[johnnypro]

I'll go way out on a limb and predict whatever manufacturers provide the magazine with the largest annual advertising revenues will do very well on the list.



What a joke! It's like payola at old AM radio stations.

[Birdie Retriever]

Wow...I am amazed to see that Nike didn't even get one pick...they musta cut some of their advertising budget to Golf Digest

[dncm2002]

Is the hotlist details available on-line yet?

[slicer365]

Conventional Driver: Nike Sumo
Composite Driver: Ping Rapture
Squared Driver: Nike Sumo2
Fairway Woods: Callaway X
Irons (High H/C): Mizuno Hemi Cogs
Irons (Mid H/C): Mizuno MX-25
Irons (Scratch): Callaway X Proto
Hybrid: Adams Proto
Wedges: Ping iWedge
Blade Putter: PING Redwood (Anser)
Mallet Putter: Odyssey XG model (probably 2Ball, sleeper #7)
Ball (high H/C): Nike Juice 312
Ball (Mid H/C): Titleist NXT
Ball (Scratch): Seemless Pro V1

Disclaimer: It depends on which company is paying this year.

[Birdie Retriever]

dncm2002, on Jan 2 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Is the hotlist details available on-line yet?

Not yet...hopefully it will be up before the end of the week.

Keep checking this website: Golf Digest Equipment Page

[jaryanto]

Is the actual magazine (Gofl Digest Feb 07) out already? i did not see it at local Barnes and Noble yesterday... is it available for public now?

[GDI Pershing]

Just got my copy......very interesting. And it's up on their website.

Erik

[mcbush25]

I saw the '06 Hot List on their website, but all I saw for '07 was the List of the nominees and not the results.

C.J.

[dpwrx]

Looks like this thread got the attention of GD's staff:
http://blogs.golfdigest.com/equipment/


The HOT LIST 2007: Truth, not advertising

GOUGE: It is a little uncomfortable reading the advance reviews of our annual HOT LIST project, things like the following seen recently on the otherwise worthwhile equipment-talk website golfwrx.com. Notes one leader of the misinformed:
"It seems like whichever companies give Golf Digest the most $$ for advertising always ends up winning the most "Editors Choice" awards." Or this: "How does a companies "marketing influence" (insert any other pointless category that is not performance related here) affect how well you or me hit their product? It doesn't... So why is it a category?" Study more here.
So how bad does it feel to be viewed as a sell-out, pardsy? You can't win an argument like this. The perception that our annual HOT LIST project is subject to the whims and pressures of the business side is without question the most difficult complaint for us to understand. The belief that advertisers, or worse those within the company concerned exclusively with the business side, somehow influence our choices, implies a dereliction of duty that is unsettling, not just because it's wrong, but because it in some small way suggests that we've lost the trust readers have in what we do. I'm troubled, friend. How do you get that trust back, aside from screaming from the highest mountain, as you know I'm wont to do, NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, ASIDE FROM THE FOUR JUDGES ON THE HOT LIST PANEL, HAS A VOTE OF ANY KIND ON THE HOT LIST. NO. ONE.

BOMB: You’re right, you can’t win an argument like this. But that doesn’t mean that it sticks in my craw any less. Want to push my buttons? Impugning my integrity will do it every time. That said, I understand where it comes from. It’s hard not to think that way if you don’t see the process in action. But someone please go tell my wife, 9-year-old and 12-year-old why I spent some 60 days on the road away from them last year if all I had to do was award the biggest advertisers HOT LIST honors? Or why I’m up at 7 a.m. on my computer on a Saturday or Sunday? Or why I sit in a room with you and our other two judges knocking heads for weeks trying to decipher the slightest differences in products across all five of our criteria? I’m not looking for sympathy, just saying this is all part of what we do to try and be as diligent as possible. I have no problem with those that question our process or debate our selections. That’s all fair game. But implying we’re advertiser-driven in our selections just gets to me in a way few things do because we go above and beyond in so many ways to avoid even the appearance of that. For those that don’t know, we do not accept free trips from manufacturers. The equipment editors pay for the equipment that is in their bags. When we dine with representatives from equipment companies, we pick up the check. And that’s not something many other golf publications can say. Most important of all, no one—not our owners, not our CEO, not our publisher, not our chairman and editor, has ever told us what club to put in what spot on the HOT LIST. As you said, it is the decision of the four judges. Period. And anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn’t know that they’re talking about.

