We've heard a bunch about Tiger's turned-back hat and menacing scowl on the January cover, so it's fair to print this letter from Dr. John Pate of Ontario:

I have just finished reading the article written by Jamie Diaz on Tiger Woods and his life changes in 2007.It may be the best work that I have read in Golf Digest in my 40 years of subscribing.The exploration of this young man's personal growth and his growing insight and understanding of himself provided for a wonderful look into a Tiger we don't see on television. Imagine, that Sunday scowl is really just his "poker face"- not so scary after all. In my game golf is a good walk , on good ground, with good friends and with a little sport. I know that tournament golf is very different - but this young man would be welcome in my group anytime , not because he is Tiger , but because of the man he is becoming. Thank you for doing such good work.

It's interesting that the cover, which drew considerable negative response--and some positive, too--is a home run on the newsstands. Our best January issue in a decade. Tiger continues to mesmerize. His performance at Torrey Pines last week and his 65 in Dubai today are the beginnings of what might be the career year. Nicke Faldo said "Tiger could--no, I'll take away the could--Tiger will win the Grand Slam this year." I think Jaime's story and Walter Iooss Jr.'s photos got closer to explaining why that's possible than anything done on Tiger to date.

--Bob Carney

Dean J. Toriello has an early Dean's report on the state of television coverage:

Now that the broadcast season has started I would like to make two pleas to the announcers that do such a fine job to enhance our enjoyment. These two issues have been bothering me for years. 1. I KNOW that I am watching golf! I would like to eliminate the frequent use of "golf" as an adjective. "That was some GOLF shot!" and countless similar statements drive me nuts! 2. I would like the use of the term"effort" eliminated from descriptions of bad shots--bad "golf " shots if you will--and bad putts. Each and every time a golfer misses a putt or hits a poor shot they always comment that "that wasn't his best effort." I would argue that these pros always give it their best "effort" but mis-read the green or simply just hit a bad shot!

Otherwise you're doing a fine job boys and girls!

I'm with you, Dean, especially on number one. Happens in other sports, too, but not so much, maybe because they move faster. You will not hear, for example, "Great FOOTBALL pass by Tom Brady" or "What a FOOTBALL punt by Jay Feagle!" No time. But you're right; we'll hear of many more fine or improving "golf swings", "golf shots", "golf holes", "golf games" and "golf clubs" in the coming (golf) season.

By the way, that was a fine golf letter you wrote, sir.

--Bob Carney

Lots of you are complaining about the price of equipment on the Golf Digest Hot List. (A number of you cited price in response to the Hot List article, which wondered why more amateurs don't upgrade. We made the point in response that trade-ins, easier than ever, helped bring down the price. Hold on, said Dr. Eric Addinall of Delaware:

As usual I studied this year's 'Hot List' with great interest. I noticed yet again however, the apparent surprise that more ordinary golfers don't change their clubs more regularly.

It occurs to me that one of the principal reasons is that if your clubs are over two years old, the trade-in value is almost negligible. I had a set of such clubs, wanted to buy one of the recommendations from last years list and was offered the princely sum of $40. I had paid around $700 for them 3 years ago. I still have them but hope to change this year if I'm offered anything at all!

This trade-in problem is worse even than for automobiles (and that is bad enough). Coupled with the fact that the mark- up on manufactured golf clubs is probably significantly higher than for cars, there is significant consumer suspicion around the idea that one must change clubs as often as urged by publications such as yours.

We just checked a couple of clubs from the 2006 Hot List, Cleveland CG4 irons and Callaway X-18 irons and the Cleveland’s were over $100 on the PGA Value Guide in the mid range and the Callaways were around $170. If you didn't use the Vale Guide, do.

Mike Johnson of Golf World, one of the Hot List judges, says "Most of us feel their clubs are worth more than they can actually get in trade. And in categories where the technology has seen a boost, the value of older clubs goes down." Check out Mike's trade-in story in the Jan. 18 issue of Golf World.

Leigh Bader, a leading retailer who consults on the Hot List, thinks you can do better than the offer you got. Leigh operates the online trade-in program for the PGA. He advises that you check the locator on PGA.com for stores near you that honor the PGA Value Guide. (He says there are a lots of them, and believes you'll do better than $40 at one of these. "The residual value of used clubs are higher and more available to more people now, more then ever! Something's amiss." That sounds promising. Love to hear back if you do better....

--Bob Carney

(Illustration by William Rieser)

PS: For another of those letters on equipment prices, continue on...

John Daly decries the new Tour policy of relieving some players who make the cut of their obligation to play over the weekend. Our readers are divided.

Count Texan Thomas McConnell as leaning "No."

To tell a player, who makes the cut, that they are not in the weekend field strikes me as a ridiculous policy. To deprive a player who makes the cut the opportunity to improve their position in the final two rounds will surely affect some players tour status and certainly their livelihood by year end. After all it is a four round tournament for those who qualify. It is surprising that the players, in unison, have not challenged this policy change.

