The Hot List has landed and so have the first of your comments:

Dear Editor:
I always enjoy reading about the new clubs and technology in your annual equipment issue. But really, it's hard to find anything negative about ANY club in ANY of the club categories. Every tester only has glorious remarks about EVERY club they hit. Come on guys, EVERY club cannot possibly be "the straightest and longest club I've ever hit in my entire life!" We all know the only way to truly evaluate the real performance of all of the latest and greatest clubs is to put them on the mechanical swinger at an independent test lab and determine what the true quantitative performance really is, versus a 12 handicap player like me telling your readers, "This baby is going directly into my bag this afternoon!" Let's get the real performance numbers so your loyal readers can make the best informed decision relative to what new club they want to spend their hard-earned dollars on. I'm sure the manufactures that provide their latest and greatest products and spend big bucks on ads in your magazine, wouldn't mind also hearing their product is 20 yards shorter and hits it sideways, as compared to their arch rival competitor! Let's us club technology nuts decide what club we are going to buy this spring based on the testing facts, not dramatized opinions.

Bill Schlegel
Cornelius, NC

Here is Golf Digest Equipment Editor Mike Stachura's response to Bill's letter, which addresses both the questions of no negative player comments and human versus mechanical testing.

Those comments are generally positive because 1) the products that make the list represent approximately one-fourth of the total set of clubs considered (471) so it should come as no surprise that the clubs received disproportionately positive comments from our panelists; and 2) a product that earns its place on the Hot List shouldn't have that position called into question by one negative comment. As for the reality check provided by a critical comment, we believe the NOT statement, which comes solely from our editors (the only people who have a vote on the Hot List), reflects a legitimate concern about each product.

As to the idea about robot testing, I can only tell you that from my research, comparative robot testing of huge multiples of clubs results in inconsistent data at best and flawed conclusions at worst. Most manufacturers I know only use robot testing when comparing two variables, not the 30-40 we routinely have in a category like drivers. Even to do the limited robot testing we do requires two weeks, not counting retesting. And that's at only one clubhead speed. Given that to research all current product for the February issue requires that all robot testing be done by mid-October and given that many new products do not reach us until late September, it is only possible to do limited robot testing anyway. More importantly, I find it very meaningful that the USGA almost never relies solely on robot testing anymore in its evaluations of clubs and balls. Bottom line: Golfers use golf clubs, robots do not.

Finally, let me emphasize this point in as clear a set of terms as I possibly can: Advertising in Golf Digest, in and of itself, has no bearing on where or whether any product finishes on the Hot List.

The Hot List is, and always will be, a qualitative exercise based on the four criteria we think define truly superior products. I appreciate your comments because they inspire us to do better work, but do not think for a minute that our effort to produce the Hot List is anything other than highly rigorous. Our goal is to produce a meaningful list that a reader can use to BEGIN his or her search for new equipment. I do not believe we have failed in that regard. Mike Stachura.

Thanks Bill, thanks Mike.

--Bob Carney

Nothing gets and keeps a golfer's juices flowing like talk of handicap abuse. Dean Knuth's reply to a question on beating one's handicap got to Golf Digest reader C.T. Brown.

Dear Editor:
I wish to take issue with Dean Knuth?s answer to the question concerning beating one?s handicap by 9 strokes. It would seem to be implying that a player having one of those rare good days when everything is clicking is guilty of something shady. I have a USGA handicap of 22 and was able to put together two of three rounds where I beat my handicap by good margins in our club championship. My normal game has me between 90 and 95 but on those rare occasions, I can find the low 80?s. That happens about two to three times a year. I think that Dean Knuth's suggestion to appeal to the handicap committee will tend to foster ill feelings in that club. Of course, if the petitioner was playing a tournament where they don?t have to present their Official USGA Handicap card at registration...well...we have all seen those events where ringers swoop in and take everything, then there really isn?t a functioning handicap committee to which one could appeal. I belong to two different clubs where the committees and the members all know what to expect from the participants in the tournaments and give a pat on the back to those who are blessed with one of those special rounds.