GOUGE: If they’re still listening, let’s review another complaint about our HOT LIST criteria. There is much hemming and hawing that Buzz Factor ought not to play any sort of role in our decision, that sales have nothing to do with how far a driver goes or how many three-footers a particular putter might make, that the idea that “a product must be in demand” is some kind of euphemism for “spends the most money in advertising with Golf Digest.” With the HOT LIST we are attempting to highlight the most significant products in the game. It is, after all, the HOT List, not the What-driver-goes-farther-on-5/8-inch-off-center-hits-at-an-87-miles-per-hour-swing-with-a-delofting-by-one-degree-at-impact-angle-of-attack LIST. In addition, proven success in the marketplace is another indication of a product’s or company’s ability to produce quality. So Buzz Factor is a measure of success. If you can generate interest, it goes well beyond advertising, and it indicates a level of performance that goes beyond logo lust. More importantly, however, Buzz Factor has been reduced to 15 percent of a product’s total score, half the weight of both Performance/Playability and Technology/Innovation. The highest marks in both of those criteria are what gets you on the HOT LIST. Our process, and like you mention our entire way of operating is aimed at striving for a consistent and overriding sense of fairness and objectivity. Quite simply, we attempt to be thorough. Finally, what would be the financial upside for satisfying one advertiser over another? The only master we attempt to serve in the HOT LIST process is the reader, and given that the HOT LIST has been rated by readers the magazine's most interesting and useful article for three years in a row, that’s about all you can ask for. But we welcome the criticism, especially you web junkies. It’s how we improve.

January 03, 2007 in Today's Rant | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

[nick01]

dpwrx, on Jan 3 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

Looks like this thread got the attention of GD's staff:
http://blogs.golfdigest.com/equipment/


The HOT LIST 2007: Truth, not advertising

GOUGE: It is a little uncomfortable reading the advance reviews of our annual HOT LIST project, things like the following seen recently on the otherwise worthwhile equipment-talk website golfwrx.com. Notes one leader of the misinformed:
"It seems like whichever companies give Golf Digest the most $$ for advertising always ends up winning the most "Editors Choice" awards." Or this: "How does a companies "marketing influence" (insert any other pointless category that is not performance related here) affect how well you or me hit their product? It doesn't... So why is it a category?" Study more here.
So how bad does it feel to be viewed as a sell-out, pardsy? You can't win an argument like this. The perception that our annual HOT LIST project is subject to the whims and pressures of the business side is without question the most difficult complaint for us to understand. The belief that advertisers, or worse those within the company concerned exclusively with the business side, somehow influence our choices, implies a dereliction of duty that is unsettling, not just because it's wrong, but because it in some small way suggests that we've lost the trust readers have in what we do. I'm troubled, friend. How do you get that trust back, aside from screaming from the highest mountain, as you know I'm wont to do, NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, ASIDE FROM THE FOUR JUDGES ON THE HOT LIST PANEL, HAS A VOTE OF ANY KIND ON THE HOT LIST. NO. ONE.

BOMB: You’re right, you can’t win an argument like this. But that doesn’t mean that it sticks in my craw any less. Want to push my buttons? Impugning my integrity will do it every time. That said, I understand where it comes from. It’s hard not to think that way if you don’t see the process in action. But someone please go tell my wife, 9-year-old and 12-year-old why I spent some 60 days on the road away from them last year if all I had to do was award the biggest advertisers HOT LIST honors? Or why I’m up at 7 a.m. on my computer on a Saturday or Sunday? Or why I sit in a room with you and our other two judges knocking heads for weeks trying to decipher the slightest differences in products across all five of our criteria? I’m not looking for sympathy, just saying this is all part of what we do to try and be as diligent as possible. I have no problem with those that question our process or debate our selections. That’s all fair game. But implying we’re advertiser-driven in our selections just gets to me in a way few things do because we go above and beyond in so many ways to avoid even the appearance of that. For those that don’t know, we do not accept free trips from manufacturers. The equipment editors pay for the equipment that is in their bags. When we dine with representatives from equipment companies, we pick up the check. And that’s not something many other golf publications can say. Most important of all, no one—not our owners, not our CEO, not our publisher, not our chairman and editor, has ever told us what club to put in what spot on the HOT LIST. As you said, it is the decision of the four judges. Period. And anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn’t know that they’re talking about.

GOUGE: If they’re still listening, let’s review another complaint about our HOT LIST criteria. There is much hemming and hawing that Buzz Factor ought not to play any sort of role in our decision, that sales have nothing to do with how far a driver goes or how many three-footers a particular putter might make, that the idea that “a product must be in demand” is some kind of euphemism for “spends the most money in advertising with Golf Digest.” With the HOT LIST we are attempting to highlight the most significant products in the game. It is, after all, the HOT List, not the What-driver-goes-farther-on-5/8-inch-off-center-hits-at-an-87-miles-per-hour-swing-with-a-delofting-by-one-degree-at-impact-angle-of-attack LIST. In addition, proven success in the marketplace is another indication of a product’s or company’s ability to produce quality. So Buzz Factor is a measure of success. If you can generate interest, it goes well beyond advertising, and it indicates a level of performance that goes beyond logo lust. More importantly, however, Buzz Factor has been reduced to 15 percent of a product’s total score, half the weight of both Performance/Playability and Technology/Innovation. The highest marks in both of those criteria are what gets you on the HOT LIST. Our process, and like you mention our entire way of operating is aimed at striving for a consistent and overriding sense of fairness and objectivity. Quite simply, we attempt to be thorough. Finally, what would be the financial upside for satisfying one advertiser over another? The only master we attempt to serve in the HOT LIST process is the reader, and given that the HOT LIST has been rated by readers the magazine's most interesting and useful article for three years in a row, that’s about all you can ask for. But we welcome the criticism, especially you web junkies. It’s how we improve.

