Speaking of best players not to win a major or a Players, Robert V. Ippolito of Atlanta sees a bit of intrigue in a recent "What's in My Bag?" with Rory Sabbatini, who finished T-27, plus-5 at the Players.

I just finished reading about what's in Rory Sabbatini's bag. Do you think that the change to Adams from Nike equipment in January of this year was coincidence? Or is it more likely that Tiger had some influence over the powers to be at Nike and had Rory fired after Rory's early withdrawal from Tiger's Target World Challenge? We all know of Rory's on-course antics (Ben Crane, Nick Faldo, wife Amy's tee shirts, etc.) but those of us who have had the "opportunity" to spend some off the course time with Rory know that he can be described as arrogant at best and deserved to lose his high paying equipment contract. It's time to grow up, Rory!

Golf World's Equipment Editor Mike Johnson replies:

Here?s the deal: Tiger had absolutely nothing to do with Sabbatini leaving Nike and going to Adams. For starters, Sabbatini was not ?fired? from Nike. His contract was up at the end of 2007 and he was free to sign with whomever he wanted. Second, Sabbatini had started putting out feelers to other companies as early as mid year 2007, well prior to the spat with Tiger at the Target World Challenge. He had been talking with Adams for quite some time--it is a common occurrence for players whose contracts are expiring to talk with companies throughout the final year of their existing pacts--and they were able to agree on a deal when the Nike contract expired. In short, it was a typical PGA Tour player equipment endorsement deal.

The kind of deal that say, Paul Goydos, is considering today. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Robert.

--Bob Carney

Justin Blair of Three Rivers, Michigan sends a candid assessment of the Bomb & Gouge article in the April Golf Digest in which Bomb supported and Gouge opposed the new adjustable clubs that have reached golf store shelves this season. At the risk of cross-blogging (Bomb and Gouge do an equipment blog on this site), we obtained a response from Mike "Bomb" Johnson, equipment editor of Golf World.

First, Justin:

I just want to say: Bomb is an idiot, but Gouge, you are a genious!  The stance you've taken on the new adjustable shaft golf clubs (April 2008) is right on the mark.  I have yet to hear anyone put it as succinctly as you. 

People at these golf magazines wonder why so many "Average Joe's" leave the game year in and year out, well, that's your answer.  The game is getting too expensive for regular golfers, and these new-fangled "ideas" do absolutlely NOTHING to help us out.  Club manufacturers want to help?  Try cutting your costs, especially with these idiotic "ideas"!

Again, Gouge, a BIG "thank you" for being realistic about this new club fad.  At least you have the guts to look into our best interests, and not the manufacturer's.  Sorry to be so harsh Bomb, but try learning a few
things from your partner.

Now Mike, er, Bomb the idiot: 

Hi Justin: No offense taken. As I noted in the article, the cost of these adjustable clubs is somewhat obscene. But that doesn't detract from the fact that, if you put cost aside (and some golfers do), these clubs can possibly help.

Now everyone has to do their own cost-benefit analysis on that. And I would certainly agree that the number of folks buying into adjustability at this price tag will be extremely low. And I think that's good. I am in total agreement with you and my partner (who I also agree is a genius) that the cost of equipment is approaching out of control. It is why we both regularly tout fine, affordable equipment such as that produced by Adams and Tour Edge, to name a couple of companies.

But I don't believe that we should stymie innovation just because the initial cost of products is sky-high. If the price offends you, simply don't buy it. But remember that DVD player you have in your house would not have been made possible if someone hadn't started the idea more than 20 years ago with those old betamax tape machines?which, at the time, cost more than $2,000. In short, I'm more a fan of the possibilities of adjustability down the road than I am of the current offerings.

Thanks for writing, Mike.

Thank you both. I'm heading off now to change the weight on my Zebra.

--Bob Carney

Ralph Bolstad liked the President Eisenhower piece in April, in which it was revealed that the Presidency of the United States was the dream job for a golfer in the 1950s. (Ike had 194 golf days in 1958, more than 1,000 throughout his two terms.).

