designers and independent experts. If you can't do that thoroughly, leave the subject alone. Don't give us this dreck.

GOUGE: Here’s what’s wrong with the whole Nike deal: What if everybody is cheating, not a lot, just a little? You can either cheat by negligence or by intent. Intent is obviously reprehensible. Acknowledgement of negligence, however, should not be some badge of honor, however, despite the good intentions of the Nike Golf Sumo2 Conformance Program. Golf likes to say it’s a game of honesty and hence a game above all others. It’s a lie, especially when it comes to manufacturers. On the course, the obligation is to call penalties on yourself. But in the marketplace, the motivation seems to be to push the limits as much as possible until you go over the line, or more precisely, until you get caught.

BOMB: Strong words there pardsy. Technically everyone is, if not cheating, bending the rules. The rule, my friends, is 239 CT (Characteristic Time). Not 257. But everyone is above 239. And the reason is that there’s a speed limit but not enough cops on patrol. But my conspiracy-theorist partner, I have no doubt at all that manufacturers are merely pushing the limits, not trying to go over them. Times like these always bring to mind the Seve Ballesteros’ line to Paul Azinger during the Ryder Cup incident where the team Azinger was playing on inadvertently changed balls in violation of the rules. Azinger said, “We’re not trying to cheat here,” and Ballesteros replied, “Oh no—cheating and breaking the rules are two separate things.” But while Seve was being sarcastic, the fact is they are two different things. Cheating comes with intent. You can break the rules without intent to do so. I put Nike in the latter category in this instance. But like you said, there’s no badge of honor here. When Bob Jones was praised for calling a penalty on himself, he replied, “You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank.” So I’m not about to give Nike kudos for inconveniencing golfers and retailers. But I don’t think there was any intent here. Cheaters get disqualified. Nike gets a two-stroke penalty for breaking the rules. And there is an upside to this. Everyone’s going to be watching a lot more closely from now on.

GOUGE: Oh, but are they? Nike President Bob Wood’s implication was pretty clear. He wants the USGA to establish a program for regular testing of previously compliant product. As in, “We’re not the only ones.” And it doesn’t end there. When was the last time we heard about golf balls being pulled off the shelves for exceeding the overall distance standard? It hasn’t happened, and we believe it hasn’t happened because golf balls aren’t exceeding the Overall Distance Standard. But we believed that about drivers two weeks ago, didn’t we? Maybe it’s a mistake, “an unauthorized manufacturing variance,” as Nike calls it. But the vendor in Asia that does work for Nike (O-TA) is a proven entity. It even states explicitly in its company guidelines: “O-TA strives to manage itself within the highest ethical standards of integrity and reliability in dealing with customers, vendors and employees.” So who in this convoluted process ain’t gettin’ it done? Or is the line between being conforming and nonconforming so fiber-optic fine that you can’t even see when you’ve crossed it? If so, how can we be sure that the guy hitting it by you in the third flight of the club championship doesn’t have a driver that’s a little hot accidentally? I’m not ready to go off the deep end as a conspiracy theorist yet, but look at it this way: Has something fundamentally been changed about the way we trust golf manufacturers to deliver product that adheres to the rules of golf? Or do we just not care enough anymore? That’s the real tragedy here. Not that a driver face helps the ball go one yard farther.

BOMB: Read Jerry Potter’s piece in today’s USA Today and had a couple of “What??” moments. Although for the most part Potter’s piece was fine, I have to question some of it. Specifically, what’s up with the point about the design of new grooves lowering durability? I mean, even if it is true, so what? I’ve been playing golf for 35 years—since I was 10 years old. I’ve worked in a golf shop. Not once have I heard an everyday player say they had to buy a new set of irons because the grooves were worn out. I also would like to know, since the manufacturers are seemingly putting this forth as fact, just how many rounds of golf does it take to wear out these grooves? Is it 50 or is 500? If it’s closer to the latter than the former, I’m content with the amortization of the price of my clubs over that time frame. Potter also adds “grooves might have to be milled into the face and then buffed to meet the USGA’s guidelines.” So? Most wedge grooves today are already milled into the face. Will company’s have to redesign every groove? Sure. But haven’t they been doing that every few years anyway? Or have all these new “Mack Daddy,” “Spin Milled” and “Y-Cutter” grooves not been new designs?