January 03, 2007 in Today's Rant | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

hahaha cool

Nick

[mcbush25]

dpwrx, on Jan 3 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

Looks like this thread got the attention of GD's staff:
http://blogs.golfdigest.com/equipment/


The HOT LIST 2007: Truth, not advertising

GOUGE: It is a little uncomfortable reading the advance reviews of our annual HOT LIST project, things like the following seen recently on the otherwise worthwhile equipment-talk website golfwrx.com. Notes one leader of the misinformed:
"It seems like whichever companies give Golf Digest the most $$ for advertising always ends up winning the most "Editors Choice" awards." Or this: "How does a companies "marketing influence" (insert any other pointless category that is not performance related here) affect how well you or me hit their product? It doesn't... So why is it a category?" Study more here.
So how bad does it feel to be viewed as a sell-out, pardsy? You can't win an argument like this. The perception that our annual HOT LIST project is subject to the whims and pressures of the business side is without question the most difficult complaint for us to understand. The belief that advertisers, or worse those within the company concerned exclusively with the business side, somehow influence our choices, implies a dereliction of duty that is unsettling, not just because it's wrong, but because it in some small way suggests that we've lost the trust readers have in what we do. I'm troubled, friend. How do you get that trust back, aside from screaming from the highest mountain, as you know I'm wont to do, NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, ASIDE FROM THE FOUR JUDGES ON THE HOT LIST PANEL, HAS A VOTE OF ANY KIND ON THE HOT LIST. NO. ONE.

BOMB: You’re right, you can’t win an argument like this. But that doesn’t mean that it sticks in my craw any less. Want to push my buttons? Impugning my integrity will do it every time. That said, I understand where it comes from. It’s hard not to think that way if you don’t see the process in action. But someone please go tell my wife, 9-year-old and 12-year-old why I spent some 60 days on the road away from them last year if all I had to do was award the biggest advertisers HOT LIST honors? Or why I’m up at 7 a.m. on my computer on a Saturday or Sunday? Or why I sit in a room with you and our other two judges knocking heads for weeks trying to decipher the slightest differences in products across all five of our criteria? I’m not looking for sympathy, just saying this is all part of what we do to try and be as diligent as possible. I have no problem with those that question our process or debate our selections. That’s all fair game. But implying we’re advertiser-driven in our selections just gets to me in a way few things do because we go above and beyond in so many ways to avoid even the appearance of that. For those that don’t know, we do not accept free trips from manufacturers. The equipment editors pay for the equipment that is in their bags. When we dine with representatives from equipment companies, we pick up the check. And that’s not something many other golf publications can say. Most important of all, no one—not our owners, not our CEO, not our publisher, not our chairman and editor, has ever told us what club to put in what spot on the HOT LIST. As you said, it is the decision of the four judges. Period. And anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn’t know that they’re talking about.

GOUGE: If they’re still listening, let’s review another complaint about our HOT LIST criteria. There is much hemming and hawing that Buzz Factor ought not to play any sort of role in our decision, that sales have nothing to do with how far a driver goes or how many three-footers a particular putter might make, that the idea that “a product must be in demand” is some kind of euphemism for “spends the most money in advertising with Golf Digest.” With the HOT LIST we are attempting to highlight the most significant products in the game. It is, after all, the HOT List, not the What-driver-goes-farther-on-5/8-inch-off-center-hits-at-an-87-miles-per-hour-swing-with-a-delofting-by-one-degree-at-impact-angle-of-attack LIST. In addition, proven success in the marketplace is another indication of a product’s or company’s ability to produce quality. So Buzz Factor is a measure of success. If you can generate interest, it goes well beyond advertising, and it indicates a level of performance that goes beyond logo lust. More importantly, however, Buzz Factor has been reduced to 15 percent of a product’s total score, half the weight of both Performance/Playability and Technology/Innovation. The highest marks in both of those criteria are what gets you on the HOT LIST. Our process, and like you mention our entire way of operating is aimed at striving for a consistent and overriding sense of fairness and objectivity. Quite simply, we attempt to be thorough. Finally, what would be the financial upside for satisfying one advertiser over another? The only master we attempt to serve in the HOT LIST process is the reader, and given that the HOT LIST has been rated by readers the magazine's most interesting and useful article for three years in a row, that’s about all you can ask for. But we welcome the criticism, especially you web junkies. It’s how we improve.

