BOMB: Well, it wasn’t quite Bobby Nichols holding off Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to win the 1964 PGA Championship using a putter he bought for five bucks out of a barrel at Louisville's Owl Creek Country Club, but you have to love Jerry Kelly cashing a check for more than $1.1 million at the Zurich Classic of New Orleans using a Cleveland Classic 3 flat stick that he bought for $69.99 at a Nevada Bob’s in Madison, Wis., just before Christmas. Comes from the same family of putters honored in the 2009 Hot List.

Not only is it heartening to see a PGA Tour player actually reach into his pocket once in a while, but it also proves the point that even the price point equipment can, in some instances at least, hold its own in the performance area, too. Of course, going cheap isn’t always going to work. Joe Durant tried out the $23 a dozen Srixon TriSpeed ball this week and didn’t come close to making the cut.

So it leaves me wondering if Kelly just lucked out or the cheap stuff is now nearly as good as the not-so-cheap stuff? I mean, you’re the cheap-is-good guy. What say you?

GOUGE: Well, if you're looking for technological sophistication and engineering dexterity and manufacturing gymnastics, a cast putter with a milled face isn't going to require having a pass key at NASA. So it shouldn't be $300. That said, the skill and diligence to get a putter right can be reflected in any design, regardless of cost. The fact that Jerry Kelly runs through more in the value of his golf balls IN A WEEK than he's spent on his putter for the year shows that spending a lot these days isn't a requirement.

But to me the big takeaway from Kelly's purchase is what happens if this was a wedge and it's a year later? Stay with me, but Kelly clearly isn't the first pro to pick up a club at a local golf shop and put it in his bag. But with the groove rule changes set to go in place next year, aren't we creating a situation where a casual purchase could lead to an accidental disqualification? One of the many discussions that needs to take place is how the groove rule is going to be applied in a practical sense. Will there be microscopes on the first tee? What about the equipment used in Monday qualifiers? What about lesser tours? What about section events and the PGA National Professional Championship? (A section event qualifies you for the National Club Pro and the National Club Pro gets you into the PGA Championship. Can't really have people qualifying for one event using different equipment rules, can you? I don't know. Maybe you can.) And don't give me this nonsense about it's only going to apply to PGA Tour events. It doesn't make much sense to me to have a Monday qualifier event under one set of rules and then force the guy who gets through it to switch to a different set of equipment for Thursday's first round.

I'm guessing we'll have some clarity to this situation in the coming months. I would expect a conforming list of irons and wedges at some point in the near future, just like we have for drivers. But that's only a marginal first step in this process. It's a tiny problem in scope, but within that little world, it's a growing headache for manufacturers and elite golfers alike.

GOUGE: Like every golfer, the week of The Masters always means the start of the season for me. Not just golf season, but Hot List season. That’s right, we get started on our research for the 2010 Hot List with our annual swing through Georgia visiting some manufacturers and getting an early read on what they’re working on. (Early word: It’s all about perfecting the fitting process. In the very near future, if you're not being fitted for a new club with some kind of adjustable process, you're pretty much just pretending to be getting the right clubs. And if you don’t believe that fitting matters, I offer you the wisdom of Dana Upshaw of Dana Golf in Warner Robins, Ga., who showed me by tweaking the shaft in my 5-iron, I could suddenly hit it 20 yards farther. I didn’t believe it either, but it was right there on his computer screen. Fact is, there are probably plenty of right shafts, but if you’ve got the wrong shaft inefficiency is going to happen, guaranteed. Impact is enough of a random event for me. I don't need equipment increasing the likelihood of a mis-hit.)

Masters Week also reveals a healthy supply of early equipment stories, and it got started ignominiously enough with another episode of journalistic incompetence perpetrated by the sports section of the New York Times. A frequent offender, the old gray lady offered up an op-ed piece from former USGA Senior Technical Director (and current putter manufacturer) Frank Thomas last Monday. Thomas complained about the new groove rule, which goes into effect for tour players next January and for all new equipment starting next year.

Specifically, he writes, “The U.S.G.A. has not shared its evidence that a problem exists, nor has it demonstrated that this solution addresses the problem while doing the least damage to the golfing population as a whole. Never has a change of such consequence been made with such a lack of transparency or without appropriate input from those affected.”

