BOMB: Read three things lately that while not earth-shattering, were utterly irksome. First was Jim Achenbach's piece in Golfweek touting the use of nine clubs. Jimbo opens his story with "Enough of the 14-club rule. I challenge all golfers to play with nine clubs."

Nice enough idea. Jim goes on to give some of the reasons. Makes walking easier. You'll probably score the same or maybe better (although where the factual evidence of this is I do not know). Play will likely be faster. Shotmaking will be better. He watched a teaching pro shoot 65 with a reduced set and writes, "It has occurred to me that most of us are missing something by playing with 14 clubs."

Really?

Let us hit the rewind button to the Dec. 14, 2007 issue of Golfweek, a little more than three months ago. The No. 1 item on Jim's Christmas wish list was "A new USGA rule allowing 15 clubs rather than the current 14." The reasoning being "Tour players don't need 15 clubs, but my friends at Take-Your-Lumps Links certainly do. A 15-club rule would stimulate golf equipment sales and benefit golfers who need more clubs to execute a variety of shots."

OK, this is not exactly Hillary Clinton claiming to have been under sniper fire when in fact she was hugging a child and posing for pictures. And I certainly agree that people have the right to change their mind when new information becomes available. But what exactly happened in the last three months for that switch? Dude, make up your mind. Is it 9 or 15?

Next up was Tommy Bonk's piece in the Los Angeles Times on Phil Mickelson's woes off the tee, although as point of full disclosure I read this on geoffshackelford.com and not the LA Times’ site. Bonk cites Philly Mick's stats where he "has found only 55 percent of his fairways, down slightly from 2007 and far off his 62.9 percent in 2004 when he won the Masters for the first time." Bonk continues, "He's also averaging 292.3 yards in driving distance, more than eight yards shorter than in 2006 when he won the Masters for the second time."

Now, I'm a stats guy and here's what gets me about that. Lets not take the cafeteria approach to the numbers. His accuracy is off from 2004. His distance is off from 2006. Jeez Louise, pick a benchmark my man and go from there. How about this for a benchmark. He's played through the WGC-CA this year so lets see where he was at WGC-CA last year with 2008 numbers first. Distance: 292.3 (ranked 17th) to 297.0 (ranked 13th). Accuracy: 55.45 (ranked 171st) to 60.11 (ranked 101st). Still kinda sorta makes Bonk's point but is a slightly more reliable data point.

And finally, we touched on the TaylorMade/Nickent catfight over advertising claims recently, but it has been brought to our attention that a TaylorMade ad that ran in the Feb. 8 issue of my very own Golf World, was not exactly all on the up and up, either, claiming to be "the most-played putter at the FBR Open" with its Spider model. Just like Nickent's ads were likely technically within legal boundaries while stretching the truth, so is this ad. At the FBR there were eight putters designated as Scotty Cameron by Titleist prototypes, many of which were the Newport style. Combine that with those slugged Newport and it's clear which is the No. model at that event. To the TM boys, I’d be careful about tossing those stones at Nickent without reviewing your own ad copy first.

GOUGE: I'm not saying this is enough of a series of outrages to get someone out of a hospital bed, but I hear what you're saying. The whole thing about the club limit is perhaps the most interesting topic for me, and the easiest to understand. To tell you the truth, TaylorMade and Nickent can yell at each other until their logos change colors, and it won't matter one scintilla to Mr. and Mrs. American Golfer. Make clubs, promote them, don't lie. Does it ever need to be any more complicated than that? And as for trying to justify why Phil Mickelson, or anyone else, can't somehow turn himself into a legitimate rival to Tiger Woods, well, it would be easier to make a case for Ron Paul being elevated to King of the World status. Statistics are merely a language for trying to understand reality. As such, statistics are an approximation, like translating a Basho haiku. For instance, do we think players really are driving it shorter on the PGA Tour than they did five years ago? Shorter seems unlikely. The numbers say one thing, indicate a trend perhaps, but they never complete encapsulate an issue. And the issue for why Phil Mickelson is not Tiger Woods ultimately has very little to do with numbers.  Now to the real question at hand. Our technical advisor Frank Thomas has long advocated a reduction to 10 clubs as a way to challenge the better player and not harm the weaker player. Man it would be fun, and the game could use an injection of fun. But how can you advocate 15 clubs as a limit one month and trot out 9 the next month? Stimulate equipment sales? Please. What needs to be stimulated is the ability for average golfers to gain a better understanding of how to maximize the potential of their sets. That means more education, less confusion and a higher premium placed on developing fitters at a level we've reserved for teaching pros and club managers. I have no doubt the right collection is out there for every player. Finding the way to get the right advice on that collection is the game's real silent killer, not that elusive 15th club.

BOMB: Well, it wasn't exactly a happy first day of Spring for the folks at Nickent, now was it? Yesterday TaylorMade filed a suit in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego seeking "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for (a) false advertising, and (b) unfair competition, and demand for a jury trial."

According to the complaint which I am reading right now, the issue stems from claims made by Nickent in ads that ran in Golf Magazine and on The Golf Channel, along with those made on Nickent's website claiming in various ways that their drivers are the hottest on tour or that Nickent has the No. 1 driver model on the 2008 Nationwide Tour. The suit notes that the claims essentially use a pair of early-season Nationwide Tour events as the basis of their claims.

But cutting through all the legalities of this, here's my take: whether or not Nickent is on sound legal ground here is almost beside the point. If you're the No. 1 driver model or brand at a specific Nationwide Tour event, why can't you simply tout that in your ads rather than try to cloak it in fancy wording that attempts to make it sound like more than it really is? I don't care if you use an asterisk and run a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of the page—it's simply wrong to try to make the consumer think it's something other than it is. Message to all who partake in this kind of activity: Clean up your act.