January 03, 2007 in Today's Rant | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The one thing about the HOT LIST I haven't ever been to fond of is the fact that according to what was said in the above article only the four judges have votes. I just don't see how using four people can be beneficial to the masses. I think their panel should be slightly larger on who gets to vote and not based on four judges. Sounds very much like our voting system. You have the testers who are us the people and then you have the judges who are the electoral college. I just think it needs to be broaden if it is for the masses.

C.J.

[jaryanto]

Sonartec1, on Jan 3 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Just got my copy......very interesting. And it's up on their website.

Erik

where did you get the magazine? also, the web site does NOT yet have the 2007 winners, just the listing of all clubs...

[jboyd1]

http://www.golfdiges.../flash/hotlist/

Theres all of them

[Birdie Retriever]

Below is a copy of the comment I just sent to Golf Digest's Bomb and Gouge blog page.

They have not posted it yet but here is the Link to the page Golf Digest Bomb and Gouge Blog

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to inform Bomb and Gouge that I was the poster on golfwrx.com which stated:

"It seems like whichever companies give Golf Digest the most $$ for advertising always ends up winning the most "Editors Choice" awards."

You can call me misinformed but you failed to tell the readers of this blog the rest of my post which went on to say:

"The only reason I enjoy this issue is to use it as a reference when looking at new clubs I am thinking about purchasing...I always take them to the course first before buying."

I believe one of your articles in your 2005 Hot List edition informed me to do that exact thing. Here is the quote from that article.

"We must emphasize the Golf Digest Hot List is not an end in and of itself. The buying process must also include a rigorous examination on your own that involved research at company websites, consultation with your club pro or trusted club fitter, significant play-testing, and at the final stage a thorough fitting session"

And then from the most recent Hot List:

"How you go about your search is an individual pursuit, but whatever your process, you must extensively evaluate products on the range and on the course before you make the commitment to put them in the bag."

The reason a lot us golfers in the "masses" think the "Editors Choice” is swayed by advertising dollars is that sometimes the picks do not reflect what the "masses" think are the best clubs.

Another reason the "Editors Choice" award is sometimes not taken very seriously may be because of inconsistent rankings of particular clubs. Take for example your Hot List 2005 rated the Callaway Steelhead X-18 in 8th Place...and then in 2006 the exact same club was rated "Editors Choice." To me that says something other than the "Judges” swayed the vote.

I am not writing this comment to stir up anymore criticism of the "Hot List", because it is my favorite edition of Golf Digest. I just wanted to inform you as to why some subscribers think that the "Editor's Choice" award is swayed by advertising dollars.

I commend you on all your hard work making the "Hot List" but just know that there are hundreds if not thousands of us golfers out there that would love to have your jobs testing and tinkering with all the latest and greatest clubs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Birdie Retriever]

Yellow Labradors, on Jan 3 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Below is a copy of the comment I just sent to Golf Digest's Bomb and Gouge blog page.

They have not posted it yet but here is the Link to the page Golf Digest Bomb and Gouge Blog

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to inform Bomb and Gouge that I was the poster on golfwrx.com which stated:

"It seems like whichever companies give Golf Digest the most $$ for advertising always ends up winning the most "Editors Choice" awards."

You can call me misinformed but you failed to tell the readers of this blog the rest of my post which went on to say:

"The only reason I enjoy this issue is to use it as a reference when looking at new clubs I am thinking about purchasing...I always take them to the course first before buying."

I believe one of your articles in your 2005 Hot List edition informed me to do that exact thing. Here is the quote from that article.

"We must emphasize the Golf Digest Hot List is not an end in and of itself. The buying process must also include a rigorous examination on your own that involved research at company websites, consultation with your club pro or trusted club fitter, significant play-testing, and at the final stage a thorough fitting session"

And then from the most recent Hot List:

"How you go about your search is an individual pursuit, but whatever your process, you must extensively evaluate products on the range and on the course before you make the commitment to put them in the bag."

The reason a lot us golfers in the "masses" think the "Editors Choice” is swayed by advertising dollars is that sometimes the picks do not reflect what the "masses" think are the best clubs.

Another reason the "Editors Choice" award is sometimes not taken very seriously may be because of inconsistent rankings of particular clubs. Take for example your Hot List 2005 rated the Callaway Steelhead X-18 in 8th Place...and then in 2006 the exact same club was rated "Editors Choice." To me that says something other than the "Judges” swayed the vote.

I am not writing this comment to stir up anymore criticism of the "Hot List", because it is my favorite edition of Golf Digest. I just wanted to inform you as to why some subscribers think that the "Editor's Choice" award is swayed by advertising dollars.

