GOUGE: Another idyllic, crystal clear day here at lovely CordeValle. Not that our panelists had time to notice the afternoon sunshine glinting off the carpet-like range. It was a full day of batting around 33 drivers, 17 wedges and about a dozen mid-mallet putters. I wasn't keeping an official running count, but the day lasted a steady eight hours and conservatively our team of human golf club taste testers amassed easily a combined well over 700 swings of a golf club, whether it be drives, chips, bunker shots, pitches or putts. You think you're tough enough for the Hot List? That's why we start with a big breakfast and interrupt the proceedings with a visit from the staff massage therapists here at Cordevalle.
But it wasn't all the big swings that got my attention today. Instead, it was some of the finesse moves that got me thinking. In a field of 17 wedges, nearly all with some form of square grooves and many with the most aggressive grooves allowed by the U.S. Golf Association, one (fairly obvious) word kept emanating from our panelists: Spin. Quite simply even the highest handicappers in our group were able to get their short shots to check up. Whether they be the high lofted flop shots from first-time contributor Ricky Brown or the lower, softly checking chip and run shots from second-year veteran Sterling Price, the confidence each player had with their ability to execute these sorts of shots was unsettling, especially to someone like me whose short game conjures up images of Roberto "Hands of Stone" Duran. Still, knowing what I know about where the rules of the game are headed starting in January 2010, I couldn't help but wonder if the general population, to say nothing of the game's elite players, are prepared for the relative shock to the system that might ensue when they find out that short game shots don't behave the way they used to with grooves that could be as much as 40 percent less efficient. You see, what's amazing is that spin seems to have been presented as the exclusive domain of the game's elite players, yet from what I saw today, it's out there to be had for nearly anyone, even those who catch as many in the teeth as they do on the screws. or more importantly, in the grooves. We've recently seen video from one of our Hot List scientists showing just how much a multilayer urethane covered ball is caught in the aggressive grooves of a new wedge. That experience could be on its way to becoming as distant a memory as the deft execution of a stymie. For me and for you. What really stood out as the sun drifted toward the ridgeline late Friday afternoon was just how often the wedges that had the least aggressive groove technology (though still dramatically more aggressive than what will be allowed to be manufactured starting in 2010) were found to be lacking as our panel of players and teachers evaluated the performance of the current crop of wedges. And I wondered just how those evaluations might sound, oh say, next fall when manufacturers (maybe) start introducing "new" products that might not be so good at, er, grabbing your attention around the greens.

GOUGE: Sometimes when you seek the privacy of a quiet, idyllic resort tucked away in the foothills and valleys of the Santa Cruz Mountains, you get just a little bit too far away from reality. Which most of the time is not all that bad a thing. Except when you're supposed to be working and filing a daily blog and access to the internet shuts down. And the FedEx Kinko's closes shop at 9 p.m. It really makes it easy to focus on hitting balls on the range, which after all is the whole point of this exercise in the first place. Hitting a ton of golf shots was exactly what got done today, the first day of extreme golf with our player and teacher panelists. It was a very efficient session, arguably as smooth an operation as we've ever  had (on-range masseuses included), and the group even had time for golf in the late afternoon at Cordevalle. The beauty of the day's events was that everything we expected to happen probably did, as did just about everything we didn't expect to happen. For instance, the usual suspects rose to the occasion as all the excitement behind the new Callaway X-22 irons, the venerable Ping fairway woods and a new platoon of Odyssey putters (Hint: 2-Ball gets some new siblings...) was put to the test.

