Like many Golf Digest readers who also subscribed to Golf For Women, Cherie Riesenberg has a few questions, all having to do with women and our magazine.

Why do you seldom (if ever!) have women on your cover?  Also, hardly ever are features or articles about or for women and those that do frequently focus on the beginner or average woman player vs topics related to pros and lower handicap amateur players.  Are you mostly a golf magazine for men? I really miss the quality and format of Golf For Women and am disappointed it apparently went under. My husband even said it was a far better magazine than Golf Digest. Can't some of what was learned there be incorporated into Golf Digest?

Thanks!

Let me take those questions one at a time. First, we do feature women on the cover, if only occasionally. Lorena Ochoa and Annika Sorenstam, both playing editors of the magazine, have each appeared on the cover, Lorena as late as August. Our December issue chronicles Annika's amazing career in numbers and includes Annika's "10 Rules for Seeking a New Challenge." The Pocket Tps in December is devoted entirely to "My Best Lessons" by Annika. And there is more online, including Annika videos, slide shows and a Q & A. We run the monthly "Ask Stina" column by Stina Sternberg, a former Golf For Women editor.

As for our monthly instruction, we believe our team of great teachers, including Annika and Lorena, appeal to all levels of golfers--and certainly both genders.

But let's face it. We are a magazine with predominantly (more than 90 per cent) male subscribers and about 80 per cent male readers.

Nevertheless, 20 per cent of six million is a lot of readers and with the demise of Golf For Women we will add two special sections devoted to women's golf in 2009, one in April and one in June. They will be called Golf Digest Woman and will be edited by Stina. Let us know what you think.

--Bob Carney

Rabbi Marc Gellman, an avid golfer, a sometime contributor to Golf Digest, and one of the people who lobbied long and hard to get the U.S. Open to Bethpage in 2000, writes for Newsweek on matters non-golf for the most part. His Thanksgiving column, while having nothing to do with golf or Bethpage, is worth your time. Here's how it begins:

"The butterfly effect" is a phrase that came to Hollywood and our culture from chaos theory and the abstract mathematical models of Edward Lorenz. The idea is that even the smallest alteration of the first cause in a series can produce a vast change in the final result. So in theory the slight alteration of the tiny breeze caused by a butterfly's wing could eventually change the course of a great hurricane. That is the theory. It always sounded ridiculous to me, until now.

I won't steal Gellman's story, but I think you'll find, as I did, that it's a perfect example of the butterfly effect....and worth sharing.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--Bob Carney

Prostate exams are important, not only because they might save your life, but also because they might lead to good stories. Doug Bruce of Fresno had the exam, then a biopsy, and reported back with this tidbit:

I recently had a prostate biopsy from urologist that I am friendly with. At the end of the procedure he lectured me on taking it easy for a few days because my body had been punctured and could bleed if over used. After some idle conversation he excused himself to advise my wife. I soon realized I had forgot to ask him if golf was considered light duty, so I asked his nurse. She responded "you guys are all alike, you never ask about sex."

Well told, Doug. But what was her point, exactly?

--Bob Carney

It's cold in Fenton, Missouri and Golf World reader Dave Pikul, time on his hands, has taken on the FedEx Cup fix in response to Bob Verdi's column in the November 7 issue. It takes a bit of digesting, but his solution is thought-provoking.

Having read Bob Verdi opinions column concerning the FedEx Cup points the solution to the points problem is simple. The points need to be reset after each phase. The current season points system can remain the same, but when the Fed X Cup starts the points are reset. The top 100 make it to the first tournament with the point reset at 100 to 1. The top regular point golfer getting 100 points down to 1 for the 100th ranked player. The results of the first tournament is the points started with added to the points earned, thus if the number one player finishes in the 25th spot he would get 100 plus 75 for a total of 175. In tournament number 2 the field is narrowed to 75 players and the point are reset from 75 to 1. Final points are determined the same as round one. For the third tournament the field is reduced to 50 players and point reset to 50 to 1. (Note: In case of a tie for the final spot the higher seed would advance).

For the fourth tournament the field would be narrowed to 32 players points reset from 32 to 1, but this is where it would get interesting. After the Thursday round the field is cut to 16 players, points rest to 16 to 1. For the Saturday matches we are now down to 8 golfers reset at 8 to 1. This brings us to Sunday where we have 4 players left with points reset at 4 to 1. It's a good possibility that we could wind up with a tie and then have a sudden-death playoff for the $10 million, which would provide a dramatic end to the Cup.

All other sports playoffs start out equal with the only advantage being home field or being more rested. A playoff as suggested evens the playing field much as the same way in football, baseball, basketball and hockey.

Dave, now that you'e finished with this, please address the BCS. You may wish to start with the Big 12 and work your way in.