I commend you on all your hard work making the "Hot List" but just know that there are hundreds if not thousands of us golfers out there that would love to have your jobs testing and tinkering with all the latest and greatest clubs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is their reply to my comment:
GOUGE: "To me that says something other than the "Judges” swayed the vote."
Thanks for your thoughts, but when you say the above you are quite simply dead wrong. We can talk about specific cases all you want, but you have to understand our process before you criticize it. Performance/playability is one criteria of five. If a product serves notices in its first year that tens of thousands of golfers use it and like it, that is an indication of success. If that product is still a flagship product the next year, it is reevaluated across all five our our criteria. You can disagree with our process, certainly. But this is why you may think you see "inconsistency" when there is none. I am happy that you have also made the point that the Hot List is not an end in and of itself. YOUR METHOD OF USING THE Hot List SHOULD BE THE STANDARD FOR ALL OUR READERS. The worst thing we think anyone could do is to take our Hot List and just buy something without some kind of fitting consultation and extensive trial. "

And by the looks of the other two forum discussions going on about the "Hot List" I am not in the minority when thinking the "Editor's Choice" picks are not being accepted very well by us.

[mr_divots]

They claim marketplace success drives their "buzz" rating, supposedly on the merits of tens of thousands of happy consumers playing a club?? How then, do they explain clubs that have not even been released to the public being given the highest possible "buzz" rating? The "Buzz" would at that point be completely superficial and driven by marketing and product "leaks" before their launch date. If the average consumer can't get their mitts on the club yet, HOW is this "Buzz" then calculated? It certainly cannot be based on people actually USING the product.

Furthermore, it is laughable that they point out "we pick up the tab when we go out to dinner with OEM's." They pay their salaries with advertising revenues! I guess I'll run down to my bank to take out a loan to pay off one of the loans I have with them. It's still their money...

The fact they are meeting with OEM's for dinner creates an all-too-friendly "buddy-buddy" "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of image. If they are reviewing golf clubs based strictly on their merits based on performance, where do dinner meetings fit into this process?

How do they explain clubs that are no longer available from manufacturers (-ahem, Mizuno MX-500 driver) even making it on this "Hot List"?? Gee, even though consumers will no longer be able to get their hands on this club, and it was a bonafide flop at retail in terms of sales, -we're still gonna include it on the list. Was that worked out at one of the dinner meetings? Wink wink...

Instead of "painstakingly" sweating over who to choose for the "Top honors," maybe they should just highlight the current products, and inform consumers of what is upcoming from a given manufacturer in the coming season.

Example: "Here we have the Mizuno driver. It will be replaced by a new model in the middle of June. Here are what some of our testers said about this club." Yada yada, etc. This club alone shows that the "Buzz" factor needs to be taken out of the process completely. It did not sell. People did not talk about it. I NEVER saw one in anyone's bag.

What's up with Golf Digest getting bent out of shape by what people are saying here? Is it the fact people can comment and criticize, or are some of our comments just hitting a little too close to home....

[Birdie Retriever]

mr_divots, on Jan 4 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

They claim marketplace success drives their "buzz" rating, supposedly on the merits of tens of thousands of happy consumers playing a club?? How then, do they explain clubs that have not even been released to the public being given the highest possible "buzz" rating? The "Buzz" would at that point be completely superficial and driven by marketing and product "leaks" before their launch date. If the average consumer can't get their mitts on the club yet, HOW is this "Buzz" then calculated? It certainly cannot be based on people actually USING the product.

Furthermore, it is laughable that they point out "we pick up the tab when we go out to dinner with OEM's." They pay their salaries with advertising revenues! I guess I'll run down to my bank to take out a loan to pay off one of the loans I have with them. It's still their money...

The fact they are meeting with OEM's for dinner creates an all-too-friendly "buddy-buddy" "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of image. If they are reviewing golf clubs based strictly on their merits based on performance, where do dinner meetings fit into this process?

How do they explain clubs that are no longer available from manufacturers (-ahem, Mizuno MX-500 driver) even making it on this "Hot List"?? Gee, even though consumers will no longer be able to get their hands on this club, and it was a bonafide flop at retail in terms of sales, -we're still gonna include it on the list. Was that worked out at one of the dinner meetings? Wink wink...

Instead of "painstakingly" sweating over who to choose for the "Top honors," maybe they should just highlight the current products, and inform consumers of what is upcoming from a given manufacturer in the coming season.

Example: "Here we have the Mizuno driver. It will be replaced by a new model in the middle of June. Here are what some of our testers said about this club." Yada yada, etc. This club alone shows that the "Buzz" factor needs to be taken out of the process completely. It did not sell. People did not talk about it. I NEVER saw one in anyone's bag.

What's up with Golf Digest getting bent out of shape by what people are saying here? Is it the fact people can comment and criticize, or are some of our comments just hitting a little too close to home....

bravo! Nice piece of writing! If you ever start your own magazine sign me up for a subscription Mr. D..