Of course, what torques me off is when the uninformed out there in internet land jump to grotesquely insipid and dangerously wrong assumptions. Like this gem I uncovered this evening from some goon at Golfwrx.com: "Large advertising budget with Golf Digest = Hot List Awards." Really? Is that pathetic belief system still out there? Maybe it would be worthwhile to reveal the kinds of clubs that get considered for the Hot List. Clubs from companies like Hireko and Fourteen and Snake Eyes and Gel and Profound, none of whom advertise in the magazine. And certainly there's no guarantee to suggest that any or all of these companies will be represented on the final list when it appears in our February issue, but they are at this stage as much in the game as any other company. That's right, as much as Callaway, TaylorMade and Titleist. To put it in perspective, our original search for candidates for Game Improvement irons focused on some 35 entries. We are now down to 15 here in Cordevalle and they were put through their paces in front of scientists, retailers and now players. Not all will make it, but to suggest that advertising budgets determine the Hot List makes this whole year-long enterprise a colossal waste of time and serious dollars. The commitment of all of our panelists to work hard to make this event and this process meaningful and serious and beyond reproach is overwhelming, and I'm truly gratified to be surrounded here by a team so committed to doing this thing the right way. And as I've said many times, if the Hot List were about advertising, just whom would we satisfy? The companies that advertise in the magazine? Or the ones that don't, so that they might be convinced to advertise in the future? It's a premise that completely falls apart when you shed a little light on it. The Hot List exists because readers have requested we provide a little guidance before they head to the golf shop. When we use the phrase that the Hot List is the single most important project our company does, it is not idle marketing speak. In an era when fiduciary responsibility seems to have lost any semblance of meaning, this is a project that remains our most important responsibility, and the hard work that happens here and throughout the year is the make-good on that responsibility.

Finally, on a serious note, let's send some get-well wishes to Bomb's dad, recovering in the hospital in Connecticut. Let's hope father and son are out on the golf course together again soon.

BOMB: Day two with our retailers wound down and after sifting through every category of clubs imaginable, Ken Morton Jr. of Haggin Oaks Golf Superstore in Sacramento, California, asked a seemingly innocent enough question--one that set off one of our more animated discussions. The query? "Have you guys given any thought to having a category for chippers?"

Chippers? Chippers. Seriously. Chippers? CHIPPERS??????

To serious golfers, the use of a chipper ranks right up there with carrying a ball retriever--one that elongates out some 15 feet, to boot. Or carrying that little steel brush to clean your clubs. Or headcovers for irons. It's something you simply don't do unless you want to get laughed out of your foursome. But when pressed why he asked, Morton replied that he had sold more than 50 Ray Cook chippers. Dale Robbins of Dale's Winning Edge in Knoxville, Tenn., added he had sold more than 50 of Odyssey's putting wedge. And the other retailers told similar tales, including one of Adams Golf's recent chipper introduction being so popular it is now backordered to mid-November.

Personally, I'd be aghast if it weren't the for the fact that I recently have had first-hand experience with a chipper--Cleveland Golf's Niblick model (sorry, boys, you call it Niblick but it's still a freaking chipper). During two rounds of golf using the 37-degree club, it proved to be nearly impossible to chunk a chip, gave adequate loft and proved versatility far beyond anything I could imagine, including hitting it off the tee on a 125-yard par 3 to 12 feet. The short shaft felt controllable and for some reason it just plain worked. I felt filthy enough for using it that I had to take a shower afterward, but hey, it saved me strokes so laugh all you want.

GOUGE: I cannot laugh at such sacrilege. Any golfer with a soul knows that these infernal crutches can be considered nothing short of the raping of the American golfer. It's creating a buzz for a morally reprehensible piece of equipment. It's a plague of rewarding incompetence and mediocrity in one of the most fundamental segments of the playing of a game whose very existence is built on the honest challenge of its varied requirements.

But then again, the things work.

And golfers are incompetent, especially at the short game.

And I'm one of them, of course.

And if you've never watched a career 25-handicapper skull and chunk a hundred straight short shots, then you don't know how much a life can be changed by successfully executing a chip shot.