C.T. Brown
Lakewood, NJ

Take issue all you like, C.T., but the Pope of Slope knows his stuff. Here's Dean's reply:

Sorry, Mr. Brown, but I don't agree with your argument

The philosophy of the USGA Handicap System is that every golfer can have one great round in a tournament, but to have TWO great rounds indicates that a player's potential is better than his handicap, which in itself is supposed to reflect a player's potential. That is why the USGA implemented Section 10-3 which identifies tournament scores with a "T". If a player beats his handicap by more than three strokes in two or more tournament rounds in a period of the last 12 months, his handicap is calculated by using those two T-scores (plus a correction factor), rather than using the player's best 10 of the last 20. You can check it out yourself at the USGA web site. Go to Handicaps and select the USGA Handicap System Manual.

As for fostering ill-feelings in a club, I disagree. Any club with an effective Handicap Committee that takes action on exceptional play is following Section 8 of the USGA Handicap System Manual, as it is required to do to be in compliance with that USGA System. My experience is that when Handicap Committees take action, the vast majority of club members are pleased and only the player whose handicap is reduced might be unhappy. Active Handicap Committees result in greater participation in club net events because members realize that they have a chance to place near the top occasionally, which is what the USGA Handicap System was meant to do.

In addition to the USGA Handicap System procedures, many clubs have also implemented the Knuth Tournament Point System which identifies players who win net events and assigns them points. Players that collect more than their fair share of points play at a reduced handicap in club events. For more information go to my web site: popeofslope.com.

Dean Knuth

--Bob Carney

Golf World readers, being the traditionalists that they are, responded with spirit to Mike Johnson's column about replacing "old" equipment in the Dec. 19 "Gear Up" issue:

Dear Editor:
Although I am appreciative of Mr. Johnson?s efforts to promote the products of the fine companies that support your excellent publication, I would like to offer a different perspective to his premise for playing better.

Employing equipment that masks the swing?s mistakes, such as the "game-improvement" clubs mentioned in the article, seems to be akin to trying to learn how to play a guitar without any strings. A true "game-improvement" club would be the classic, forged, muscle-back blades and persimmon woods that when miss-applied, provide immediate feedback as to the error.

Further, the notion that new clubs are the panacea to an improved game neglects the basic premise that dedicated, specific practice is the key element to improvement. Perhaps another article citing available statistics on the changes to USGA Handicaps since the introduction of these new clubs would be of interest With four pages of just new putters I can?t help but wonder how the average putts-per-green dynamic has improved today from say, twenty years ago.

I love your magazine; by far it?s the best out there.

Bob Slavonia
Pittsboro, NC

Dear Editor:
Who'da thunk it? Equipment lobby promotes consumption of clubs! I'm for a yearly men's club event that requires wooden woods, a titleist K2 ball, no hybrids, and no wedges over 56 degrees. These engineers/equipment companies have enough money to sue the pants off the USGA, but they have made the game "more enjoyable" for more folks (consumers). It's hard not to feel like it's more of a video game than ever before, new gimmicks every day. Golf as a sport suffers when tech advantages become a major variable, and when money buys the advantage, its a sad day for true sport. At least we'll get to watch this unseemly battle amongst tech and Golf play out, another episode of hilarious human folly. Lawyers, engineers, courts, dragging our game through some sleazy capitalist phase, coinciding with a seeming nadir of market economy. Actually, with the economic downturn, maybe the tech trendoids 'll be loading craigslist up right about now. Tech boy, I got you for 5's, and when you hear that sublime flush of persimmon through my ball, you'll remember what got you golfing.