Californian Eric Patterson, doesn't see it that way. He likes John Hawkins' take in the Angry Golfer:

One month into 2008, Daly has been making the worst kind of noise, whining about the PGA Tour's new cut policy, then threatening to sue the Honda Classic because some woman snapped a photo in his backswing last March, then withdrawing for the seventh time in 21 starts at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic. If not for the sad death of caddie Steve Duplantis last week, Daly's out-of-control behavior at a Hope post-round party might have generated a lot more buzz on the Torrey Pines practice green.

Eric:

John was so right on the money, he should be commended. The Touring Pros today ae nothing more than Prima Donnas; if they find the new Cut Rule tough, then they need to work an evening shift at Denny’s⿿just like John said. Many of these players have never won anything, come from spoon-fed country club upbringings and have no right to complain. They need to try sitting in a cubicle at a low level, 9-5 Corporate America job and see how much financial pressure they have. Keep up the great work, John.

Personally, I like reader Al Jamieson's view of things:

The kerfuffle about the new cut rule is rooted in the Tour's unwillingness or inability to deal with the most pernicious problem in golf, slow play!  Slow play is a cancer on the game.  Please check, but I believe that one of Tiger's wins at San Diego was from the cut line.  Can't get 78 players around in the time allotted? Shame on you.  College players may be worse.  Only stroke penalties for the turtles will start to get their attention.

You have put your finger on the bane of all golfers' existences, Al. Plus, I love that word, kerfuffle.

--Bob Carney

The story on Tour drug testing by Ron Sirak in Golf World, along with player comments about the new policy, have prompted several letters, including this one from Oregonian Jon Anderson:

Paul Goydos should be the first PGA tour player tested for performance-enhancing drugs. His comment that "There's nothing out there that makes you make more putts" is a lame attempt at a smokescreen comment. If steroids help a baseball player hit the ball farther, they can help a golfer drive the ball farther. But perhaps Goydos is the only player out there who doesn't think driving distance matters. And, I wonder if he noticed some 'positive side effects' when he took them for his rib injury.

Other readers, Dr. Michael Bartz, for one, wonder why "recreational" drugs ought to be included:

As the PGA is dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century world of drug testing, how hypocritical that it is going to include "recreational drugs' that are not performance enhancing (but, of course, not alcohol). What some professional golfer does in the privacy of his own home is none of my business, nor the PGA's.

Here's the Tour's response on that, from Deputy Commissioner Ty Votaw, also in the Golf World story:

"Drugs of abuse are illegal and have always been banned," he said. "Because addiction is an issue, we reserve the right to have rehabilitation as a punishment."

Meanwhile, the Commissioner has launched his own 2008 blog. Excerpt from the opening post:

The main topic that we will be discussing at our meetings at the Buick Invitational concerns our new anti-doping policy. While we continue to believe this really is not an issue on the PGA TOUR, unfortunately, the current state of the world necessitates any major professional sport to have such a policy. We will be educating our players on this policy and the prohibited substances weekly throughout the first half of this year and will begin drug testing some time in the second half of the year.

Given that a high percentage of players don't read Tour memoes--see confusion over Fed Ex Cup details--the Tour has to do this kind of education or risk serious embarrassment when the first round of testing occurs. What you don't know, in this case, can hurt a whole lot of folks.

--Bob Carney

You have responded, um, enthusiastically, to the Golf Digest U.S. Open Contest. At last count more than 53,000 of you have submitted essays arguing that you should be the average-golfer representative in the foursome that plays Torrey Pines a few days before the Open under the lights of NBC cameras.

The essays are funny, moving, inspiring and amazing. Some of them suggest that golf is, as my spouse has suggested, an illness. But most just indicate that you've fallen in love and you can't get out.

Every profession in the world is represented, from air traffic controller fighter pilot, opera singer to rock guitarist, gynecologist to Health and Human Services Secretary. Nearly every branch of the military service, the teaching profession, the entertainment field and medicine is here. Plus a lot of moms and dads. A sampling of recent entries:

Mercedes, from West Hartford, CT:

While I can blast the ball past the average guy, I’m not goofy enough to think that I’m Tiger or Lorena. The key: play smart. I played the day before my son was born (and having gained 62 lbs.!) and seriously considered playing between contractions the next day This is cake. My husband died five months later. Golf has been my salvation ever since. Playing in front of the world is nothing. What’s the worse that can happen? Even a bad shot can be the basis for a good story. I have many.

More...

We called it the "growing disconnect between golfers and golf-club technology. "Perhaps it's confusing," we said in the Golf Digest Hot List intro. "Perhaps it's distrust. Perhaps it's just ignorance..." that average golfers don't keep up with the technology that can help them. "If you haven't thought about upgrading your equpment in the last six months, let alone last six years, you have more than a little catching up to do."

Well, we caught it for that. Many letters, some posted here, reminded us that all that new technology is expensive. We hear you. All of you. Tom Holstein, though, had a different take:

You just don't get it.