GOUGE: Truthfully, partner, the piece is tripe. The problem with the USA Today story is it’s one-sided and incendiary. I cannot see how the rule change will cost golfers any more than if there had been no rule change. That’s not to say the cost of clubs will increase or decrease over the next decade. The market is the market. If you can’t sell me conforming clubs at the price I want to pay for those conforming clubs, you either adjust your price (and all that that implies) or you go out of business. If you were a manufacturer, why would you make less durable clubs? You wouldn’t. You’d find a way to deliver the same level of quality you always have. I’m not attacking the manufacturers because clearly they have an agenda and an opinion. They think there’s a better way to solve the problem of the declining deleterious effect of the rough. (Largely by saying it isn’t a problem, but mostly by suggesting that growing the rough for elite events might be enough of a solution.) The USGA has a different idea, and it has presented its findings to the manufacturers throughout the two-year period without cataclysmic and universal objection from the industry until this point in time. But to say the USGA proposal is flawed because it might increase cost to consumers and result in a decline in quality is the worst kind of obfuscation. Now, we can argue all day if this sort of proposed adjustment is too harsh a penalty for too small an issue. It is a small issue, but it can have far-reaching effects. As for it being too harsh a penalty, I’m not seeing it as a meaningful penalty for anyone other than those who deserve to be penalized the most: tour players. Cry me a bleepin’ river. And, oh by the way, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest the manufacturers ought to be dancing in the streets at the thought of all golfers having to buy new clubs if they want to play by the Rules of Golf. Every manufacturer ought to buy champagne, two wedges at a time.

BOMB: Hey buddy, know what really gets to me. It’s reading articles about equipment authored by people who either don’t cover equipment on a regular basis or simply don’t want to put the effort into it to fully understand it. Case in point: A recent effort by John Paul Newport over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal on the USGA’s recent grooves proposal. I didn’t get past the first graph before I wanted to punch my computer screen.

Said Mr. Newport: "Unless you are a total golf gearhead, you probably missed the report this week about the new limits on clubhead grooves. The U.S. Golf Association has proposed that, starting in 2010, irons must have grooves with edge radiuses no smaller than 0.01 inch. Radical, yes, but true. There's also a second specification, but it's too complicated to explain."

Excuse me? Too complicated to explain? Get another job then, John Paul. And the second part is not difficult to explain at all should you understand equipment, or simply place a call to Dick Rugge at the USGA, which should be a requisite for any equipment editor. So here’s a little cheat sheet for you: It is, in layman’s terms, a reduction in the volume of the groove—approximately a 50-percent reduction. That, in turn, channels away less grass, dirt and water, thereby reducing spin out of the rough. There, not so complicated now, is it?

“The changes are intended to stop elite players from imparting so much spin to shots hit from the rough. The USGA takes pains to point out that most of us recreational players won't notice any practical difference when the new regulations take effect, because we aren't skilled enough to impart spin out of the rough even using our current clubs.”

GOUGE: Maybe you’re being a little rough on Mr. Newport, or maybe you need a little more cream in your coffee. I think the piece is at least not incendiary and misinformed, unlike some comments from industry insiders who should know better. Still, Mr. Newport's audience probably isn’t smart enough to understand the concept of groove volume, given that most of his readers need a supercomputer to figure out just how many zeros are in their annual bonuses.  But let’s be careful about the skill to impart spin. I’d say a 40-yard pinch shot from the fairway that hits and stops is beyond most average golfers’ skill level. But a little pitch from the greenside rough that lands softly? Even I can hit that. I’m wondering just how much I’ll miss my razor-like grooves in 2010. Of course, when you’re hitting your fifth shot to the green, it’s hard to say how much your lack of skill has hurt you in ways that grooves can’t even begin to touch. Newport continues:

“The decree is a response to what many of the powers that be see as a disturbing trend in professional golf: a "de-skilling" of the game. When pros know they can hit precise shots to greens from anywhere, even the rough, they don't need to pay much attention to accuracy off the tee, they can just bomb it. Last week's winner on Tour, for instance, was a Swede named Henrik Stenson who averages more than 300 yards per drive. In the last five years, according to PGA Tour statistics, the correlation between driving accuracy and success, formerly significant, has been almost completely obliterated.

Jack Nicklaus thinks that this bomb-and-gouge mentality has ruined the professional game. ‘It used to be 80% shotmaking and about 20% power,’ he said in a lengthy first-person article in the current Golf Digest. Those percentages now are reversed, he said.”

BOMB: I get a kick every time someone says you can just bomb it anywhere and it doesn’t matter. Here’s the facts, Jack (and John Paul): It does matter. ShotLink shows that for the top 10 players on the PGA Tour money list last year that they were a combined 347 under par on approaches hit from the fairway between 50 and 125 yards. But from the same distance range in the rough they were a combined 52 over par. And that’s on considerably fewer attempts. Still think it doesn’t matter where you hit it? And for those looking at the numbers from the fairway and saying, “Ah ha! That’s why the game is in ruins!” I would say that long AND straight is a skill that should be rewarded. Pro golf is an athletic contest, isn’t it? And as for Nicklaus’ assertion that it’s now 80 percent a power game, well, the stats show distance has less an effect on winning than greens in regulation and putting. And Jim Furyk does OK with his pea-shooting tee balls, doesn’t he?
Newport continues:

“His proposed solution is to scale back the distance that golf balls travel by 10% or more. Among the advantages would be making some of the classic old courses, now too short, viable again as venues for pro tournaments.

