2009 Golf Digest Hot List Now Out

[jcrob902]

You would be surprised what kind of money people have to spend on golf clubs. I say the same thing when I see $500-$600 drivers and wonder why people pay that much. I just wait until next year when the same driver is less than half the price.

Exactly, did you see the R7 CGB Max Limited it was a grand and there we;re two reviews on TGW I can't believe anybody in there right mind would pay that for one club but there you go.Also I was not impressed with this years hot list I expected way more and was left flat.

[1UnderU]

Am I the only one that thinks the hot list favors anthying Callaway?

[PiKapp23]

I thought some people might find this letter to the editor and response on Golf Digest Hot List interesting as it addresses some of the questions that have been asked here. Below is the text from that (which I found on golfdigest.com):

Hot List Hot Stove
The Hot List has landed and so have the first of your comments:

Dear Editor:
I always enjoy reading about the new clubs and technology in your annual equipment issue. But really, it's hard to find anything negative about ANY club in ANY of the club categories. Every tester only has glorious remarks about EVERY club they hit. Come on guys, EVERY club cannot possibly be "the straightest and longest club I've ever hit in my entire life!" We all know the only way to truly evaluate the real performance of all of the latest and greatest clubs is to put them on the mechanical swinger at an independent test lab and determine what the true quantitative performance really is, versus a 12 handicap player like me telling your readers, "This baby is going directly into my bag this afternoon!" Let's get the real performance numbers so your loyal readers can make the best informed decision relative to what new club they want to spend their hard-earned dollars on. I'm sure the manufactures that provide their latest and greatest products and spend big bucks on ads in your magazine, wouldn't mind also hearing their product is 20 yards shorter and hits it sideways, as compared to their arch rival competitor! Let's us club technology nuts decide what club we are going to buy this spring based on the testing facts, not dramatized opinions.

Bill Schlegel
Cornelius, NC


Here is Golf Digest Equipment Editor Mike Stachura's response to Bill's letter, which addresses both the questions of no negative player comments and human versus mechanical testing.


Those comments are generally positive because 1) the products that make the list represent approximately one-fourth of the total set of clubs considered (471) so it should come as no surprise that the clubs received disproportionately positive comments from our panelists; and 2) a product that earns its place on the Hot List shouldn't have that position called into question by one negative comment. As for the reality check provided by a critical comment, we believe the NOT statement, which comes solely from our editors (the only people who have a vote on the Hot List), reflects a legitimate concern about each product.

As to the idea about robot testing, I can only tell you that from my research, comparative robot testing of huge multiples of clubs results in inconsistent data at best and flawed conclusions at worst. Most manufacturers I know only use robot testing when comparing two variables, not the 30-40 we routinely have in a category like drivers. Even to do the limited robot testing we do requires two weeks, not counting retesting. And that's at only one clubhead speed. Given that to research all current product for the February issue requires that all robot testing be done by mid-October and given that many new products do not reach us until late September, it is only possible to do limited robot testing anyway. More importantly, I find it very meaningful that the USGA almost never relies solely on robot testing anymore in its evaluations of clubs and balls. Bottom line: Golfers use golf clubs, robots do not.

Finally, let me emphasize this point in as clear a set of terms as I possibly can: Advertising in Golf Digest, in and of itself, has no bearing on where or whether any product finishes on the Hot List.

The Hot List is, and always will be, a qualitative exercise based on the four criteria we think define truly superior products. I appreciate your comments because they inspire us to do better work, but do not think for a minute that our effort to produce the Hot List is anything other than highly rigorous. Our goal is to produce a meaningful list that a reader can use to BEGIN his or her search for new equipment. I do not believe we have failed in that regard. Mike Stachura.


Thanks Bill, thanks Mike.

[1UnderU]

In response to the Golf Digest Editors letter I'll take an example of the Callaway X-20 Tour from 2008.

Here is the review from the Hot List 2008

“Callaway used feedback from its tour staff when deciding on the heel design (which helps reduce turf drag in the rough). A longer hosel helps move the center of gravity inward for better trajectory control. This version has a shorter blade-length than the x-20. Its’ minimal offset, narrow, beveled sole and chamfered top line appeal to better players.

“This is an operating tool that you can use to surgically tear aprt the course…If I had to play a three-club tournament, this 6-iron would be one of them….A super blub for the low-handicapper who doesn’t want to spend a lot of time practicing.

This sleeker version of the x-20 offers plenty of forgiveness and there versions of Royal Precision’s Project X Flighted shafts (5.5, 6.0 and 6.5) standard. You know when people tell you trust your swing? It’s easier to do when you’re swinging these.

It’s a little too bulky to be a true player’s iron.

Hot List 2009 X-22 Tour Blurb.

Although it says X-22 Tour on the badge, this iron is less like its predecessor, the X-20 Tour, and more like the X-Tour, one of our favorites from the 2006 Hot List. It's a change we favor, along with the sole design that features a beveled trailing edge that narrows the sole. The X-20 Tour was a player's club for wannabes. This one is the real deal.

**I do note they said in the 2008 X-20 Tour review that is was bulky. But none the less the reviews completely contradict each other.

I bought the X-20 Tour last season, and I did test them in the field, but after a while it became clear it was not a tour iron, hard to work the ball, dull feel on pure shots and miss hits. Went back to my MP-32.

They basically regurgitate what ever the company descriptions are on each club.

[fischman]

@1UnderU:

I take those two examples as last year they said that the X-20 Tour was nearly a tour iron with the benefits of game improvement clubs and slightly more bulky. Where as the X-22 Tour is the next step up. It improves on the X-20 Tour and takes it to a true Tour Club.

Now whether any of this is true is definitely in the eye of the beholder. That is why not every person plays the same set of clubs. One person may feel the X-20 Tours were extremely workable, while you may have felt like you had no feel what so ever. From Golf Digests response, I do believe that their hotlist is exactly that. It is a list of the hottest new products, with some examples of real life golfers experiences. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do some additional looking and preferably swinging on your own. If I got to talk to some great golfer, say Tiger Woods, and he told me that some set of clubs was the end all of all clubs, I would still swing them myself to make sure they fit my game. I am definitely not a Tiger Woods player, therefore I will most likely prefer a different club.

Josh F

[DJYoshi]

i'm glad they put the Tour Edge Driver in there....but is it me? or are they reviewing clubs more instead of picking the best ones....before it used to be like this is the gotta have..and why...and for who.. now it's just a plethora of gear.

[Stacey_E]

...before it used to be like this is the gotta have..and why...and for who.. now it's just a plethora of gear.

That's true. I think it was last year that they stopped having "winners" or "editor's choice" and just starting having catagory leaders. Now why would they do that? My guess is company reps were giving them grief about why THEY weren't the winners. It is starting to remind me of those youth soccer leagues where no one wins or loses and they don't keep score. Everyone is just encouraged to participate and have fun.