[MortonGolfSales]

I have the pleasure of being on the selection committee for the Hot List as part of the retailer panel. I can say without hesitation that the process that Golf Digest goes through is one of the most scientific processes I have ever seen. Golf Digest is unfairly being acccused of having an advertising dollar influence on which products were selected- specifically on the driver and ball. Each and every single product that is submitted for testing is trialed and discussed in more detail than anyone would believe. Richard Audi, our GolfWrx host, wanted my "off-the-record" opinion on the process and I told him the truth- that it is a painstakingly detailed and laborious process full of scientific and careful analysis. Products are selected based on the feedback alone- whether they will cause debate with advertisers, readers and in most cases- within the Golf Digest editor staff itself. The editor staff for Golf Digest is a group of writers with incredible integrity in what they do. To poke holes in their personal integrity as writers isn't fair- particularly when I can stand here and tell you that the process they go through determines the selectees. This is about as unbiased reflection on new product as there is in the industry. You may not agree with their selections, but it is the results that process has determined. I value my role as a participant and am thankful that Digest takes the time they do with this process. The Digest team absolutely kills themselves on this issue and its unfair for the Golfwrx members to taint the efforts that they put into this issue. Those that read this are going to believe what they believe. Non-believers in the process aren't going to be swayed. I only hope that those that are unsure can be rest-assured that this issue is a non-biased result on an incredible process of a test.

Ken Morton, Jr.

Haggin Oaks Golf Super Shop

www.mortongolfsales.com

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

Wow. That's some big blue font you have there MGS.

[obobgolf]

What a great thread! Like the old saying, "You can argue about ideas, but not about beliefs" or some such. I do think that it is an interesting statement about our culture today that we have become so cynical about what is, in effect, something so trivial. Honestly, who really cares whether Callaway, or for that matter, any other manufacturer influences a tester's opinion or not? Whether we realize it or not, we are all 'brand/marketing' biased - after all, it's the whole point of marketing. I think the poster who said something to the effect that I like to use the Hot List as a guide is right on. It's just that - a panel of people's opinions. We're talking golf clubs here - not world peace? IMHO Golf Digest probably tries pretty hard to be as unbiased as possible - for me it's hard to see the advantage of pimping one brand over another. Just my .02. Happy New Year everyone.

[Birdie Retriever]

I am sure that the Golf Digest team and it's judges are thorough and put a lot of time into it...we are not debating that...we are debating the factors they use to rate a product (i.e. "Buzz Factor") and the fact that equipment companies (like Callaway) tend to Advertise a lot in Golf Digest and Golf World. Lord knows how many pull-out advertising sections Callaway had last year in Golf World and Golf Digest. I know I saw quite a few and isn't it the least bit suspicious that they had most of the "Editors Choice" Awards?

And since when does Buzz factor put me in the fairway more often or help me make a 10 foot putt?

Currently Golf Digest use this as their Criteria Breakdown:

1. Buzz Factor (15%)

2. Performance/Playability (30%)

3. Technology/Innovation (30%)

4. Personal reference (15%)

5. Value (10%)

In my OPINION the Criteria should not even include "Buzz Factor" and "Personal reference" and the breakdown should look more like this

70% Performance/Playability

20% Technology

10% Value

I am a subscriber to Golf Digest and Golf magazine but I like the way Golf magazine does their monthly test better because it is based mainly on playability. They use factors like:

Feel
Distance
Spin

Again this is just my opinion on the subject.

[mr_divots]

In the case of the Hot List, there is most certainly a formula that is followed. For such an undertaking, there has to be. I read up on their methodology on the GD web site. While getting it all set up has to be a heckuva lot of work, 10 days at a golf resort trying and talking about the clubs that most people have yet to touch/see/feel sounds like a heckuva lot of fun. The pictures on the web site would suggest otherwise, and make it look like a terribly GRUELING process.

In this instance, we have a panel of 8 golfers. Scientists (who may, or may not, have ever picked up a golf club themselves.) Some of the biggest retailers in the business (ummm... no interest there in pushing items that you may have just put in an ungawdly large order of. ) Teaching Pros (why? I guess for good measure.)

Just looking at the Drivers, for instance: 9 of the 17 driver, if I have counted correctly, have not yet been released to the public. Over half! If there is a deadline in place of February 22, 2007 that clubs must hit the market by, why not wait until after they are on the market to then evaluate them?

How do some clubs NOT make this list? Tour usage is listed as being taken into consideration. How then, does the #1 460cc club on tour not make this list? Where is the #1 driver on Tour? Who here has seen a Bobby Jones club in person at their local retailer, let alone hit one? How does a Tour Edge driver make this List, yet a Titleist driver is no where to be found?

