Two Driver Debate, Part II

A reader who is a respected national golf writer had this to say about Phil and his two driver concept:

Mickelson using two drivers and one swing supports the argument against technology. It used to be that tour players had to learn to work the ball either way and many were unable to do so with any degree of consistency. Those that could had an advantage. In other words, it's a lost skill, since you can just carry two drivers and let the club work it for you.

In his Golfonline column, Peter Kostis writes:

It used to be that players carried a standard set that included a couple of woods, the standard number of irons plus a pitching and sand wedge. Whatever shots they could hit with that set were the shots they had to play. But today’s player is different. They see a shot that is required and then get their club maker to produce a club that will let them hit that shot. Can you say 60° wedge, hybrid iron, 7-wood, 9-wood or gap wedge? When players saw Tiger’s 2-iron fly driver distance with 7-iron trajectory, they knew they had to do something!

Going forward, I think we will see more and more players looking at the courses they are about to play and thinking about what shots they’ll need to hit. Then, based on their needs, players will put clubs in their bag that will allow them to hit the necessary shots without changing the way they swing. Develop a repeatable swing, and let the equipment adjust the shot.'

I'm still finding myself seeing both sides to this argument. Though when it was revealed (by Phil) that one driver gave him a 25-yard turbo boost, somehow the concept seemed less like something reverting back to the days of the brassie, and more like a strange symptom of the launch monitor.

Thoughts?