An interesting perspective, but only because it’s completely wrong. Not only did the USGA research reveal how less effective grooves might affect average players (not at all for most, not much for a few), the USGA sought and received opinion from manufacturers throughout this process (highly dis-similar to its charade of a process over the spring-like effect rule in the late-1990s) and made its decision and changed its thinking specifically based on input from manufacturers. Moreover, every page of its research was made available to all manufacturers throughout the original research phase of the process and is available today to anyone looking for it. Even enterprising media members could find the documents and publish the USGA’s findings more than a year in advance of the final outcome.

Finally, to suggest the groove rule is some kind of hardship on average golfers because it asks them to purchase new irons and wedges sometime in the next 15 years (it could be even longer) is laughably off-base. If golf consumers aren’t buying new clubs once in the next 15 years, they’re either not golfers or the golf industry is already dead, regardless of any perceived slight at the hands of the rule making bodies.

But that was just the beginning of the week. We chatted with some who believe the groove rule might not be all that big a deal, as it turns out. One expert predicted it might affect wedge spin by five or 10 percent. Not a hardship, and not exactly what the USGA is predicting. Who's going to be right? Hard to say, but I guess the point is manufacturers are hard at work trying to solve the challenge of a less efficient groove (with perhaps a combination of ball and club adjustments), and the early word is they’re making some genuine progress. Of course, solving one problem may mean compromises in another area.

But you might know more, my friend. You hung around Augusta for the rest of the week’s festivities. I was off to Myrtle Beach to visit with Mom and Dad, and play a little golf. I barely broke 100, and I don’t care what kind of grooves I was using, it wouldn’t have made one bit of difference.

BOMB: Yeah, nice 98 at Tidewater chopper. Those springy drivers, hopped-up golf balls and U-grooves sure are a threat to society as we know it, aren’t they?

One of the things that struck me hanging out under the tree by the Augusta clubhouse was the seeming change in philosophy regarding bifurcation when it comes to equipment. Once taboo, more and more people in the industry appear to feel it’s an idea worth at least batting around. But that’s what happens when technology gets boxed in. As I’ve said before, I hope we have the discussion.

Regarding grooves, some tour pros have already started fiddling with the new design, but many haven’t. Those waiting until the off-season may be in for a bit of a shock. Or perhaps not. As you said, one person we respect says the effect may be 10 percent or less. But if it is the 50 percent some claim, well, watch out.

But enough of that. The real fun at the Masters was some of the equipment tweaks made by some players. Angel Cabrera became the first player to use a belly putter (although he didn’t stick it in his gut) to win a traditional major and the putter he used, Ping’s I Series 1/2 Craz-E just went back in the bag last week. Cabrera also was using a new Ping wedge, the Tour W TS, a thin-soled design that responds well on tight lies such as Augusta. Other changes of note included Vijay Singh hauling out a new putter (Never Compomise’s new X-Ray design); Jim Furyk adding a 4-iron to his bag for the first time all year (he normally carries a 3-iron, skips the 4 and starts up the set again at the 5) and Padraig Harrington making a driver change for the second week in a row (Titleist’s 905R being the club last week). Note to Paddy—when you’ve won two majors with the same Wilson driver you might want to stick with it. Oh, and Golfsmith didn’t have to worry about a run on TaylorMade drivers with its Sergio Garcia campaign. As predicted, Garcia was a non-factor.

GOUGE: Maybe they picked the wrong TaylorMade guy. Kenny Perry might have sold a few R9s on Friday and Saturday, no? While I have your attention, now that the May issue has started to circulate we're getting some comments from readers about our Hot List for golf balls. Here are some keys:

1. 28 balls made the Hot List. That's less than a third of the balls we reviewed for this year's list. In short, every ball that is in stores now was considered for the Hot List. Every one. If it's not on the list, it didn't make our grade. If it is on our list, it should be seriously considered as a candidate for your bag.

2. People want to know which was the longest ball in our test. Our answer: Yes. Seriously, in our robot test at 95 miles per hour the average smash factor (ballspeed to clubhead speed ratio) varied from 1.41 to 1.46. Now that's about 10 yards, which might matter to some, provided it doesn't come at a cost elsewhere during the playing of the hole. What we found is that speed didn't rule the day for overall Performance based on our input from our panel of 22 players. Just as many of the balls finishing in the top half of our robot testing in smash factor received the highest Performance scores as did those finishing in the bottom half in smash factor. It's also probably not much of a surprise that six out of the "fastest" 15 balls didn't make the list at all. Why? Because you have to hit wedge shots with them, and neither the robot nor our players favor the rocks.