Golf is a traditional country club sport like sailing in the Summer and skiing in the Winter. The goal is to do your person best against the natural conditions of the course, the mountain, and the wind.

Down deep inside, most "boomers" and "X ers" compete against their younger selves. Beyond a certain limit", they do not want to "cheat" by using an extreme "game improvement club" on "designer steroids" any more than they want to "buy" the love of a trophy mate. They would still rather earn it, up to a certain age. That is why Jack Nicklaus stopped using the over-sized "Response" putter after he won his last major in 1986. He wanted to know that it was the man, not the equipment.

This limit was probably reached about 10 years ago when drivers became grapefruit sized and the "COR" of titanium faces made the rebound effect greater than traditional persimmon and metal woods....

Club championships and amateur tournaments are different than weekend golf....The tournament goal is to beat your opponent, and you must use the best custom fit and technologically designed clubs to stay competitive.

Every year a group of us that competed for our college teams get together for a reunion at a destination golf resort. We each bring 2 sets of clubs. One set is from the 1980's, and one set is from today.

Sometimes we play with a 9 club limit to focus on shotmaking. Other times we play all old clubs or all new clubs. There is generally a three to five shot difference. The goal is to test our current personal skills against each other, and what we used to be. We want to make certain that it is the golfer, not the equipment that makes the difference.

--Bob Carney

A reader asks, "Will the editor post the testing results of all other clubs and balls that did not get a gold or silver rating in the 2008 Hot List?"

Golf Digest Equipment Editor Mike Stachura responds:

Just as we don't post the results for courses that do not make the grade in our ranking of the 100 Greatest Courses, we don't post results for products that are not elevated to Gold or Silver status on the Hot List. The Hot List is about singling out the most significant products, which is different than the idea of assigning a grade to every single product introduced in the last year. That said, we do have a scoring system and we can put our results in some kind of perspective. For instance among our 240 finalists (listed on our website), not one of these products received a final score of less than 70.56, and the average for those finishing last among finalists was 82.23.

What does that mean? Bottom line: The difference between making the list and not making the list is small, but in our minds, significant. Only products that demonstrated consistent excellence across multiple criteria ended up on the list. The list isn't about good products. There are loads of those. It's about exceptionally great products, and those are relatively few, less than 25 percent of the total of 552 products that made the Hot List.

--Bob Carney

Dave Defendis of Rochester, New York, loves the Hot List. He's just not buying the fact that golfers replace their equipment as often as we say they should.

Each year when Golf Digest's equipment issue arrives, I probably rip open its cellophane wrapping with the same anticipation that Ralphie opened up his "official Red Ryder carbine action, two hundred range model air rifle" on Chrsitmas morning in the movie A Christmas Story. And as I read through it, I probably have the same wide eyed look he had as he peered into the window of Higbee's Department Store to look at the "Red Ryder".

While I do like "digging the newest equipment", this "boomer" certainly has not replaced the clubs in his bag as often as your article indicates I probably should. One of the reasons could be that my discretionary spending account has been a bit low. Another reason could be that my kids keep presenting me with grandchildren. I always seem to be adding dollars to somebody's college account. And hey, whose grandchild doesn't look good in a new outfit. Or maybe it's because I believe that if I don't have "a real swing", the equipment can only help so much. My money might be better spent on some lessons before I buy some equipment. I guess me and people like me are a golf company's worse nightmare.

Dave, no man with grandchildren asking him what he wants for Christmas is a golf company's worst nightmare. Red Ryder is coming.

--Bob Carney

Guys, Changing the format is not working for me. I liked the old Bunker, hi-lited Internet, hi-lited Competition, where's The Through Line? Why did you change the Front 9? The magazine font is difficult to read - way too small. Light Colors for the various sections don't call out to me. If you don't go back to larger font I'll have to get New Reading Glasses....Bring back last year's model!!!

Hey Guys: I could not agree more with Andrew Fesuk, mail letters Jan 18,2008 issue. I purchased some 2.75 readers and still had trouble with the small print and the white glare. And then the colored columns with light letters, give me a break. Change the print size back. Love Golf World⿿⿿⿿⿿⿿⿿.but! John Sutphen, The Villages

I don't like the new format AT ALL. The " front 9" uses an orange color text which is hard to read. The " lipouts" were always enjoyable- now gone? Your use of pale green , light blues for text/headlines is difficult to read- doesn't stand out like before. Can I have my previous, loved, and enjoyable publication back...PLEASE !!! Michael Vander Zwan

I've been a long time fan and subscriber to Golf World.... why then, do I now need to use a magnifying glass to read the new smaller font? Bad idea as far as I can see...no pun intended....Bill Krampe

Guys, er, Gentlemen: We hear you loud and clear. Though every re-design brings some complaint, this one has brought a large number of them. The editors and art director are looking for ways to adjust the redesign so that the magazine easier for you to read. Thanks for the input, as always.

--Bob Carney

￿