Mr. Nicklaus is not the only one talking this way. Gary Player, Greg Norman and other luminaries, most of them past their playing prime, also support a ball rollback. The USGA is researching the issue and recently requested samples of limited-distance balls from manufacturers.

On its face, rolling back the ball seems like a reasonable response to concerns about distance, so this week I called two of the leading ball manufacturers, Titleist and Callaway, to ask what they thought.

Both companies denied that distance was a problem that needs solving right now, noting that driving averages on the PGA Tour, after climbing 26 yards between 1993 and 2003, have now mostly leveled off. If and when distances start climbing again and golf's governing bodies deem it necessary to act, both companies said they would be eager to help but that rolling back the ball for everyone is not the answer. ‘That would get us really hot and bothered,’ says Steven McCracken, senior executive vice president at Callaway.

Titleist has been especially aggressive in countering any whisper of support for ball rollback. Joseph Nauman, an executive vice president at Titleist's parent company, Acushnet, acknowledges that its executives have had ‘very pointed conversations’ with media and other organizations about the issue. In 2004, at the height of the alarums about distance, Titleist started pulling all of its ads from the industry's most outspoken magazine, Golf Digest. Mr. Nauman says that wasn't a response to articles on the distance controversy, but the action had a chilling effect nonetheless on ad-dependent media throughout the industry.

None of this is to suggest, however, that the ball makers don't have some good arguments to make. Balls were only partly responsible for recent distance increases on Tour; better clubs and club fitting, stronger, more athletic, better-trained players and faster fairways probably contributed even more. Designing balls that fly shorter yet retain other desirable playing traits would be far more complicated than people realize, and matching the new ones to players' unique styles would be highly disruptive.

Furthermore, speaking for myself, even if someone persuaded me that switching to shorter balls was necessary for the good of the game, I can't imagine being happy about it. I'd hate to have to start laying up short of that bunker on No. 2 that I now carry. Getting older is enough of a burden without having to play a shorter ball, too.

If push comes to shove, a solution that probably makes more sense is bifurcation -- requiring only elite players to use a shorter ball. The distance problem, after all, is theirs, not ours; driving averages for regular players apparently haven't increased much at all. But nobody really wants that. It would break the lovely (if illusory) bond that we have with the world's best players: We all use the same tools.

The whopping distance increases of the last 10 years have not been good for golf. They have robbed the pro game of some of its charm, wounded the pride of many old courses and distracted us from more nuanced pleasures. But for now, at least, the USGA seems to have its thumb in the dike and we can probably manage to live with things as they are. Let's just hope those pro driving averages don't start getting out of hand again. That could prove a sad, regrettable mess for everyone.”

GOUGE: The sound you hear is me biting my lip. First, there will never be a regrettable mess in golf. The constituencies are all together on this, even though they have the occasional disagreement. Titleist’s and Joe Naumann’s “very pointed discussions” have had no sort of chilling effect on either of us. Why the two of us occasionally agree on not being bothered by distance is the evidence that Dick Rugge has presented about distance not being a dominant effect in the game. Those like Nicklaus and Norman and Player who are whining about distance are whining about something they no longer have. The fact is a guy averaging 268.1 yards off the tee, Jose Coceres, can get himself in a playoff two weeks in a row on the PGA Tour. Two other guys in the playoff were averaging 295.1 (Camilo Villegas) and 294.0 (Boo Weekley) and the guy who won it was ranked 117th in driving distance. Where is the fire? I do think it’s a little silly seeing Robert Allenby hit it 360 yards on a 525-yard par four. Almost as silly as a 525-yard par four. But let’s remember what par is: the designated number of strokes a scratch player could be expected to take on a hole in ideal conditions. Anybody who doesn’t think a scratch player shouldn’t be expected to take four strokes on a baby-sized hole that mere mortals play as a par five, well, they just don’t understand golf.  But I’m not overwrought by it. Again: Over the last four years, driving distance has increased at its lowest rate since 1992. Maybe it shouldn’t have grown so much so fast, but we’re here now and it’s anything but tragic. What is tragic—contrary to your ShotLink stats, partner—is how tour players hit shots from the rough and don't more than occasionally make triple from there. The grooves rule is the USGA’s effort to restore fear and doubt back to the game. Not saying it will be successful, but I need a lot more convincing to suggest distance is a problem. Everyone will continue to take their chances from shorter distances in the rough, because when it gets right down to it, they’re weak mentally. Doubt me? How many of the best players in the world were content to play last year’s British Open the way Tiger Woods did? About, oh, none. Case closed. Now, those intestinal lightweights who continue to bomb away will have their weakness exposed. That will be good fun to watch.