So where to come down on this particular equipment-related travesty? If chippers, niblicks and putting wedges are keeping someone in the game, that can hardly be a bad thing. Still, if chippers, niblicks and putting wedges are the game's salvation, then you and I will soon be putting together the Hot List at Cat Fancy. If your short game has reached a new depth of pathetic only previously knowable by Linus Van Pelt at the realization that there is no such thing as the Great Pumpkin, then by all means try anything. But don't be fooled. No piece of equipment can eliminate a problem, it can only mask it--and only then for a limited period of time. A brilliant man once remarked that if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. A one-dimensional solution can only last for a short period of time and only work in specific situations (like a chipper, which only works when you have a straight shot off tight grass to the hole, anywhere else it's a liability). Why would you buy a chipper, when you could get a lesson or practice or do both? And that chipper won't help you lob one up to the green over a bunker. So why again are you forfeiting one of the 14 slots in your bag for a one-dimensional product that in real terms is no better or at least no different than a hybrid or a 7-iron?

Because it'll only cost you 30 bucks. And, of course, your soul.

BOMB: Comedian Ron White once said "You can't fix stupid." In some ways, our retailer panel, which convened for its first day today was, in essence, said the same thing when the general consensus was that, when it came to drivers, you can't sell straight.

"Distance is the drug and the consumer is hooked," said Susan Roll of Carlsbad Golf Center. Added two of our other panelists, "How many drivers did Calvin Peete sell back in his heyday? How many is Corey Pavin selling
today? People want distance." Our august panel of experts includes Roll, Ken Morton Jr. of Haggin Oaks Golf Complex, Leigh Bader of Joe & Leigh's Golf Shop and 3balls.com, Dale Robbins of Dale's Winning Edge Golf Headquarters, Casey Baker of Michigan's Miles of Golf and John Lyberger, PGA Professional and Director of Golf at Congressional Country Club. 

Unfortunately, some manufacturers, especially those with high MOI drivers, are trying to convince the consumer that straighter is better. But it's an uphill climb to be sure. One experiment we conducted earlier this week was a shaft-length test that showed in over 200 hits that a 44 1/2-inch driver was more effective for a number of players than a 45 1/2 or a 46 1/2-inch driver. Why? Because the shorter-shafted club went straighter. It also, in many instances, went a little shorter. And in this era of launch-monitor fitting, trying to convince a buyer that straighter is better may be more difficult than figuring out the Pythagorean theorem that shows that to be true.

But then again my number-crunching friend, I did see you with your calculator out during dinner. What did you find out?

GOUGE: Sadly, the calculator was for adding up my score on the back nine. Even more sadly, I doubt either of us could successfully apply the Pythagorean Theorem to our tee balls, even if you spotted us the a² plus the b². Still, here's something to think about the next time you start eyeballing a crazy long driver shaft: Accuracy matters for two simple reasons: Hitting it solid is the difference between a productive smash factor and an inept smash factor. (Smash factor is an indication of how solidly power is transferred from the clubhead to the ball. It means the ball is leaving the face with more intensity and with a spin axis in line with the direction of the intended target.) It is no great stretch to suggest that the average golfer hits more solid shots with his 7-iron than his driver, so why would you give him a longer shaft, thus making the most unwieldy club in the bag even more prone to calamity than a brain surgeon hopped up on Red Bull, Hot Tamales and cocaine? So, let's assume you're trying to convince someone that straighter is better than longer when it comes to a driver. It's a fool's game. The two concepts, accuracy and distance, don't reside on opposite sides of the street. Rather, they share a driveway. Distance starts with ball speed, ball speed starts with solid contact. In terms of real numbers, if you take all the drivers that have reached the final stages for our Hot List consideration and then you compared off-center hits ball speed vs. on-center hits ball speed, you will see an average of 3 mph of difference. That's easily seven yards difference right there in the favor of the more accurate driver. But it's better than that: It's not much of a stretch to say those off-center hits are inefficient impacts, too. That means they launch with too low an angle, too much spin or both. And that means another 15 yards lost. So your "longer" driver is actually going to produce more terrible hits and ultimately less distance. And don't forget that those shorter carrying straight drives are going to hit the fairways and roll more. Those wild longer carrying shots won't roll so much when they land in the rough, or worse. It all speaks to the need of average golfers to get fit, and be willing to get into a shorter-shafted driver. And that research on shaft length? I don't think it's anywhere conclusive yet, but those longer-length shaft shots produced inconsequential and sometimes less total distance for all players, regardless of ability level.

