2012 Golf Digest Hot List-Results

[pdks]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Haters want to hate. Out of their 'gold' rated clubs... Does anyone disagree that they are solid choices? I think they are pretty spot on from what I've personally hit, read and watched/heard from various outlets (club fitters, golf buds, forum and blog reviews, YouTube, XM radio).

I tend to agree.  It was only a few years ago (2005?) that you couldn't find any subjective rankings in a major N.American golf mag.  All that Golf or Golf Digest wrote was fluffy, nice things - like participation ribbons in a politically correct grade school.  Actually ranking one manufacturer's offering above another, which is what the GD Hotlist does, was a big step.

That said, most of us on here look for a number of 'validation points' before pulling the trigger on expensive new equipment - including personal demo's, of course.

I find the Hotlist an interesting annual read.  And my new irons this spring that will replace my existing MP32's will likely be MP59's or i20's.   The former I already had in my sights when the list was published and I was happy to see the reviewers loved them too.  The Pings are a brand new possibility for me - I never considered them.  Because of the GD Hotlist very positive review - relative to my game -  I'll seriously consider them.  In fact, I am now searching for i20 posts out of the hundreds a day that show up on the Forum.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by pdks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Haters want to hate. Out of their 'gold' rated clubs... Does anyone disagree that they are solid choices? I think they are pretty spot on from what I've personally hit, read and watched/heard from various outlets (club fitters, golf buds, forum and blog reviews, YouTube, XM radio).

I tend to agree.  It was only a few years ago (2005?) that you couldn't find any subjective rankings in a major N.American golf mag.  All that Golf or Golf Digest wrote was fluffy, nice things - like participation ribbons in a politically correct grade school.  Actually ranking one manufacturer's offering above another, which is what the GD Hotlist does, was a big step.

That said, most of us on here look for a number of 'validation points' before pulling the trigger on expensive new equipment - including personal demo's, of course.

I find the Hotlist an interesting annual read.  And my new irons this spring that will replace my existing MP32's will likely be MP59's or i20's.   The former I already had in my sights when the list was published and I was happy to see the reviewers loved them too.  The Pings are a brand new possibility for me - I never considered them.  Because of the GD Hotlist very positive review - relative to my game -  I'll seriously consider them.  In fact, I am now searching for i20 posts out of the hundreds a day that show up on the Forum.

The i20 or the MP-59? What an ecclectic choice to make. It's like narrowing your new car purchase down to either a mini-van or a motorcycle.

[jamo]

The i20 or the MP-59? What an ecclectic choice to make. It's like narrowing your new car purchase down to either a mini-van or a motorcycle.

And that's changing from blades, too.

[pdks]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

The i20 or the MP-59? What an ecclectic choice to make. It's like narrowing your new car purchase down to either a mini-van or a motorcycle.

Like many who play this game, I'm intrigued by the concept of assisted improvement through acquiring a better tool. I'm inclined to make the move from the Mizuno MP32 to the MP59. It is a relatively small step and I have 'A/B'-ed them (on a matt inside - it is January in Toronto ...even if it is and has been almost warm enough to be still golfing!).   The MP59's are a beautiful, responsive club and I believe they're a step forward for me.

But your point was that the MP59's & Ping i20's too different to be considered together, and I'd have to respectfully disagree.   A first proof point would be that the editors of Golf Digest placed  both in the same small group, the low-handicap 'Player's Irons' segment.

The metaphor you used above (which I realize was purposeful hyperbole) is off.   If you want to use a sport-bike vs mini-van metaphor, you would be comparing the Mizuno MP69 mb blade to the Cleveland Mashie super game improvement irons.

In the MP59 / i20 comparison, the Mizuno's are a Porche 911-4s and the Ping's an Audi S5 Quattro.  Both are sportscars of the highest order with the technological assistance of all-wheel drive.  But the Porche leans more to sport and the Audi more to assist.

To sum up, the Ping i20 deserves consideration by skilled players who are looking for a workable, high performance iron and who are open to change.  In awarding it one of only four special Editor's Choice Awards (out of 155 total awards), GD called it "the player's club that does everything."

World No. 2 Lee Westwood is getting into the conversation.  In a Twitter post just before Christmas he said, "Been testing the new i20 irons. Great set of clubs.  Lovely feel." Rumour has it they may make it into his bag this season.

Poetically for this debate, Mizuno confirmed World No.1 Luke Donald will playing the MP59's this season.

And all this said, I'll probably go with Luke and the MP59's.   Steady, incremental improvement on excellence (the clubs, not my swing).