Enjoyed the article about Ike and his golf playing. The pictures of Ike were great!!! Brought back a lot of fond memories. One thing I hoped might be part of the article was a paragraph or two on the type equipment, golf clubs and balls, that Ike used. If that is available would appreciate any info you can share. I'm a long time subscriber to your magazine. You guys do a great job!!!

I'm tempted to say he played with any darn equipment he wanted (President Bill Clinton told us he was inundated with clubs), and in a way, that's true. But Ike played Spalding because those were the clubs that Bob Jones endorsed. In fact, Eisenhower's irons had a special insignia on the backs: "General Ike." Thanks for the question.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: AP)

Colorado reader Howard Gluckman writes about Mike Johnson's "Buyer Beware" story in the Feb. 29 issue of Golf World:

I was disappointed in the article on counterfeit clubs.  I have no doubt that it is a big problem for the manufacturers, and it needs to be stopped.  However, there was little information of use to consumers.  If ebay and other Internet sources are not valid places to buy legitimate clubs, then say so ? and back it up, but otherwise the article should have given us some useful tools for deciding if a club is counterfeit before buying it.

Howard, did you miss the sidebar: "Which is the fake and how to tell?" It has several pieces of advice, including...

If a club lacks a serial number there is a good chance it could be fake...

and

Beware of brand-new clubs on an Internet auction site. While some stories of "just won in a raffle" or "got as a gift" are true, some aren't.

Or, my favorite...

If a club you are evaluating claims to be titanium and a magnet clings to it, it is fake.

The fact is, as Mike Johnson told me in response to your letter, there are no absolutely hard and fast rules. Some Internet auction sales are fine, for example; some aren't. If a site allows you to examine a club before your payment is forwarded to the seller--golfclubexchange.com, for example--all the better.

Hope this helps.

--Bob Carney

Mike Johnson's February 29 story in Golf World, Buyer Beware, struck home with a bunch of people, especially those who weren't bewaring.

Gentlemen,

Referencing your issue of 2/29/08, "Buyer Beware" article.

I purchased a Callaway FT-i driver on eBay on 9/22/07. Almost immediately, I received emails from other eBay buyers who stated they had been ripped off by the seller from whom I had purchased.

I took my club to the Martin's PGA Superstore and asked the club expert to check out my club. He quickly showed me that every single component in the club was counterfeit. Even the head cover was bogus! The club's bar code, when scanned, said the driver was a sand wedge!

I have saved the 24 emails and the club itself to offer to Callaway Golf as evidence. I want the seller and the manufacturer to to face justice. I recall how Ely Callaway fought a constant battle with counterfeiters.

That's Jim Walker, who goes on to say he later bought a real FT-i and loves it.

Arthur Kramer emailed us with a somewhat similar story and a couple of photos. We post one.

I saw your article about counterfeit clubs and I thought I'd show you one. I bought this on Ebay not knowing it was fake. It was a lot less than a Sasquatch so I really didn't care after I found out. It came out of Canada. I contacted NIKE and they didn't seem to care either. They told me it was fake because the hosel didn't have a serial number. I noticed underneath that the paint scheme was a little wrong too. You can see in the pics that the little marking in front of the 460 is black, it should yellow and the fact that the hosel is too short without the serial number is the other giveaway. Just thought you might like to share this. Thanks, nice mag. If you want to print it, I can take some better pics for you.

All the manufacturers care, Arthur. They're spending a ton to keep this "$240 million scam" from happening.

--Bob Carney

It's good to hear again from Dave Riffey of Shell Lake, WI. He's taken a break from shoveling snow and wants to talk about the endless comparisons of today's players (especially Tiger) with those of years gone by:

Every week it is the same old thing. someone comparing Tiger and the current players to the old guys and gals.   Why hasn't anyone set up a tour for the current players that required them to use the old wooden headed clubs. Call it the 60's & 70's tour. Each pro would be required to use clubs, balls, and putters only available from that era. Put the greens at the same speed, the distance the same as back then.

This would really be an interesting test to see how good the NEW players on the PGA and women of the LPGA tours would react and play.

Send them to Pebble, Augusta, the Old Course, Doral, Wing Foot etc. If the old players had the technology of today, back then, they would be  better than the players of today.
 