David Shumann
Seattle, WA

We'd love to agree with you fellows and harken back to that day when our Spalding Dots fluttered out there 190 yards and we nearly lost our eyesight trying to align the blade of our Kenneth Smith 1-iron. We'd especially like to agree with you because this editor's bag was one of the inspirations for Mike's column. But I've tried hitting persimmon and blades--our club has one of those tournaments, too--and my hands are still ringing. And, David, if the equipment manufacturers had really made the game too easy we would have won our Member-Guest last year because I would not have missed the 18th green from the middle of the fairway by twenty yards. The game for most of us remains a challenge and it's no sin to want to add a yard or two off the tee or survive a mishit. That's my stand. But Peter Aronstam has a different take on the column, one I suspect we may be hearing more of in the coming year. He says, in effect, "It's about the money, stupid!"

Dear Editor:
I would take Micheal Johnson's griping about bad form at golf demo days--to try equipment but never to buy it--more seriously if magazines like yours presented readers with the full picture about new clubs. But as long as you report only on equipment made by the large OEMs, I am going to be one of those many who try, don't buy, and then turn to an option you choose to ignore - custom clubs made from reputable component manufacturers (not the knock offs!).

Why fork over $500 for one of the OEM drivers displayed in when I can build a set of woods or irons, equally good, for the same price using components from one of the reputable component manufactures like Golfsmith, Wishon etc? Using component manufacturers, I can get exactly the fit, feel and performance I require for my game, at prices much lower than the clubs you push on your pages.

If you are serious about helping golf and golfers in these tough economic times, then also present an option that offers equal or better performance at a lower price. If you cannot give the full picture (afraid of biting the hand that feeds you?), then quit complaining.

Peter Aronstam
Boca Raton, FL

Peter, I think this is a question of DNA. Is one a builder and a tinkerer, like yourself or my buddy, Port. St. Lucie Hammer, or, like most of us, just an impatient consumer? You say the driver is $500. But by the time you say that, it's been reduced. And in another couple of weeks, it's up on Ebay, slightly used, for half that. What's more, last year's model is already less than half and if you want to by a used set, irons and wedges included, there are tons of deals. Poor economy or not, bargains abound. There's a joke in my wife's family that whenever one of the three girls needed something, their Mom would say, "We can make that!" Sometimes it's easier and almost as cheap not to. You are right about fitting, of course. A brand new, carefully fitted set of clubs will be pricey. I'm not sure, though, that most of our readers require either brand new or the kind of fitting you're describing. That, and space, is why we do not cover components the way you suggest. But more power to you. If building a set feels half as good as re-gripping my clubs, I'm going to try it when I retire, which apparently is going to come a bit later than I planned a year ago.

--Bob Carney

Dear Editor, Golf Digest:

Love your magazine.

Ashley Mayo?s endorsement of GPS ranging devices in the latest issue (Digital Caddies, January 2009) was okay, but she glossed over the accuracy of the devices.

I?ve been a Skygolf SG2 user since the device was introduced and to tell the truth the $30 to $50 a year upkeep cost is getting old. However, nobody seems to want to compare the top devices and tell us golfers which units were the most accurate. For instance, the Golf Buddy Pro and Tour get great reviews and have no annual fee, but are they as accurate as say the Skygolf or Golflogix units?

At the end of the article Ashley put up the question "Just how accurate are these things?" Then she wrote "The best device measured the yardage to within three yards 90 percent of the time." Which unit was this and how did the other units measure up? This is the information your readers/consumers need to know.

Mike Carpenter

A second letter came from Cheryl Donohew in Rochester:

Dear Editor:
Review or Endorsement?
I was happy to see that you had reviewed gps units until I actually read it. How did the SkyCaddie SG5 win gold? Is there a sponsorship connection? I?ve read endless posts to gps forums in GolfWRX.com and have heard personal accounts about how poorly the SG5 functions? What was your criteria for this comparison? It?s very hard to believe that this was an unbiased evaluation.

Enough said. You also didn?t include an unit that is only available through direct sales, but available just the same: the Golf Guru. I can?t vouch for it personally, but again it?s mentioned numerous times in the GolfWRX.com forums, getting great reviews and can be checked out on their website. Since you were reviewing current units, it should have gotten equal space. My point being that if you?re going to review equipment, please do so in an unbiased way, so that those of us in the market for the item and make a truly informed decision. In this case, I?ve not decided what GPS unit I will buy, but I know for sure which one I won?t?the one you rated gold! Good thing my research includes more than your review.