You may not be able to sell straight, but that's only because you're equating straight with short when straight is about as long as you can get.

BOMB & GOUGE: Neither of us are thrilled with being away from home for two straight weeks, but if you're going to be away from home, few places are as exquisitely comfortable as CordeValle in San Martin, Calif. Associate Equipment Editor Max Adler has been here even longer, and while he's been charged with coordinating the endless minutiae of our annual Hot List Summit, he's as good a tour guide to the comforts away from home of this picture postcard place. He writes, "After the thirty-minute barrel south from San Jose airport, the exit off U.S. 101 seems at first a deliverance into John Steinbeck's 1939 novel "The Grapes of Wrath" -- straight roads lined with dust, heat and not much else. But all feelings of desperation reverse when you go through the front gate of CordeValle and a young man with a walkie-talkie knows your last name and your nostrils suddenly expand at the scent of grape. The Clos LaChance Vineyards border the golf course and there will be a bottle of their red waiting in your room whether you ask for it or not. And 'room' is a terrible understatement. Steinbeck himself would need a chapter to paint a vivid idea of the number nooks, robes, flat screen TV's, lotions, folded white towels and other surprises stocked in each 'room.' Migrant ranch worker shanties these are not.

"The arid foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains are a perfect place to hold a Hot List. When you're attempting to hit and thoroughly evaluate 3,000 pounds of golf clubs (so said our shipping bill from Yellow Freight) in under two weeks there's no time for a rain delay. As promised last March by the Director of Golf Travis Skeesick, our forecast is for nothing but sun, each icon shining like a coin on weather.com for the next ten days. In fact, the region is so dry that a forest fire ignited this past Fourth of July when lightning simply struck the ground. On the rolling hillside that provides the backdrop to our driving range, we can still see traces of the charred black earth. Lucky for everyone, firefighters halted the encroaching flames before they could come father down the valley and harm the course designed by Robert Trent Jones, Jr.

"We've been chained to the driving range thus far, though some of us did sneak out for nine holes today. The roughly 500 members who belong here, and the resort guests who pony up the $400 greens fee, do get a real treat. The greens are fast and true, and the vista tee-shots encourage you to swing freely though the landing areas are tighter than they appear. In the first week of November, the UCLA Men's team will host its annual tournament here. When a top-shelf Division I program chooses a course 317 miles north of campus, you know the place has to be good."

The next couple of days will be filled with more of the amenities of CordeValle and meetings with our team of retailers, who will help our editors get a sense of the marketplace. More reports on their perspective to come...

