We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf Digest Hot List

JB said:
I agree with you here to an extent.
However they continue to make it confusing, eventually it leads to people just assuming that a company is getting it gifted (which I dont think they are). I mean if buzz is a real thing, it really does come down to the one with the best marketing, because that creates buzz.

I would rather see consistency in other areas. I will use an example. The Titleist 915 driver. The company themselves said they used the Nike technology. Go back and look at the ratings for both and how can both get the same rating for innovation? Shouldnt one get innovation and one get virtually zero for innovation?

The same with the point in slots listed above by a few. How can one company do it first decades ago. ANother company do it and get 5 stars for innovation. Then the original company do it again in a completely new way never done before and not get 5 stars.

So if you want to make it about whats hot, performance shouldnt matter, it should be the subjective side.
If you want to make it a real list, then consistency should be there.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your comments. This is an inconsistent subjective list that wants to appear objective. However, unless you bring in robots (which will show they all perform the same) this is the list you get...and likely the same list you would get if you got 20-30 THP'ers to do the same type of testing.
 
Sweethebs said:
I agree 100% with your comments. This is an inconsistent subjective list that wants to appear objective. However, unless you bring in robots (which will show they all perform the same) this is the list you get...and likely the same list you would get if you got 20-30 THP'ers to do the same type of testing.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that they would all perform the same, but thats for another thread.

On the last part, all I can say is.... #ClubClash.
 
You can list numerous bizarre examples, but how scotty cameron can get the same innovation score as cure or edel for blade putters is beyond me

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Jman said:
I don't agree that they would all perform the same, but thats for another thread.

On the last part, all I can say is.... #ClubClash.
Click to expand...

I cannot wait....will "demand" be part of the ranking process?? .....I kid
 
The hot list is more about the pretty pictures than the rankings for me. Golf clubs are too personal.

The demand category reminds me of law school rankings that consider number of books in the library. Real relevant stuff. Only an uninformed person would rely on that as the sole indicator for a major purchase. I've hated several in demand clubs and loved several others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The funny (or sad) thing is that when I first started golfing 5 years ago the hot list meant a lot more to me. I thought that was "the list". Now that I look back on it, it seems funny, but it makes me wonder how many people are out there that use this list as gospel. Makes me pretty happy I stumbled across THP a few years ago and really changed the way I think about and evaluate equipment.
 
ddec said:
. But one thing I did notice last week. Had multiple companies mention that they were in on the hot list this year. It was a big deal to them regardless of the color medal they won, and I think that's pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Yep, same experience here. Cure was one that was the most excited about it.

For them it's probably a good thing. I asked my Head Pro, Assistant Pro and GM this week if they had heard of Cure. Not one of them had.

So it's bound to help its awareness.
 
So your saying I shouldn't damage the spine of my magazine that came in the mail yesterday? Good thing is I never do for this issue.
 
blugold said:
I just read the hot list then I brushed my cat. One of those activities was productive.
Click to expand...

I hope at least the cat was happy!
 
I use the Golf Digest Hot List to see all the new equipment in one place, at a glance. Then I look for the THP reviews and members comments on each specific piece of equipment I am interested in. Gold or Silver does not matter to me, but I would never buy without using THPers inputs.
 
I agree with both sides. One thing I wish reviewers would let us in on is where we can try them. I have been to 3 different retailers to find Wilson Staff clubs and can't find them. So while the reviews have been fantastic where are we suppose to find them? I could blind buy them but then that goes against everyone saying "go get fit". I think accessability should be a category.
 
fupresti said:
Here is the formula: (Ad Dollars Spent) = Ranking

Pretty easy formula honestly.
Click to expand...

im not sure I agree 100% with this. I don't know who's on the list this year. But last year mizuno had several clubs on the gold list...and I don't think they spend much on Ads.
 
I am not surprised.I dropped my subscription a few years ago. There are only so many times you can read about how to hit a bunker shot. I know that Wilson does not advertise with GD and I am convinced it matters. Perhaps "who pays the magazine" should be a category. I have an old GD from 2007 and W/S did do ads back then. I imagine they had some Golds then too.
It matters in that GD caters to players who would " the right things" in their bags versus the best things.For that info you go to THP. Last thought. Wilson can afford to do an ad and has the marketing expertise to do a good one. They seem to have a plan and it appears to be working so perhaps they know what is best for them. Still, they must improve distribution of their line.
 