Cheryl Donohew
Rochester, NY

I asked Ashley to reply:

The ratings in the GPS Hot List take into account ease of use, accuracy, innovation and buzz factor. So while accuracy was certainly a major factor, it was not the only one. And the reason is simple: all the devices are pretty darn accurate, averaging from 2 to 6 yards off. In a nutshell, two parts of each unit determine accuracy: the microchip within the device that receives GPS signals, and the way each company maps golf courses. The reason we awarded SkyCaddie with the gold medal is because it is the only company that pays a team of professional mappers to walk every single course, unlike the others which depend largely on satellite imagery and existing course maps. The SkyGolf mappers measure almost every nuance of every hole. When I mentioned that "the best device measured the yardage to within three yards 90 percent of the time," I was referring to the only device that earned a gold rating, the SkyCaddie SG5. We decided not to include the unit in the Hot List because a lot of the Guru's software was still being updated and developed. We felt we should feature only completely finished products on the List.
Thanks for the letters, Ashley Mayo.

--Bob Carney

Dear Editor:
Your article on Corey Pavin was great?I just don?t understand why Larry Nelson has been overlooked to serve as captain.  He is a combat veteran who taught himself to play outstanding golf from Ben Hogan?s book and won three majors. It is a shame that he hasn?t had the honor. Any thoughts?

Dennis W. Calhoun
Columbus, Georgia

Interesting, I asked the same question of the Golf World editors about Nelson. The answer came down to timing: Right now, his time has passed, they said; back then, the time was right for other candidates, such as his Ryder Cup partner, Lanny Wadkins or Tom Watson. Couldn't agree more with your assessment, however. Besides his majors, Nelson holds an outstanding Ryder Cup record, including a perfect 5-0 mark in the 1979 Matches. Could the quiet Larry Nelson lead the likes of AK and Boo? I sure think so.

Dear Editor:
My congratulations to John Hawkins. His story, "The Playoff", for Newsmakers of the Year, was undoubtedly the best sports article I have ever read.

J. R. Clark
Hendersonville, NC

Please, no more letters like this. We like to keep the Hawk gnarly and angry.

Dear Editor:
Your unique suggestion [View from the Bunker, Dec. 12] that the players donate two percent of their winnings to the benefiting charity of the tournaments should definitely include the writers for Golf World making their living off golf.

Rudy Weber
Lincolnshire, Illinois

Touche. If we're going to talk the talk, we oughta' walk the walk. On the subject of giving, you might be interested in a new book by Syracuse Professor Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters. He found that low-income Americans tend to give the highest portion of their earnings to charity....

New Year's resolutions, anyone?

--Bob Carney

Our mail box overfloweth--well, we got a several emails--about the Golf World Equipment Preview issue. What is it about the hope that springs from these product pages, especially when it's winter and there's no golf in sight?

Snow blowers blowing, plows plowing, can't get out of the driveway because of the 12 inches that fell last night and today. Workplace closed and the dog can't get past the drifts. The 2009 equipment guide shows up. There is a God!!

Gregory Braun

A couple of letters came in response to Equipment Editor Mike Johnson's column about foolish golfers who don't upgrade their equipment enough. (He threatened to use me as an example, since only one club in my bag met his obsolescence standard.) What he did say was: "If you're using anything off the tee more than two years old, your costing yourself. Will you see dramatic increases in distance? Not really, unless you're playing something super old. But you will find solid gains if you are properly fit. And the real improvement is not in your Sunday punch, but on the mis-hits, where modern technology has greatly reduced the penalty for the inconsistencies of the swing."