Dave, we were just talking about that today after someone mentioned Mark Frost's book, The Match, the new book about the great match among Hogan, Nelson, Venturi and Ward, that Bo Links wrote about in Golf World recently. How would those guys fare with all of this new equipment?

My thought: Tiger could play with bamboo and win and so could Hogan, Nelson, Nicklaus and a few others. Just how far down the list you'd go is why it's a great question.

By the way, I'm not wishing for the old days. We have one of those throwback events at the club from time to time. Man, golf gets hard when you're playing persimmon and balata!

--Bob Carney

I'm frankly surprised we didn't get more letters like this one from David Marbach of Thousand Oaks, CA. We got tons of mail on how pricey some of the Hot List products are, but few commenting on the lack of "winner" in each category:

I was surprised and disappointed to see that the 2008 "Hot List" did not include an editor's choice in each of the club categories, rather ranking the top five, six or seven "gold" club choices alphabetically. This is particularly disappointing for those of us who look to your magazine for expert guidance in selecting the best of the best equipment each year.
In this election year, I was hoping that a great magazine such as Golf Digest would be above pandering to the interests of it's benefactors.

Please bring back the Editor's Choice Hot List clubs -- your in-depth analysis deserves a clear winner and your readers deserve clear guidance.

Glad someone missed it, Dave. I won't argue it one way or another, but will give you our reasoning. Basically, we know that you'll probably narrow your search to 3 or 4 brands and then try those products out. Research tells us that. It also tells us that your comfort with a brand and your budget will help you do the winnowing. So will the products' scores in our various criteria--technology, value, etc. Given the closeness in score of the Gold-level products on the Hot List and the fact that most consumers are looking for a few, not just one, to test, we thought this was better way to go. But we certainly get your point of view on it.

By the way, check into the site next week for a tool that will allow you to assemble your "dream" bag. Not a bad list to send as a suggestion to your Valentine.

--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...

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

Ed Lane of St. Louis has a very good question about this year's Hot List:

I usually put a lot of weight into your club rankings, which is why when I knew it was time to replace my relic 3- and 5-wood TaylorMade Burner fairway woods (I'm talking about the bronze looking ones), I decided to go with your 2007 Editor's Choice Fairway Wood, the Callaway Big Bertha.

However, I noticed your 2008 Hot List only gave the Callaway Big Bertha fairway wood a Silver rating. How is it that one year prior, you gave the same club not only a Gold rating, but an Editor's Choice rating, but this year a disappointing Silver rating? The analysis does not come across as very consistent or reliable. Curiously...

Mike Johnson, Golf World Equipment Editor and one of the Hot List judges, replies:

The name is the Hot List, not the Best List. A slight difference, to be sure, but fact is that the Hot List is more forward looking than looking at products in retrospect. Your Callaway Big Bertha fairway wood will hit the ball every bit as well as last year, but each of the Gold Medal winners in fairway woods this year did not appear on the Hot List last year. In short, the Big Bertha was up against very stiff competition from clubs offering fitting systems, more than one option in head designs or other technological improvements along with, in some instances, more buzz, including from its own sister Callaway X and Callaway FT fairway woods. It may not come across as such, but the difference between Gold and Silver is slight and the Bertha had the highest score among those clubs in the Silver category (which you could likely ascertain from the ratings of each of the five criteria). It may not appear consistent, but it?s important to remember that just because a club earned a gold medal last year that it will earn one the following year. The landscape changes from year to year, meaning a fluctuation in the scores of products from the previous year is highly likely.

--Bob Carney

Our suggestion in the February Hot List package that amateurs aren't upgrading equipment fast enough brought frank and candid (as they say in diplomatic circles) responses from several of you.

New Jerseyan Dominic Carapelli was one:

In talking about why so many amateur golfers do not keep up with the newest clubs, your theories are: 1) Confusion, 2) Distrust, and 3) Ignorance.  While I admit they all can be factors, the majority of "average golfers" can't afford to go out and buy the newest stuff every year, or every two years for that matter.  I love golf very much and I am a pretty decent player (12.8 index), but even I, let alone my girlfriend can't justify spending between $300-$500 every two or three years for a driver, $700-$1000 for irons, $150-250 per fairway wood, $80-$130 per wedge, and a $100-$300 putter.  Then add the cost of the $20-$50 a dozen balls, ever-inflating greens fees, shoes, gloves, clothes, etc., you're talking thousands of dollars over 2 or 3 years and that's if you play the same "out-dated" set. 