Not to mention pictures of the C200 from all over the world. There is your demand.
Rusty Casino said:
Well they missed the mark on the sound and feel. None of us were bothered with the looks (some guys mentioned the slots initially but soon forgot about them). The sound and feel were a 5. If the slots bother some, fine. 4/5

We all had increase in distance with great forgiveness. 5/5

Innovation. Flex Face. Totally tech'd out. 5/5

Demand. They got it. 2/5. Wilson needs to work on that. Not sure why demand needs to be factored in. If a club performs than really that should be what counts. Perhaps if GD gave this club a gold star based on merit, demand would be up.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed on the notion of ad dollars buying placement but the knife cuts both ways, everyone is on the take in one form or another, it's just whether you are honest about it. Payola has been around for a long time and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
 
I honestly used to look forward to this issue. That was before I spent time on THP and I had seen all of the new equipment either here or else ware on the internet months ago. It used to be exciting to see what was new and read about the new tech but with all the information available at the click of a mouse on THP, the hot list is a let down. That being said I never really gave the ratings a ton of consideration...
 
The inclusion of Demand as a category is stupid but also absolutely necessary to GD. It is the only things that really separates products from one another. Without it everything would rate Gold, which makes sense since nearly everyone puts out good gear. And that would require them address detailed stuff that makes one piece of gear unique from another or makes it suited to a particular type of player. Their entire system would collapse under the weight of itself.
 
Using demand is flawed because the clubs being discussed are "new" products so how is demand fairly judged. Do they go to buyers to see what products they bought for the upcoming season?. Demand for a brand is a totally different thing that demand for a specific club or item.
tequila4kapp said:
The inclusion of Demand as a category is stupid but also absolutely necessary to GD. It is the only things that really separates products from one another. Without it everything would rate Gold, which makes sense since nearly everyone puts out good gear. And that would require them address detailed stuff that makes one piece of gear unique from another or makes it suited to a particular type of player. Their entire system would collapse under the weight of itself.
Click to expand...
 
annsguy said:
Using demand is flawed because the clubs being discussed are "new" products so how is demand fairly judged. Do they go to buyers to see what products they bought for the upcoming season?. Demand for a brand is a totally different thing that demand for a specific club or item.
Click to expand...

It's like the new Cobra wedge coming out.
They will not be out until April, how can you give it a far demand rating?
 
annsguy said:
Using demand is flawed because the clubs being discussed are "new" products so how is demand fairly judged. Do they go to buyers to see what products they bought for the upcoming season?. Demand for a brand is a totally different thing that demand for a specific club or item.
Click to expand...
I agree with you - I said it was stupid. I was only sharing an opinion for why they need to be obviously stupid: it keeps the whole thing afloat.
 
For the avid golfer, these "lists" offer very little in terms of usefulness. I am not basing what I put into play on a magazine article. I play what I like. Two things stand out to me when looking through some of the "hot list". First, the M2 iron is complete junk and this is coming from someone who has played TM products for a number of years now. They look, sound and feel terrible and cheap. Second, the "demand" category obviously has too much influence on overall result.

These lists are geared toward the less than "avid" golfer. I know several guys at my club who buy new equipment sight unseen because Phil, Bubba, Jordan or Tiger play it. I also know several guys who purchase a single brand across the board. They wont even try a ball or club not stamped "Titleist" or "Callaway". Maybe it's just my area but most guys are more concerned about appearance and popularity than substance and playability.
 
tequila4kapp said:
The inclusion of Demand as a category is stupid but also absolutely necessary to GD. It is the only things that really separates products from one another. Without it everything would rate Gold, which makes sense since nearly everyone puts out good gear. And that would require them address detailed stuff that makes one piece of gear unique from another or makes it suited to a particular type of player. Their entire system would collapse under the weight of itself.
Click to expand...
The more I think about their whole rating system, the more annoyed it makes me. I guess as someone who works daily in an environment that has limited use for subjectivity, seeing a rating system that is designed purely in such a fashion while trying to pawn itself off as objective, it kills me a bit inside. I'm not condoning a "Everyone gets on the Gold List" solution, but as has been pointed out time and time again on this list, their four criteria lack consistency and/or make no sense for inclusion. I know this is Golf Digest's thing ... but I really do feel that they do a disservice to companies that are either fledgling or trying to bring themselves back into prominence. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy when you downgrade a club for lacking demand to a readership that will hang on that recommendation and then avoid that very club because it's not "high demand".

It's also amusing when you read the High, Mid, and Low handicap comments and they all say something along the lines of "Easy to work this club." "Great distance." "Awesome feel." and then it gets 3.5 stars in Looks/Feel and Performance.

Oh well, I vented (here and on Twitter) and I'll move on. Just glad I don't pay money for that magazine.
 
BTW I like what they have done with the online version of it. The video discussions between Mike & Mike are enjoyable to me. Maybe it's because I enjoy the golf talk conversation, but the way the online content has evolved over the years has been very good IMO.
 
Eh, it's only $15 for two years, I agree it's mostly crap, and I skip over all the "Hot Lists" and ranking anything, obviously those are just ads, but some stuff like Undercover Tour Pro and the occasional photos of Paula Creamer etc. are worth a skim.
 
I actually see value in scoring demand however they are using "historical" views of brand demand versus demand created by innovation and marketing. Using their model you can never change your mind about a brand and thus you will be stuck in the silver class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top