Also, for years now, I have always wondered why the "Hot List" section of the issue does not even take up 1/4 of the magazine. You get two "blurbs" from a couple testers, and some easy reference "symbols," and some cryptic comments from the "Judges" by which to judge a club. Given the explanation of the methodology, the "Year-long process," the giant "Summit," panels of scientists, teaching pros, etc., etc., I would have to think it would take more than a few pages to do justice to the clubs and the process. I know we live in an ADD society now, but at least give those the opportunity who want to delve deeper into the details the chance to do so. There is a reason there is the Wall Street Jorunal and USA Today. One has more pictures, one has more writing....

[Jacpar]

Who wants to buy clubs on the buzz factor anyways. Too bad this hot list has so much influence on sales. The equipment listed is not bad at all but many top notch clubs are not in the top spots ( Mx-23's, 905R, 986 CB etc..) This site as well as others such as The Sandtrap.com have better reviews and information.

[SteveWillHicks]

Quote

I have the pleasure of being on the selection committee for the Hot List as part of the retailer panel. I can say without hesitation that the process that Golf Digest goes through is one of the most scientific processes I have ever seen. Golf Digest is unfairly being acccused of having an advertising dollar influence on which products were selected- specifically on the driver and ball. Each and every single product that is submitted for testing is trialed and discussed in more detail than anyone would believe. Richard Audi, our GolfWrx host, wanted my "off-the-record" opinion on the process and I told him the truth- that it is a painstakingly detailed and laborious process full of scientific and careful analysis. Products are selected based on the feedback alone- whether they will cause debate with advertisers, readers and in most cases- within the Golf Digest editor staff itself. The editor staff for Golf Digest is a group of writers with incredible integrity in what they do. To poke holes in their personal integrity as writers isn't fair- particularly when I can stand here and tell you that the process they go through determines the selectees. This is about as unbiased reflection on new product as there is in the industry. You may not agree with their selections, but it is the results that process has determined. I value my role as a participant and am thankful that Digest takes the time they do with this process. The Digest team absolutely kills themselves on this issue and its unfair for the Golfwrx members to taint the efforts that they put into this issue. Those that read this are going to believe what they believe. Non-believers in the process aren't going to be swayed. I only hope that those that are unsure can be rest-assured that this issue is a non-biased result on an incredible process of a test.

Ken Morton, Jr.

Haggin Oaks Golf Super Shop

Well said, and on a side note, just because our own personal favorites did not make this List does not make this List horrible or without integrity! As well, the #1 driver on the tour right not does not translate to the number 1 driver in amateur's hands. That said, this is the 2007 Hot list...not the 2006 reviewed Hot list... the 905R is sadly a thing of the past. This List looks forwards and not really backwards.

[Warszawa]

Is it just me or are the clubs us guys really like (585H, GS Tour, 906F2 etc) are poorly rated or not included...

[Zaphod1]

taylormade3107, on Jan 5 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

Is it just me or are the clubs us guys really like (585H, GS Tour, 906F2 etc) are poorly rated or not included...

585H made silver, 906F2 gold.
not too bad

[bjackson]

ya, but look how badly the gs tour did and the t35 wedges. thought they would have scored higher.

[Zaphod1]

bjackson, on Jan 5 2007, 04:30 AM, said:

ya, but look how badly the gs tour did and the t35 wedges. thought they would have scored higher.

are you talking about the sonartec GS tour hybrid ?
its not even a nominee.

The T35 has silver - imo one can`t say it did badly ?
they state its for serious players only, and thats what most golfers arnt.
their recommondations are for the average golfer, i guess thats why Callaway scored that high.

[bjackson]

Zaphod1, on Jan 5 2007, 01:47 AM, said:

bjackson, on Jan 5 2007, 04:30 AM, said:

ya, but look how badly the gs tour did and the t35 wedges. thought they would have scored higher.

are you talking about the sonartec GS tour hybrid ?
its not even a nominee.

The T35 has silver - imo one can`t say it did badly ?
they state its for serious players only, and thats what most golfers arnt.
their recommondations are for the average golfer, i guess thats why Callaway scored that high.

no, the gs tour fairway wood. i never mentioned hybrid in my post. sure the gs tour got silver, and so did the t35, but I think they rank higher than they received.

[Zaphod1]

ah i didnt know there was a FW

[Ankorgolf]

Quote

Well said, and on a side note, just because our own personal favorites did not make this list does not make this list horrible or without integrity! As well, the #1 driver on the tour right not does not translate to the number 1 driver in amateur's hands. That said, this is the 2007 hot list...not the 2006 reviewed hot list... the 905R is sadly a thing of the past. This list looks forwards and not really backwards.

then why did they "look backwards" st the MX-500??

[slicer365]

I'm sure many of you scratch golfers are anxious to try the EDITOR'S PICK, the Big Bertha Fairway Wood. I'm sure 200cc's, this club is right down your alley. What a joke!!!!

