- Admin
- #76
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.
While I agree consistency in performance and innovation is needed, I do not believe that subjectivity should be ruled out completely. Purchasing golf clubs is an emotional purchase. People dont want to admit there are influences but there are.
Demand is grabbing a crystal ball however, and means nothing more than marketing based on history (see JetSpeed)
What I will say though is simple. Every place that puts out a ranking or list should stop with the dictating of what people should buy. They all have the resources to let the golfers speak instead of them and do it very well. Having 12 guys hit into a simulator does absolutely nothing for the golfer. Nor does having hundreds hit on the range and letting 2 decide.
Let the golfers speak as the new digital platforms make it easy and allow the words to transform from golfer to golfer.
Its why Club Clash was born, and I know for a fact that people making these agree with it.
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.
I think they are so far ahead of the curve digitally to all of the other traditional publications its absurd.