3. So which ball do you buy? Three rules: 1) If you swing slower and your handicap is higher, ignore spin. Choose the ball that launches higher off the driver and the wedge. 2. If you swing faster and your handicap is lower, choose the ball that spins the least off the driver and the most off the wedge. 3. If you're in the middle, choose the ball that feels the best around the green, both in terms of the putting surface and your wallet.

Keep those e-mails coming.

BOMB: Hey, you see the sticks Bubba Dickerson had in the bag when he won the Nationwide event in Louisiana last week? Callaway X-14 irons and and a Callaway FT-2 driver. Here we’re touting that everyday players should use the new stuff and a tour player wins an event with clubs released at the start of the new millennium. Is nothing sacred?

That said, we also have been pretty consistent in our position that the old stuff isn’t exactly garbage. Fact is, if your cost-benefit analysis for golf clubs is that you’d rather save a few Benjamins than a few strokes, there’s plenty of great options. We’ve talked about used clubs and sites such as 3balls.com, but now it’s interesting to note how closeouts from major companies and even those who keep earlier model products in their line longer than most provide high-end equipment--albeit, not the latest and greatest—at a very reasonable price.

The latest Golf Datatech numbers prove that consumers in this economy are responding. Only three irons have a market share at on- and off-course shops over 4 percent. The new Callaway X-22 is one and is selling at a healthy $757 for a set of eight according to the average sales price. The other two, however, are older models with dropped-down prices. Callaway’s Big Bertha ’06 model is going for $368 for a set of eight while Adams Idea a3 (the category leader in sales) is at $515—including hybrids!

Ping has kept its G5 iron set in its line and it is attractively priced as well at around $400. And Callaway is bringing back one of its better sellers in a reduced-price role, the X-18 R (also for about $400), basically the iron that was introduced in 2005. In a tight economy and when players such as Dickerson show you can play at a high level with such sticks, it gets harder to make the case that everyday players should pony up for the new stuff. But I’m sure you have a reason why they should.

GOUGE: The market obviously is overwhelmed with quality products, and not just the newest stuff. But there are two things that trouble my addled brain:

1) In an era when modest leaps, let alone quantum leaps, in technology are excruciatingly difficult (impossible?) to engineer, it's clear to me that the rapid introduction cycle for new products that has infected the golf industry in the last five years doesn't seem to have much of a point anymore, other than to lead to consumer disinterest and distrust. Especially if you're trying to convince the common man golfer to shell out serious money in a troubled economy. Why does every company need to introduce multiple drivers every year, or more often, when it takes at least a year for consumers to legitimately understand what these latest innovations might promise? For instance, in the rush to develop adjustable drivers, too many of the first efforts were unimpressive and unnecessary. They offered nothing that utilized adjustability in a way that made golfers better. The current crop of Nike DYMO STR8-FIT and TaylorMade R9 offers a potential sea change, a change that would have been no less intriguing if we didn't have to wade through last year's shaft-kits-in-a-box approach. So here's a call to let product cycle breathe a bit, a call I'm sure that will be ignored or ridiculed, much like a call for unilateral nuclear disarmament.

2) Is the average golfer's nagging sense that the new stuff ain't all that great anyway because Bubba Dickerson is using a bunch of garage sale sticks and winning pro tournaments going to obscure those new products that attempt to change the technology landscape? In other words, how do you find significant technologies when TaylorMade has 13 drivers currently for sale at Dick's Sporting Goods, or Odyssey has 61 putter models available at Golfsmith.com, especially when each likely will be presented as something fantastic? The easy answer (and a smart one) is that the Hot List is always a good starting point. In fact, I'd say this if you want to look for a great investment: Start at the top of the 2007 Hot List, and see if you can find a used or close-out model of one of these clubs. You'll get a great price and a better club than anything in your bag.

I am a firm believer that there are always a handful of products that offer the potential for groundbreaking improvement for average golfers, followed by a much larger group of products that are mild enhancements on pretty good products. Let's not lose sight of that fact just because some guy who could shoot 68 with a set of Johnny Palmer Signature irons and a Kro-Flite ain't dialed in on the new technology yet. Golf's best new technology isn't about the best players. It's about the rest of us. That's why you need to get to a qualified fitter and check it out.