[st8fan19]

samm980, on Dec 30 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

Hifade, on Dec 30 2006, 07:08 PM, said:

Look out for the new Exotics CNC milled face forged CB irons and their new fairway woods and tour proto driver. I think big things are ahead for these guys. These clubs flat out outperform most others.

Cardo

Good points, I think that with this latest line they will make a step-up, people realize how good the first Exotics were.

and there is going to be a new hybrid, fairway wood, and another general player driver (not tour proto)


all coming soon

[mr_divots]

slicer365, on Jan 5 2007, 10:06 AM, said:

I'm sure many of you scratch golfers are anxious to try the EDITOR'S PICK, the Big Bertha Fairway Wood. I'm sure 200cc's, this club is right down your alley. What a joke!!!!

I don't have issue with the size of that club at all. What I don't like is the fact it is too long at 44" to be a serviceable fw wood. They are touting it as a driver alternative. Drivers used to be 43.5". How a 44" fw wood is good for joe public I know not.

200cc's is probably a good size to make the visual transition from 460cc drivers to fairways. Just make it a length that people won't struggle with it.

[SwingMan]

Well, guys, it is their list and they are upfront about their criteria for judging.

Buzz factor - or you've got to try this should be minimalized, in my opinion, as should personal preference and technology/innovation.

IMHO, Performance/Playability should be the overriding criteria with the other factors getting 5-10%, technology/innovation 15% -- but the bottom line is performance.

But it's not my list.

On the other hand, a company without much buzz factor, Bobby Jones, seemed to get all of their lines -- driver, fairway, hybrids -- on the list. So they must perform very well and have some innocvation to overcome their buzz kill.

So you can get on the list without buzz -- but you are at a disadvantage.

[hole in one 243]

where was the 905R

[jaryanto]

Yeah, Hot List 2007 is a bit ridiculous... 905R did not make it, and neither did TEE Exotics (both driver and FW). is this because they are 2006 products? But 905R and TEE Exotics are both listed on the Nominee List. So they must be NOT worthy of even a silver or bronze? Totally unbelievable....

AND I do not like the new web site with the Flash junk.. you can't even copy and paste the text or get the pics.. I wanted to send it to a friend. Did anyone notice how you have to search and pop up a different browser to see the Nominee List? try finding the nominee List from the main page and good luck finding it.. http://www.golfdigest.com/hotlist/ - it is not even linked! you have to go to the Flash version and click on Nominee on top nav.

It can be found here: http://www.golfdiges...istdrivers.html

I am waiting for the Golf magazine version of 2007 Club Test. I hope they are more objective, and this time hope they will include Wedges too.

[Lord Thomas]

And it looks like "Bomb and Gouge", the Golf Digest Equipment Blog reads Golfwrx, especially the comments regarding the influence of advertising in the "Hot List".

http://blogs.golfdigest.com/equipment/

-Thomas

[jaryanto]

Yes, the blogs had been discussed in this chain as well as elsewhere here at golfwrx.com... Something I noticed, for those of you who had read the Golf magazine "Club Test", they at least provided MORE info on the results... more details, even broken down into FORGIVENESS, DISTANCE etc ... not just snippets of single line statements as in Golf Digest, and dubious things such as Buzz factor (who cares?). Don't take me wrong, I LOVE both magazines... and I read a lot of golf magazines due to my life (or lack thereof) as a frequent traveller... I even read UK magazines such as Today's Golfer (which by the way, also has great equipment section!)... but the fact that drivers such as R7 460, TEE Exotics, 905R did not even make the final list really made me ask the question "what the crap is going on?"

OR MAYBE the testers are not so good, eh? has anyone thought about that?

[Asleep]

Here are their rankings of Player's Clubs based 100% on Performance/Playability ratings by GD for 2007. Listed are only clubs in the highest rated group(+/+) for each segment. The order of rankings is as posted on GolfDigest.com:


Drivers:
Ping Rapture
Bobby Jones Players
Callaway FT-5
Callaway X-460
Cleveland Hi-bore XL
Mizuno MX-500
Ping G5

Fairways:
Bobby Jones Players
Callaway X
Cleveland Hi-Bore
Mizuno F-50
Ping G5
Ping Rapture
Taylor Made R7 Draw

Hybrids:
Bobby Jones Players
Adams Idea Pro
Callaway FT
Callaway X
Cleveland Hi-Bore
Cobra Baffler DWS
Ping G5
Taylor Made Rescue Dual

Irons:
Mizuno MP-60
Adams Idea Pro
Bridgestone J33 Cavity Back
Callaway X-Forged
Taylor Made R7 TP
Titleist 755

Wedges:
Mizuno MP-R
Cleveland 588 DSG
Cleveland CG 10
Ping Tour
Titleist Vokey Spin-Milled


Call me a fool, but I've always thought performance was the only criteria worth considering.