I love your magazine and will continue to read it every month, but I feel those statements are in very poor taste.  I make a decent salary and have a nice home but also like to get out and play golf at least once a week.  If I were to make sure every club in my bag was always custom-fitted, and had the newest clubs, I'd never be able to actually play....I'd only chip balls in my back yard.

I'm somewhat upset over the very subtle but definite insinuation in the Hot List article, pg 113 of February's magazine, that quote, "Too many average golfers must not believe golf equipment is getting any better. That helps explain why you would so often find outdated, overworn and ill-fitted clubs in nearly every bag." I can assure that I, and I believe most average golfers, are very aware of what new golf technology can do for our games. However, there's no way I can justify (especially to my wife) why I just spent a year's grocery money on a new set of clubs that I may use 25 to 50 times a year! On top of that there's no way I can justify the cost of these new clubs. I know the manufactures will claim that the cost helps with the research and development of new, even better, equipment, which for the record I'll never be able to afford. But when I look at the materials going into the making of, say, a new driver there's no way you can justify the price of $400.00 to $500.00. So I'll continue to use the clubs that I either purchased at a web site specializing in used clubs or that were greatly reduced as part of a closeout/reduction sale, and if that offends any one the next time they look in my bag, tough, but at least there's food on the table. Thanks for listening to my rant....

Thanks, gentlemen. You're right--and you're not ranting. The prices are daunting and we are not suggesting that you go broke playing golf. As a man who watched his wife pay $300 for a Ping G-10 "Christmas present", I feel your pain--well, our pain.

On the other hand, as you suggest, there are ways to alleviate the suffering. Trade-ins, used clubs, online auctions or just buying the second-to-last generation are all ways to add technology without a mortgage. Less than 10 per cent of us use trade-in credits. So there are options. But you're right. We occasionally lose touch. Thanks for bringing us back.

--Bob Carney

Dr. Michael Mullan, having perused the Hot List carefully, attempts to catch his breath while securing his wallet.

We golfers must be a very gullible bunch if we believe that will bring a better game when, for a fraction of that cost one can get the right shafts fitted to our present sets and still have a lot left to pay for lessons, a much better game is more likely to result.

As for $150 green fees being about the norm or $475 at Pebble beach, PLEASE RESCUE OUR WONDERFUL GAME.

Michael, I can understand why heart-stopping prices might concern a doctor. And I really understand what those prices do to the budget of a journalist. But there are those, many of them readers, who don't seem taken aback. And there are many others who will wait until they can buy them for less...or used.

On the subject of green fees, couldn't agree more. For a decade we were building "Country Clubs for a Day." What we need more are munis you can, and want, to play every day of the week.

--Bob Carney

Wendy Liljenquist of Riverton, Utah found our Hot List coverage, as extensive as it was, lacking in one department.

I am a reader of Golf Digest and have been waiting for the Hot List issue which I received today. I was disappointed that nothing was written on women's clubs specifically. I have been waiting to purchase some new clubs but wanted to see what your magazine said. In particular, I am interested in a women's set. The Adams a3 set. Can you find out for me anything about this set or any other womens sets? It would really help me to know if any of this equipment would be recommended by someone who has tested it. Just talking to a young salesman at a store does not help.

For the record, Wendy, the February Hot List package does indicate which clubs on the list offer options for women. Women testers were part of the process of choosing the list.

Beyond that, you'll be happy to know that in the March issue we will devote multiple pages specificially to women's clubs, inlcuding the Adams Idea a3 set.

--Bob Carney

There's a ton of chatter around the web about the 2008 Golf Digest Hot List. Now Hot List judges Mike Johnson of Golf World and Mike Stachura of Golf Digest , also known as Bomb & Gouge, have done an extensive chat on GolfWRX.com about the List and the process of creating it. If you're at all interested in the process, or just want to know what Buzz is, it's worth a look.