Dear Editor:
I thoroughly support E. Michael Johnson's opinion that it is important to upgrade your sticks to get the most out of your potential. In the past year I replaced my driver, irons, gap and sand wedges, and added a 4 to my 3 hybrid. My handicap went from high to low single digits and at age 58, I'm sure my technique hasn't changed much.

There are great deals out there, but remember to support your course's pro shop, too.

LB
Fairfield, CT

Speaking of equipment, we also got our first comment about the USGA's plan to examine the impact of high-lofted wedges. It wasn't a friendly comment exactly:

Dear Editor:
Concerning the recent USGA Equipment Standards Staff investigation of lofted wedges, I say to hell with them.

Instead of trying to promote the game in down economic times these stuffed shirts continue their equipment inquisition. Truly, what function do these people and this outdated organization accomplish anymore? Let's be sure and drive some more people from the game so these clowns can continue to make the game less accessible for the enjoyment of the average Joe.

Mike Roach
Keller, Texas

Inquisition, Mike? That's a bit strong. I don't need to tell you the USGA is worried about the impact of these wedges on the pro game, where, we all would like to think, one should earn one's up-and-downs. Your reaction, however, points out that perhaps we should re-explore two-standards of equipment regulation, one for professional-level golfers and one for the rest of us. I suspect that subject will come up when again when the USGA rules on this issue.

--Bob Carney

Every holiday season deserves a feel-good story. Ours comes from Golf Digest reader Jerry Turek.

Dear Editor:
Frustrated with a lack of improvement I asked my golf partner, Rich, what he thought was the most important thing I should consider. After thinking for a while he responded by saying  "just trust your feelings." Well, I guess his advice was the start of solving one of many problems. The following week I went to the doctor and told him I wasn't feeling well and possibly it was affecting my golf game. He replied that anybody who just played 150 plus holes of golf in a week (North Carolina golf trip) should feel some level of soreness in their body, but he would honor my feelings and run some tests.

A stress test showed some irregularities in my heartbeat, but again my primary doctor said he didn't think it was too severe but needed further examination. I then saw a heart specialist and he immediately performed a catheterization, this is when they discovered one of my arteries "widow maker" was blocked 95%. This artery was given that name due to a high percentage of people dying from a massive heart attack.

This Thursday (11/13/08) surgeons put a stent in this artery allowing the flood gates to open and again fill my heart with that precious red gold. The good part of this story is that this medical condition was caught in time to prevent my wife from joining one of those mourner's clubs. Now I'm well enough to kiss my loved ones and continue playing weekend golf. The only down side to this story is that the doctors were unable to fix my golf swing.  I guess when golf season arrives next spring I'll have to continue my quest and chase that elusive white ball.

Remember, when your wife pops the question " why do you have to play so much golf ? "  just reply  "Honey, someday it could save my life! I know this guy that.............."

Jerry Turek

Jerry, great story, even better photos. Happy New Year.

--Bob Carney

Wow, was I excited to see the supplement with the title, "2008 Major Rewind." I thought it interesting that no women were on the cover and disgusted to see no women in the table of contents, either. Didn't the LPGA have major events this year? Did no one on staff notice the oversight? Were these events not worth covering? Once again, you have showed your bias. And I'm sure, once again, you won't print my complaint regarding gender inequity in your golf coverage. I'm not even looking for 50-50, but 100-0 is a little outrageous. 

Dr. Kelly Quick
Sheboygan, WI

I spoke to editor Geoff Russell about this. I'm not sure his answer will satisfy you, Dr. Quick. Indeed, I don't think there is an answer that will.  The fact is, the issue covered only the men's-tour majors--not the LPGA nor the Champions or Nationwide Tour, for that matter. It did not even cover the Players Championship, which some consider the next best thing to a major. Nor did it cover any of the tournaments of the FedEx Cup. The PGA Tour was as disappointed with those omissions as you were with the lack of LPGA majors.