--Bob Carney

New Jersey reader Scott Harris writes about Erik Compton's drive to make the PGA Tour. Though he missed advancing to the final stage of Q school last week by a stroke, Compton's story is nonetheless (as Harris writes) "awe inspiring"

...even more so for someone like myself who has gone through two heart transplant operations. I realized after my bypass operation, there are two roads we can travel. One is to follow the road of depression and feeling for ourselves or we can get off our butt and live life to the fullest, including playing golf at the highest level, as Erik is achieving, or as a weekend player, which I've been doing for forty-five years. My wife Meryl gave me only one choice. Don't lie in bed looking at the ceiling. She forced me get up, get dressed and get on with my life. I looked forward to playing more than I ever had in the past. Shooting 90 my first round after my operation was uplifting. A 78 my second round was unbelievable. If my story helps even one person realize we have choices, despite being confronted with sickness, it would have been worth it. Thanks for listening. Here's to good health.

And to Erik making it next year.

--Bob Carney

South Carolina reader George Gatesy says Bill Fields' Golf World story, "Lost in the Fog," which recounted the tragic plan crash that took the life of Davis Love Jr. and three colleagues, recalled a time when his father played with Mr. Love.

It brought to mind a story my father told me in the mid sixties. My father, Jules Gatesy, was an amateur golfer in New Jerseu who qualified for and participated in the 1959 US Open at Winged Foot. During a qualifying round at Winged Foot the following year, he was paired with Davis Love, Jr. (At the time I believe Mr. Love was the Assistant Golf Professional at Mountain Ridge Country Club in NJ.) On the 13th hole (Par 3) my father hit a four wood that was heading right at the pin. My father was rooting out loud for the ball to go in the hole when Mr. Love stated, "Root for it to be close, but not in. If the ball goes in you'll be buying drinks for a thousand people at the clubhouse." I recall my father stating that Mr. Love was exceptionally nice to him during their round of golf...once a gentleman, always a gentleman.

Thanks, George. Davis was a wonderful man, as nice as you describe. He was also one of those people who worked so hard and conscientiously that he made those around him--and I was fortunate to work with him on a book--want to be just as focused and hard-working. His very being kept you on your toes. To give you an idea of Davis' sense of determination and his high standards, here's a story behind that 1960 qualifying round at Winged Foot. After Davis had passed the first stage of qualification and was about to undertake the second--at Winged Foot--he had an accident. Helping a woman dislodge her front bumper from a metal barrier at a diner in New Jersey, Davis badly sliced several fingers on his hand. The doctor told him that normal golf shots would tear the stitches open. The Open was out of the question. Davis thought otherwise. Believing that if he could avoid digging into the turf and sweep his shots he could protect his hand and still play, Davis borrowed clubs from his high-handicap members and put together a set almost entirely made up of woods. When he appeared at Winged Foot for that round with your father, an official there scolded him. He had no chance to qualify, the man said. He was only taking a spot from someone who could. How selfish! Davis not only qualified but went on play so well at Cherry Hills in Denver that at one point he was on the leaderboard. A risky shot out of the rough, however, opened the wounds and forced him leave the competition. A great teacher, a fine player, an amazing man.

--Bob Carney

Recession Lesson No. 1. Don't talk to Michiganders about the FedEx Cup. They've got other things on their minds these days and their patience with how to spend $10 million on football-season golf events is thin, er, non-existent. Here is Dave Keyt of Lakeview after reading Bob Verdi's column on the cup in Golf World:

Too much is being made of the problems with the Fed Ex Cup and efforts to supposedly fix it.

I am a reasonably well informed golf watcher and do not care in the least about the Fed Ex Cup. From reading the TV ratings it appears I am in the majority.

The first two years have been won by golfers who played the best. That doesn't seem to satisfy those who dreamed up this sham. The tentative plan to guarantee everybody playing the last tournament will have a chance to win is a joke. Equally asinine is making sure someone, Padraig Harrington for example, who plays horribly in the early tournaments is guaranteed a spot in the final.

I do not watch golf to see how much money can be won. The gross amounts passed out for the Fed Ex will not generate any additional interest.

Creating this failed attempt at some sort of season ending extravaganza is right up there with calling any of the senior events a major. What are they again?

Dave, this is harsh. I understand how you might be more interested in bailing out the Lions, the Woverines or the auto industry, but remember what a mess the end of the golf used to be. They're trying.

--Bob Carney

Robert Barber Jr. of Phoenix took the time to write a long, well-thought-out letter on the issue of driver length and accuracy. I excerpt here, for while Robert recommends against length in drivers he has no such bias in letters. Good stuff, though:

 

     I must admit that I get a little perverse pleasure reading about the trouble professional golfers such as Phil Mickelson and Anthony Kim have with the driver. Last I heard, Phil was sounding like a hacker, using a draw-bias driver to hit a cut off the tee---and Kim is choking up his 44 and 1/2 inch driver to 42 inches and taking a three quarter swing to keep the ball in play.

