[kblakeney35]

I imagine most of you have read the hot list by now. What did you guys think of this years rankings?

-Kyle

[UCRgolfer11]

I think that they rate the clubs, way too high. Only one or two clubs per section should be excelet or whatever they called it. They also should only rate based on preformance. Thats all that matters in my mind.

[bjackson]

I don't get the rating system. last years was better. I like seeing a # next to a name, not "gold" or "silver" next to it with no order. bobby jones was ranked #1 in performance for fairways and hybrids. come on now! I have never seen them ONCE in a round playing at my local muni, let alone in a tournament.

[Rabidpenguin45]

I dont like the gold and silver rankings... and i think that the NOT comments are so stupid!!

-tiger doesnt play it...
-doesnt come in chrome...

come on, i can keep going on and you'll get my point... the not comments are about the most stupid part... if they actually commented on performance instead of looks, or who plays it... maybe i'd actually enjoy reading it a bit more.

[jboyd1]

I do think it should be only on performance as well. I don't care about buzz factor, and actually would rather them find a hidden gem such as the bobby jones. Buzz factor IMO should be listed there, but not taken into the fact of the overall rating.

[emc]

Over this side of the pond one of our magazines do club tests every month with a pro and a FightScope so you can see which performs best. It's much more interesting IMO

[Montrove]

those comments,
What ignoranus wrote that crap?
How can you complain that a product that has satin in it's name does not come in Chrome.? Oh and I was a little pissed off the that the new BB FW got more "buzz" than anything else, when I didn't even knew it existed until I browsed TGW

[scotty01292]

emc, on Jan 13 2007, 07:05 AM, said:

Over this side of the pond one of our magazines do club tests every month with a pro and a FightScope so you can see which performs best. It's much more interesting IMO

What magazine's that? I don't think i've seen it before.

[Warszawa]

Some of the "nots" don't make sense. The "not" for the Spin Milled was "why no 52*". Becuase you'd spin it off the green!

I was gonna buy a 905R but according to GD the Nicklaus Air Max is much better.

[Golfer Gavin]

So many clubs that should be on there didnt make it. They over rank almost every club on there. And apparently I shouldnt play it because Tiger doesnt. I do love reading it though just to see what they say, not that I listen to it.

[Cody Hancock]

Golfer Gavin, on Jan 20 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

So many clubs that should be on there didnt make it. They over rank almost every club on there. And apparently I shouldnt play it because Tiger doesnt. I do love reading it though just to see what they say, not that I listen to it.

Same goes for me; it's bogus, but it's nice to read.

[golferjoey3]

the problem is that they don't rate much for the better player-its mostly for the average golfer. so then u don't get many reviews on tp models etc.

[Riccio05]

The biggest problem is what Diesel mentioned. Between attempting to please sponsors and also attempting to not make any specific brand that doesn't score well upset, Golf Digest is not only biased but they also make their rankings far too broad to really mean anything. I don't want to see 8 clubs at Gold-level and 7 clubs at Silver and Bronze, and I especially don't want to see the manufacturers that donate the most money getting the highest ratings on a consistent bases unless their clubs actually are the best. I completely agree with you guys, it's a fun read. I think all of us on the site are crazy enough about golf that we're going to read it regardless of how meaningless the list really is. That being said, until the rankings get a little more narrowed down and meaningful, I don't really care too much about what's "hot" according to Golf Digest.

[samphillips9]

I was disappointed in the fact that there was no review on the CG7 tours. Or at least I didn't see it.