Geoff's reasoning was that given a single-advertiser issue with limited space, and given that the four men's majors and the Ryder Cup were a must, he would do them well, with adequate reportage, photos and illustrations from each tournament, and not add other events and wind up short-changing all of them. I'm thinking we would be having a similar conversation if Geoff had made a half-hearted effort to cover the other tours. As you know, the Newsmakers issue, which also covered the ADT Championship and accompanied the Major Rewind supplement, included female stars. Again, I don't expect you to like Geoff's answer, but he had his reasons.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest Editor:
Your article ("How to Fix Private Clubs", by Davis Sezna) in the October issue of Golf Digest has certainly struck a nerve through out the private club industry. I have received over one hundred reactions to your article and the article in the Wall Street Journal. The comments below reflect the general tone of comments from club members, vendors and from the individuals on the management team of many, many private clubs.

Golf Digest is a "must have" in every club I have been familiar with. Great comprehensive publication that has truly stood the test of time.

The club operations referenced in the article, however, seem to suggest an industry experts opinion. This individual is simply dead wrong. Quite frankly, neither the author of the article nor the individual credited with the remarks in the article could have been near one of the 3,000 private clubs managed by a professional club manager in the last twenty years.

The individual's remarks may truly reflect a very limited exposure to a segment of the industry which is less than 10% of the club industry, but certainly not the private club industry in general. But then again, it is only their opinion, I suppose.

Quite factually, the private clubs managed by CMAA members alone generated almost $14 billion in revenue last year, of which $4+ billion was payroll. The private club segment of the total club business model in America is stronger and better managed than at any point in the last 100 years.

Suffice it to say, there was little ''homework" done on the background of which one might base any conclusions drawn from this particular article.

The private club in every community in which it may exist is one of the most sustainable economic engines within that community. It is a single purpose business that remains on the same property and pays taxes to that community. Provides jobs for decade after decade and remains the best friend to dozens of small businesses, from the florists and linen companies to the FedEx/UPS services, plumbers and painters and purveyors of consumables on the golf course as well as within the many common areas of the club.

These two guys really need to get out of their bubble and see what has happened within this industry over the past twenty years. I would be happy to enlighten anyone with some facts.

Thank you for listening to the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey would say)!
Jim Singerling, CEO
Club Managers Association of America (19 years)

Jim, thanks very much for your letter. I asked consultant Davis Sezna, who authored the main piece, to comment and he replied that he thinks the story stands on its own. I won't argue that, but will add a couple of observations. I happen to belong to a club that has done it right: shored up its financial picture, upgraded its swimming, golf and tennis facilities but within reason, and, with the help of a very savvy manager, added programs and menus that appeal to families. We were tempted to spend millions on a new clubhouse but resisted and simply restored needy areas in a charming old one. But I know two clubs very nearby that did the opposite: invested in huge new clubhouses, imposed choking assessments, and had to increase initiation fees. Certainly it's not the managers who make these decisions; it's the members in most cases, owners in others. But there are shining examples and horror stories living side by side out there. And 2009 will likely tell us which is which.

--Bob Carney

(Illustration: Seymour Chwast)

Dear Golf World Editor:
Steve Williams' comments and behavior are not surprising given the character of the man. What is harder to understand is that his employer has not, to my knowledge, ever reprimanded him or ordered him to make a public apology. Williams has diminished his country, his employer and the game of golf by his continuing obnoxious behavior.
Ross Jesswein
Grants Pass OR

Actually, his employer did reprimand him yesterday and even communicated with Phil about it. I like what Ron Sirak had to say on golfdigest.com and thought Butch Harmon's remarks--he called it "deplorable"-- were on the money as well. Geoff Shackelford has a couple of items that take it to an even seamier level. (See the "What's the difference..." joke attributed to someone in the Woods camp.) Forgive me, but let's take the high road on all of this. I hear about John Daly and his ridiculous behavior in Australia, then listen to this cattiness and I want to pay for airline tickets for all involved to Detroit, Mumbai or any veterans hospital, where they might get a taste of reality. Ours is a wonderful sport with a side to it that is small, mean, arrogant and utterly ungrateful. That's what this is.

--Bob Carney