GOUGE: Today is the first day of genuine heavy lifting at the annual Hot List Summit. When you sit in a room full of Ph.Ds like we did this morning with Hot List Technical Panel, you better bring your "A" brain. I was with them until they started talking about quadratic equations and velocity cubed, but for the most part I think the liberal arts majors in the room (I majored in philosophy) didn't get lapped by the field. I prefaced our annual meeting with the eggheads by referencing the old game show The Liars Club. That's perhaps a bit harsh because the technology we see is genuinely impressive. As I recently wrote, the deep thinkers at golf's leading companies are not merely looking for a needle in a haystack, they are looking for the needle because the only room for innovation anymore is within the eye of that needle. So sometimes the technology stories we receive for the Hot List need the kind of fine-tooth comb treatment that only our team of engineering wizards can provide. The Golf Digest Hot List engineering Ph.D team consists of George Springer of Stanford, Jack Hu of the University of Michigan, Martin Brouillette of the Universite de Sherbrooke, John McPhee of the University of Waterloo, David Lee of Gordon College and John Axe, a retired expert in condensed matter science and neutron scattering from Brookhaven National Laboratory. These guys are plenty smart, for sure, but they speak in simple terms that even a guy who made it through college without taking a single science course can understand. Like Martin Brouillette reminded us early on, "The golf ball is blind. It doesn't care about any of this technology. Where it goes at impact is a function of the center of mass of the club, the moment of inertia tensor and the COR [coefficient of restitution] distribution on the face." In other words, how you get there is largely immaterial. Generally speaking, not everything in golf equipment works because of what you see when you look at the club. That might include things like the grooves on a putter face, the shape of a cavity on a game-improvement iron and whether a driver can in and of itself increase your swing speed. We investigated all of those topics and more during an intellectual steel cage match of a morning and early afternoon, but the most amazing discovery was how eager the team was to try out all the new stuff on the range and the golf course. And every one of our dream team found several new items to add to their shopping list for next golf season. So for all their critical review, they found plenty to get excited about. In other words, they're all golfers, too.

BOMB: I hear ya, my friend. Not only are they plenty smart (heck, they own more Ph.D.s than John McCain has homes), but they can also speak in simple terms, such as when one said, "There is technology and then there is baloney technology." That's the real value of our academic panel. They don’t just answer our questions, but help us toss the b.s. flag on a claim that might sound good on paper, but just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Backing that up is an intense desire to get to what makes clubs work. Brouillette, for example, conducting a putter face study that included more than 250 different experiments. Such attention to detail allows us to discover technology that makes sense. That makes a difference. That is significant and in the end, makes it worth it for our readers to dig into their wallets yet again for a new piece of golf equipment. And shockingly, we had little trouble following along, making that two-day crash course in physics we took last year from John McPhee well worth that eight-hour drive home after the flight from Toronto got canceled. When the discussion turned to MOI matching on irons, more than one cited "The Physics of Golf" by Theodore Jorgensen--a book published nearly a decade ago--to make the case it was nothing new. And some of what we learned had nothing to do with specific clubs, but with theories about golf equipment (you might want to try a shorter shaft in your driver, they say). On the topic of clubs, however, our eggheads were generally impressed by what the manufacturer's had to offer this year. "Last year was pretty boring," said Brouillette. "But the manufacturers have come up with some very interesting concepts this year, particularly in irons." When a man of Brouillette's credentials (and golf swing) is intrigued by some of the clubs that may find their way onto the Hot List, well, you should be, too.

GOUGE: So I'm riding in my brother-in-law's fancy new car the other day and I watch him taking directions through the sultry voice of his flip-up nav screen, and it occurred to me: Wow, this thing really works. It gets you where you want to go without you having to think too much about it. I thought about the nav screen story as we went through some testing with the Trackman launch monitor this morning that showed us just how effective equipment technology can be. The subject under review was the anti-slice driver, and what we saw both on the Trackman read out (see chart) and in the repeated ballflights arcing high and to the left made one thing completely clear: Any right-hander who still hits the ball to the right is quite simply too dumb to live.

There are plenty of drivers out there that claim to fight the slice and the two handfuls we ran through today with golfers of varying ability all resisted the right in such universal accord it was like listening to an Obama-Biden campaign rally. (I apologize for that mediocre humor reference.) You can see the scatter plot of all the shots that were hit and the evidence is irrefutable. These clubs truly feel different, and that confidence lets you take a portion of the golf course out of play. You can aim it just inside the right mower line and have very little worry that your shot won't move left. It's a beautiful thing, like GPS for your tee shot.

BOMB: A beautiful thing? I don't know about that. In fact, it was pretty unnerving to stand up, make a good swing and see a ball start off straight and then go further left than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow combined (hey, if you can make a cheap political reference then so can I). How far left? The anti-slice drivers we tested stopped an average of 16.05 yards left of the center line according to Trackman. And in our group of testers, not one of the players would be considered to have a strong right-to-left driver ball flight. Impressive.