Also, check out our video that documents the process.

--Bob Carney

A reader named George joins me in confusion about MOI. Given that it's Hot List season, it seems appropriate to clear up the confusion. Or try, anyway:

Writer Max Adler in Golf Digest mag writes about Moment of Inertia of clubs. I need help in understanding this--my question is--MOI is measured about a particular axis--is the axis the shaft axis or is it the axis thru the face of the club? Where can I find articles that address the technical issues of MOI and center of mass and center of percussion, etc??

George, Crudely put, moment of inertia (MOI) is an object's resistance to twisting and it can be measured along any axis. An inner tube floating down a river has a very low MOI about its horizontal axis (it will spin in a circle easily) but a much higher MOI about its vertical axis (it would require much more force to flip end over end). When we talk about golf, the important MOI measurement, the measurement of which the United States Golf Association has placed a limit of 6,000 grams-per-centimeters-squared, is the horizontal MOI about the clubhead's center of gravity. On a toed shot, the clubhead would have a tendency to twist clockwise about this axis. A larger clubhead with a higher MOI will resist this twisting more. MOI about the vertical axis of a clubhead (which resists twisting on high and low impact shots) matters, but is probably a less important a factor in off-center hit performance. MOI about the shaft axis is the third measurement possible with golf clubs. Golfers often refer to this MOI when they talk about how difficult it is to square a larger clubhead immediately before impact. The common complaint is that the larger clubheads tend to want to lag open. An egghead might insist this is more a matter of conservation of angular momentum, a closely related physical reality.

That said, all three of the MOI's share a direct relationship. The higher the horizontal MOI, the higher the vertical MOI, and the higher shaft axis MOI. The first two want to help while the third hurts your likelihood o fhitting a good shot. If you really want to delve deep, check out "How Golf Clubs Really Work and
How to Optimize Their Designs" by Frank D. Werner and Richard C. Greig. Max Adler

I am tempted to say, "You had me at inner tube," but that would only reveal my abject ignorance of these things. If, like me, you want to look at those new clubs flaunting their MOIs, check out the Hot List, and especially the gallery of products that lead in Technology.

Our U.S. Open Contest got Robert Stanton of Bellington, Mass. started, as in, "Don't get me started!"

Where is golf going? There is such a gap between an average pro golfer and an average amateur. Fifty years ago the average golfer could relate to his or her professional counterpart, but not now. Where do I begin--swing gurus, trainers, equipment improvements, and let's not forget the most important game improvement since the invention of the wooden golf tee?agronomy. The conditions of the tour?s golf courses are a totally different environment than what the average player experiences. The average player could benefit tremendously from these pristine conditions.

What if Torrey Pines was forced to take care of their course on the maintenance budget that my home course uses, it would be a whole different game. I believe a single-digit handicap could easily break 100 on an Open course. What about an average tour player, I bet they couldn't?t break par at
my track! Let?s bring the tour players back to reality; no caddies, no yardage books, spike marks ,unraked bunkers, divots, no galleries to keep the ball in play, paying for practice balls, hitting off a rubber mat because there is no grass. I wonder what Gary, Jack, Arnie, Sam or Ben would say ?

Oh, Robert, where do I start? First, you're right. We play two different games. But we always have. In the old days they played balata and we played surlyn and they used blades and we used game-improvement irons and there was no comparison in our games. Now they use our game improvement stuff and beat us by even more.

As for the pros playing on your home course, don't ask. The pros played on my home course in Michigan once and Jack Nicklaus shot a record 27-under par for four rounds. Ouch.

These guys are good. Poor maintenance would make them higher-maintenance, but they'd score just as well, I'm afraid.

--Bob Carney

(Photo:tpmgc.com)

Phil Monk of Granger, Indiana, takes exception to our characterization of Marty Hackel's gift suggestions in the January issue:

"Smart Gifts" must be an acronym for "Some More Awfully Ridiculous Trinkets." I mean, $875 for a paperweight, $185 for driving shoes, a $175 umbrella or a $42 scorecard holder?  Sorry Marty, just drop off a dozen Pro V1s or a Natalie Gulbis calendar and you can cross me off your list while saving a grand or so.