For Phil: How about using a fade biased driver, teeing it up from the right edge of the tee box and hitting it up the right side or middle--and letting the club do the fading.
   

And for Anthony Kim and Phil and Bubba and John Daly, etc: Ever hear of STEEL shafts?   If you've got to go through all that just to keep the ball in the fairway--and you're already willing to give up some distance----why not eat some humble pie and go back to the old 43-inch steel shaft, and settle for 285 yards, but in the fairway?   
    
Now, generally, almost all drivers have a perceptable "draw bias" that is annoying to look at at address, being that it screams "hook."   This draw bias is because club makers know that with 45 and 46 inch shafts, many if not most golfers can't turn the club over through impact and get the face square. I don't have that problem, and I get sick of hitting straight drives that drift left because of the closed face. 
      
Most men are shorter than 6 feet tall and miss the look and feel of the old clubs.  I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if the long-shafted graphite craze is just an expensive con by clubmakers and that we'd all be much happier if we played from the middle tees and used a 42 or 43 inch steel shafted driver and saved some money and strokes doing it.
    
Anyway, in one of my wife's bags was an old Hollis Stacy driver, steel shafted.  I decided to use it one day when we were out playing our short course on the longest par 4, which was 360 yards.   The shaft felt manageable, the face set up square with no "draw bias" and instantly, I felt confident.  I hit a nice, high ball that started down the right side and drew back into the middle of the fairway, 240 yards, maybe as much as 250 yards.  Now doesn't that tell you something?  If I could hit an old, ladies steel-shafted wood driver that far and well, do really long hitters such as Kim and Mickelson, not to mention bombers such as Daly or Bubba Watson, really need to fight with long, graphite shafts as opposed to shorter, sturdier, more accurate steel-shafted drivers?    If I were Phil Mickelson playing the 2009 British Open----what do I have to lose by putting a steel shafted 43-inch driver in my bag? 

  We asked Mike Johnson, Golf World's equipment editor, to comment on reader Barber's letter:

I agree with half of Mr. Barber's point. Players would benefit by going shorter. We did a test at the Hot List this year that pretty much proved that point and we're publishing the results in the Feb. issue. But I think players can accomplish that by going shorter in graphite. Steel in a driver is a full 40 grams heavier than most graphite driver shafts, more in some instances. That's giving up way too much in distance. Graphite is fine, it's the length that's hurting.

I also like his comments about playing the back tees and how people insist on going back when they don't have the game for it. It reminds me of when someone complained to Pete Dye that his courses were too hard and Dye simply replied, "I can't help you if you insist on playing from the wrong set of tees."

Oh, and Phil did use a fade-biased driver. And he won the AT&T and Masters with it in back-to-back weeks in 2006.

I'll add one comment. As Bob Toski said a long time ago, "Golf is a game of how near, not how far." Robert, I think he'd be in your camp on this one.

--Bob Carney

For Golf Digest reader Tim Terchek the state of the economy, coupled with the photo of Bubba Watson's glittery belt buckle in the December issue, left a sour taste.

That's great. Bubba Watson, who has never won a tournament of any note, can spend $25,000 for a belt buckle. Remind me never to pay any money to see him play. He obviously makes too much already.

For the record: In our video about the belt, Bubba explains that a friend of his fabricated it. The buckle has been valued at $25,000, he says, but I suspect Bubba got a deal.

Your letter, though, is an example of a new filter through which our readers are viewing stories: It might be called the half-my-office-just-lost-their-jobs filter. Rose-colored glasses are out.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest reader John Lawson of Corunna, MI, takes issue with a Todd Anderson tip in the December issue.

In the article "How to beat uneven lies" (page 125), the section on "ball above feet" states: "in effect, the slope makes the club longer...." My experience tells me that the club is actually made effectively shorter. If it is "effectively longer" then why have your readers stand taller and grip down an inch or two? Certanly the distance from your sternum to the ball is a shorter distance than when playing on level ground.

Ball below feet......has this distance stated exactly the opposite. "The ground sloping away from your feet effectively shortens your club"........my experience is the reverse of this.

Lucy....you got some 'esplainin to do! Could you clarify this for me?

Oh, Ricky, er, John, I think this is a simple misunderstanding: You're thinking about the distance between your hands or sternum and the ground on the these shots; we're talking about what the stance does to effective length of the club, that is, how the club covers that distance.

When the ball is above your feet, you are closer to it than on a level lie; hence the club feels and operates "longer." That's why the tendency on this shot is to hit behind the ball--exactly what would happen with a club that's too long for you. Thus, you have to choke up and stand tall to compensate. When the ball is below your feet, the opposite is true. Your sternum is farther from the ball than usual, making the club, in effect, too short for the shot. The tendency on this shot is too hit the ball thin (as you might if you had a club that was too short for you). You have to bend your knees to reach the ball.

For more on uneven lies, see the Breaking 100, 90, 80 by Don Hurter (pictured).

--Bob Carney