You'll have to wait for the February issue of Golf Digest to find out which club made driving on the left easier than when you're in Europe, but I can tell you that one club averaged 37.9 yards left of center. Now, that club is not pretty to look at. But that tee ball you're hacking into the right woods on a regular basis isn't exactly a thing of beauty, either, Mr. Hack 'N Chop. Heck, even the livestock lined up to see what was going on. JAnd when that happens, all you can say is Holy Cow! These things work. Bottom line: If you want to kill your slice, you probably can. It might cost you a few snickers from your buddies on the first tee, but so what? You'll be laughing all the way to the bank from cashing in on the Nassaus -- at least until your handicap catches up with your newfound ability to keep the ball in play.

BOMB (pictured above): One of our main tenets of the Hot List always has been this: That if you're not at least investigating new products and new technologies, or finding ways to make your clubs be a better fit for your game, then you really don't want to get better. The same holds true for us. Even though it's our job to look at, hit and decipher every piece of equipment imaginable, we also, like you, want to play better (and losing to Gouge and his partner, Jerry Tarde, in our inter-office team competition only makes me more determined to do that). In some ways, the Hot List offers that opportunity. And today I think I found something I never dreamed I would have.

As an amateur player, when I swing I'm hauling the mail, clocking in with somewhere between a 104 and 106 mile per hour swing speed. So like most players, I make the assumption that I need a stiff shaft in the driver, right? But I'm also a low launch, high spin player -- which makes driver fitting a bit of a problem. More loft adds launch, but also adds spin. But one of our tests today had us trying to figure out if loft or shaft flex mattered more. I hit a 10.5-degree driver with a stiff shaft and then a 9-degree regular flex driver. Guess what boys and girls? Me, the self-proclaimed "Bomb," had a better launch condition and hit the ball farther with the regular shaft driver. Moral of the story being to check your ego -- and your assumptions -- at the door.

GOUGE: I think your case points to the challenge that consumers face when it comes to equipment. The only way new equipment can't help you is if you assume you understand it completely. It's unfortunate, however, because you can't understand equipment completely unless it's your full-time job and no one has that kind of time. The answer? Challenge your assumptions. Don't think a new driver makes a difference? Get on a launch monitor with your current driver and get educated. Think your 3-year-old wedge is just fine? Borrow a new wedge and hit one 20-yard chip shot and see if you see a difference. Or maybe just trust that it matters so much that the USGA is progressively outlawing those aggressive wedge grooves starting in just 14 months. And, like we investigated today, if all you have is a pitching wedge and a sand wedge, and you might have as much as a 30-yard gap in your bag.

And when it comes to shafts? We've both seen plenty of research that "shows" how crucial they are to ballflight, and we've seen research that suggests they might not affect ballflight in any way at all, and even more research that indicates shafts are only reliable when oriented in a certain way. Truly, I don't think anybody can say anything with certainty about some universally constant effect of a shaft. But I do think you can't know anything for certain about what's right for you without a thorough investigation. And that means challenging your assumptions. So tomorrow we'll try some Senior Flex shafts for you.

BOMB: Perhaps the last thing I expected from our first day here at CordeValle Resort (other than you passing on the chocolate lava cake for dessert), was seeing Kirk Triplett tee it up two spots down on the range from us (he was here for the annual Steve Young/Jerry Rice Bay Area Classic). Even better was his open and honest assessment of the state of equipment and how it has impacted the game.

He listed three things he felt would help combat the advances technology had made. And when a three-time PGA Tour winner speaks, it serves people well to listen. Triplett felt that if you reduced driver head size to 250cc, took away square grooves and banned the long putter (an offense so egregious that you feel people should be banished to an island for using them), that the game would be more interesting. He even drove his point home by hitting some shots for us with a TaylorMade metal driver, circa 1983 which showed him getting 10-15 m.p.h. less ball speed than on a modern driver. Such limits might help rein in the game's elite, but I'm not sure they should be in place for the masses. You, however, may have different thoughts--even if you did hit one 7-iron shot a whopping 48 yards with a smash factor of 0.52 according to
Trackman.