You make an excellent point, Phil. But it's a slippery slope. Once you've bought that $42 scorecard holder, you just kind of have to have the $875 paperweight. (And anyway, what's a Monk doing with a Natalie Gulbis calendar?)

For real gifts, check out the February-issue 2008 equipment Hot List.  Nine hundred dollars goes a long way there...

--Bob Carney

Reader Gil Roy of Keller, TX likes Golf Digest's "What's in My Bag" section, but notices that it sometimes gets upstaged by player deals with equipment manufacturers.

It was kind of funny reading your January 2008 edition. Just before reading your very fine publication, I was informed that Charles Howell has ended is relationship with Callaway.

Maybe you should do a revised version with Howell's new clubs or start a "What Was in My Bag". We could have Tiger and his old Ping Eye2s in college or Corey Pavin with his funky Cleveland irons in the 90s.

Callaway's loss is Bridgestone's gain, or maybe it's Callaway's freedom now becomes Bridgestone's burden. Either way, January remains the toughest month to put up a "What's In My Bag". The only safe bet was the year we went with Bob Gilder, who played Ping irons for 30 years. Of course, he went and changed his putter before we went to press, so what are you going to do? Look for Mark Calcavecchia in March, but be warned. Calc says he's got 200 putters in his closet. Doesn't know which one he's taking until he packs his bags.

Wow. Two hundred putters! I don't think I own 25 , even if you count the ones in trees.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: espn.com)

Properly fitted clubs are the only part of improved golf that anyone can buy. Tommy Armour

The Hot List landed in January (Golf Digest February Issue), but in North Carolina, the subject of equipment buying remains warm. Matthew Buntyn, a longtime subscriber, questions whether we're too narrow in our approach with our list.

I am not saying that [your tests] aren't accurate or that they are poorly conducted, but I do feel that they are incomplete. Why do you only review and test clubs made by name brand manufacturers? There are several component brands out there that I feel will easily stack up to those pricier models in the stores.

Matthew says bought a set of irons with heads designed Ralph Maltby and they outperform the brand-name irons he used to play. What's more, he likes the process of building clubs himself.

There are several of us out there that enjoy building and/or tinkering with our equipment, and it's hard to justify adjusting your club's specs after you've spent $600.00 or more for a set of irons, when you could have built them to suit yourself for half the price. I ask that you consider this in your next club test.

Mike Johnson, who does the Equipment Page for Golf World and serves as one of the Hot List judges, explains why we do it the way we do.

The list is certainly not limited to big brands. I would point to the selection of the Miura iron in the last list as an example. In other years we have honored clubs from companies such as KZG, T.P. Mills, Gauge Design and others that have very little market share or impact in the market place. And the Bobby Jones woods virtually no one knew about until we put them on the Hot List.

Component clubs are fine, but it is a very small percentage of the universe that “wants to get their hands dirty” and build their own set. The readers of Golf Digest, for the most part, are looking to the magazine for guidance in sifting through the mass of clubs available at retail golf shops. Hence, our focus on those clubs. Also, to include components as a category would be very difficult. There are far more components than manufacturers. And then how do we decided what shafts to use? What grips to use? It would not be fair to make comparisons without that information.

But, says Mike, components can provide the ultimate fit, and that's something he and the other members of Hot List panel fully endorse.

"Had the gutta-percha golf ball not been invented, it is likely enough that golf itself would be in the catalogue of virtually extinct games, only locally surviving, as stool-ball and knurr spell." Horace Hutchinson

Thanks to reader Tom Wicevich of Ridgeway, Colorado, where they're not playing much golf yet, for this striking comparison photo. Tom says:

The other day I purchased a new driver, the "R7 Draw".  Shortly after, I was passing by my rack of older clubs and saw my Wilson Staff driver from my first complete set, circa 1967.   I think you are one of the people who could appreciate the comparison. The only question is....."How did we ever hit the ball?"

Our club holds an event periodically in which we play persimmon woods and balata balls. To say scores soar is an understatement.

By the way, stool-ball and knurr and spell were stick-and-ball precursors to baseball, played as far back as the Middle Ages.