GOUGE: Sorry, friend, but golf equipment has increasingly become a spin-off of Divorce Court. It's all about the lawyers anymore. Just see the Callaway-Titleist dispute over the Pro V1. Or maybe the Ogio-Callaway lawsuit over golf bags. (Golf bags?!) Or the fact that our friend David Dawsey actually has an entire website devoted to golf patents and golf patent litigation.

It's an ugly business further fragmented by an agency, the U.S. Patent Trademark Office, that is thoroughly outmanned (as anyone would be) when it comes to understanding and adjudicating the intricacies of golf equipment technology. Golf patent applications dwarf those in other sports. Which is interesting, admirable and, of course, a recipe for nightmares in the legal system. We all know who wins (lawyers), but the real losers are consumers, who may end up so confused and angry that they stop believing any claims, assuming everybody is lying. How does that help an industry that's already struggling to attract new players? (I tell you one thing: A truckload of legal issues do little to help the game reach toward affordability.)

Golf's legal morass is a turf war played in a muck-filled swamp. And that's not even getting to legitimate questions of intellectual property rights. This TaylorMade-Nickent thing is just stupid infighting taken public. Here's how it needs to be resolved. TaylorMade makes a phone call to Nickent, saying please stop, what you're saying is misleading (at best). Then Nickent acknowledges the error of its ways and moves on. It's supposed to be a game of honor, last I checked.  Unfortunately, now it's no more sophisticated than two rabid, starved dogs fighting over a bone.

BOMB: You know what blows, folks? Having your partner in blogging getting smacked like a piñata in a car accident. Thankfully, the bruises are starting to heal and with any luck at all he'll be able to swing soon enough and my kid's college fund can continue to grow from the winnings. So pardsy, in an effort to get you back to your old irascible self, here's a couple spring-training-like fastballs down the middle for you take a swing at.

Did you see Johnny Miller's comments in the recent  edition of Callaway Golf's magazine? OK, I know a magazine produced by an equipment company is going to be shill city, but I still was taken aback by the extent of it by Johnny Miller touting the interchangeable-shaft I-Mix system. In particular I liked when after touting it for the everyday player he said, "I can even see somebody like Phil Mickelson using I-Mix on tour because it's spontaneous and he knows exactly what he's looking for."

Helllllllllllllllloooo. That's exactly the point, Johnny. Philly Mick does know what he's looking for. The chopper being sold on this system has no freaking clue and would be doing well just to get properly fit in the first place. I like the idea of adjustability and its potential, but I am far from sold on selling multiple heads or shafts to consumers and telling them to have it. Besides, wouldn't simply switching to a different ball have an equal or greater effect on an everyday player's game given different conditions? And how many players do you know that change balls in different conditions? Not many, my friend. Not many.

Here's another one for you to gnaw on, too. It was written in another publication that our grooves were going to be taken away from us "soon." It's now some two months later. I don't know about you, but soon and two months don't usually go together. Two weeks, yes. Two months, not so much. But the real question now is whether anything will be done at all. I still say yes because I find it difficult to believe the USGA will just walk away after three years of research without doing something. But I think that is exactly what they should do. Driving distance on tour this year is down three yards from the same time last year. Sure, it's a small sample, but I think everyone would agree that by year's end it's not likely we will see an increase of any substance, if any at all. And that would make it difficult to defend implementing a groove rollback, don't you think?

GOUGE: I don't know what's worse. Being drilled in a head-on collision (wear those seat belts, kids, even when you're riding in the back seat of a limo like I was), or having to hold a sneeze for three weeks so you don't fracture a rib. Seriously, a belated thanks to all those get-well wishes from friends near and far. I'll be chunking and slashing like my old self in no time at all. What's that you say? Johnny Miller overstating the case without any facts at his disposal? Shocking. I do think Mickelson and many other tour players will go the adjustable route. One thing I've heard is that a mechanical joint (like in adjustable clubs) is more consistent and reliable than epoxy (let me know when you feel comfortable driving across a bridge made of epoxy). Still, adjustable clubs make for a better fitting tool, and I'm encouraged that Ping, Nike and Tour Edge are getting into the adjustable fitting system game and joining Callaway and TaylorMade. The golfer wins, provided he can find a qualified fitter, which unfortunately is not as easy as it sounds.

I do think it's worth noting that driving distance is once again trending flat to down. Certainly, the argument is that there are just more 3-woods off the tee these days (Tiger Woods hit driver maybe once on the back nine at Bay Hill). So what? If guys don't feel they can hit the driver in play, the ultimate result is that they're still hitting a long-ish club into the green, which is what we all want. It would help if the greens weren't mush pads like they were last week, but I like seeing a few more 6-iron second shots and a few less 9-irons. It is interesting to note that a flat year in average driving distance would mean that figure hasn't moved more than a total of three yards since 2003. The last year that sort of pattern was maintained for that long was pre-titanium 1995. On the other hand, thanks to new Trackman data being made available by the PGA Tour's ShotLink system, what may be most disconcerting is that the No. 1 player in the game hasn't even come close to maxing out his launch conditions with the driver. In short, he's not even as dominant as he could be.

As for grooves, there's no question this issue, which appeared all but signed, sealed and delivered last fall, is about as near a resolution as me not wearing a seat belt anytime soon. Fact is, the best thing that could happen won't. Namely, the groove rule as proposed should be implemented on the PGA Tour for a five-year evaluation period. Only then will we see if it makes a difference. And, by the way, let's get rid of any club with more loft than 54 degrees, too. Just for fun. But keep your eyes open. The USGA will have to deal with this issue by the Torrey Pines Open, if only because somebody will bring it up at their annual press conference that week.