GOUGE: I'm pacing myself. And we all know that long putters and belly putters are grotesque malformations of the game's true intentions. Triplett's assessment was intriguing, measured and thoughtful, not full of the blather you usually hear from golf technology reactionaries. He used the phrase "more interesting, not necessarily better," and admitted he had played his entire career with square grooves. He thinks that particular adjustment will be significant for shots from the light rough. Either way, I think we've both seen enough smart minds at the game's equipment companies to realize that any 250 cc driver of the future (the size of the old Great Big Bertha Titanium driver of 1995) would be way better than the original invention, but still not as helpful to you or I as the current crop of 460 cc clubs. In fact, we let a few other of the guests at CordeValle try out the TaylorMade relic, including a decorated teacher with a syrupy swing that Triplett assured us was much better than his own. Well, that swing that moved through the ball effortlessly with a a 460 cc driver head snap hooked a few and actually topped a couple others before hitting a couple serviceable pops (although short and low and about as lifeless as one of those lame parachute men you get at Chuck E. Cheese for 50 tickets).

And you'll see some research upcoming in the January issue of Golf Digest that shows just how uncertain performance might be with those everything-old-is-new-again V-like grooves. But you wonder just how much the game is going to change in the next 18 months. And how those changes will trickle down from the greatest players to the paying customers. In the meantime, our trailer is full of bounteous supplies of big drivers, sharp-grooved irons and wedges and a full fortnight's worth of enjoying just how playable all those mis-hits now are.

But search through every corner and every staff bag in our trailer and there's about only one piece of equipment you won't find: long putters. Or as I like to call them: Golf's Mortal Sin. Put it right up there with idolatry, genetic manipulation of humans for personal profit and baby seal clubbing.

BOMB: Well, for those of you that may have wondered what happened to us, the answer is simple: We've spent the last couple of weeks gearing up for our annual Hot List summit meeting which, as I write this, has us at JFK airport in New York getting ready to wing out west to CordeValle Resort in San Martin, Ca. At least we don't have to worry about the weather like at the inaugural summit in 2003 when we spent one day dodging snowflakes.

The summit is, by far, the most extensive, expensive and exhausting undertaking done by Golf Digest all year. It involves more than 30 outside panelists and more than a dozen editorial and support staffers. But the Summit is merely the culmination of a year-long effort to provide the most comprehensive, helpful equipment coverage anywhere. As such, we will update our blog every day until the meeting breaks up on October 25th. We won't give away the results (except for our annual golf match that we'll squeeze in on the lone half-day off we have), but we will give you a feel of what it is like to be at the Summit, including some comments from our panelists.

GOUGE: I thought we were going to keep the results of our annual Hot List match a secret, too. I don't need any more public embarrassment. But you are right about how extensive this annual trek through the industry's best equipment has become. This isn't about a couple of editors in a room throwing darts. This is an editor working with a pair of panelists every day, every hour, every swing to get a sense of their assessment of our key criterion PERFORMANCE and (a new critierion this year) LOOK/SOUND/FEEL. This is our entire Hot List editorial team locked in a conference room full of Ph.Ds in physics and engineering trying to understand what might be the most significant technological developments in the game, all in an effort to best judge another Hot List criterion, INNOVATION. This is hours of consultation with the top retailers in the country to determine where products stand in the marketplace for the criterion of DEMAND. What it is is a whole lotta long days and short nights trying to help the golf consumer figure out which way to turn. And in the end it's not anything like a vacation. But it is pretty cool. And I know you all are just a little bit jealous. Don't worry. We'll show you some pictures, too.