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by pdks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

The i20 or the MP-59? What an ecclectic choice to make. It's like narrowing your new car purchase down to either a mini-van or a motorcycle.

Like many who play this game, I'm intrigued by the concept of assisted improvement through acquiring a better tool. I'm inclined to make the move from the Mizuno MP32 to the MP59. It is a relatively small step and I have 'A/B'-ed them (on a matt inside - it is January in Toronto ...even if it is and has been almost warm enough to be still golfing!).   The MP59's are a beautiful, responsive club and I believe they're a step forward for me.

But your point was that the MP59's & Ping i20's too different to be considered together, and I'd have to respectfully disagree.   A first proof point would be that the editors of Golf Digest placed  both in the same small group, the low-handicap 'Player's Irons' segment.

The metaphor you used above (which I realize was purposeful hyperbole) is off.   If you want to use a sport-bike vs mini-van metaphor, you would be comparing the Mizuno MP69 mb blade to the Cleveland Mashie super game improvement irons.

In the MP59 / i20 comparison, the Mizuno's are a Porche 911-4s and the Ping's an Audi S5 Quattro.  Both are sportscars of the highest order with the technological assistance of all-wheel drive.  But the Porche leans more to sport and the Audi more to assist.

To sum up, the Ping i20 deserves consideration by skilled players who are looking for a workable, high performance iron and who are open to change.  In awarding it one of only four special Editor's Choice Awards (out of 155 total awards), GD called it "the player's club that does everything."

World No. 2 Lee Westwood is getting into the conversation.  In a Twitter post just before Christmas he said, "Been testing the new i20 irons. Great set of clubs.  Lovely feel." Rumour has it they may make it into his bag this season.

Poetically for this debate, Mizuno confirmed World No.1 Luke Donald will playing the MP59's this season.

And all this said, I'll probably go with Luke and the MP59's.   Steady, incremental improvement on excellence (the clubs, not my swing).

The analogy was perhaps just my personal thoughts on the aesthetics of both sets of irons.

[Kieran123]

Does anyone know the difference between the Wilson Staff Ci9's and the Ci11's? Apart form the colour?

Because if the only diff is the colour, then why did the Ci11s make the 2012 hot list, but Ci9's fail to make the 2011 hot list?

[x129]

I would say just about any of the clubs out there these days from a major maker is pretty solid. The problem with the list is that you really can't tell why a club is gold versus silver. Take the Nike VR Pro Combo which got a silver star. The con is it isn't available for lefties. As a righty I do't care. I pretty much only care about performance (well and looks and sound but those are personal). How is performance measured so I can tell the difference between 4 stars and 5? Is it because the lofts are jacked up, mishits go shorter, or the accuracy is poor. A meaningful review with that type of info would take several pages. And we would learn that every driver when fitted properly and hit solidly are in a 10 yard variance range.

Originally Posted by pdks

I tend to agree.  It was only a few years ago (2005?) that you couldn't find any subjective rankings in a major N.American golf mag.  All that Golf or Golf Digest wrote was fluffy, nice things - like participation ribbons in a politically correct grade school.  Actually ranking one manufacturer's offering above another, which is what the GD Hotlist does, was a big step.

That said, most of us on here look for a number of 'validation points' before pulling the trigger on expensive new equipment - including personal demo's, of course.

I find the Hotlist an interesting annual read.  And my new irons this spring that will replace my existing MP32's will likely be MP59's or i20's.   The former I already had in my sights when the list was published and I was happy to see the reviewers loved them too.  The Pings are a brand new possibility for me - I never considered them.  Because of the GD Hotlist very positive review - relative to my game -  I'll seriously consider them.  In fact, I am now searching for i20 posts out of the hundreds a day that show up on the Forum.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by x129

I would say just about any of the clubs out there these days from a major maker is pretty solid. The problem with the list is that you really can't tell why a club is gold versus silver. Take the Nike VR Pro Combo which got a silver star. The con is it isn't available for lefties. As a righty I don't care. I pretty much only care about performance (well and looks and sound but those are personal). How is performance measured so I can tell the difference between 4 stars and 5? Is it because the lofts are jacked up, mishits go shorter, or the accuracy is poor. A meaningful review with that type of info would take several pages. And we would learn that every driver when fitted properly and hit solidly are in a 10 yard variance range.

Agreed on the bold.  The Hot List is a good reference point.  As I stated above, I use it as one reference - among many other outlets and resources available to you.  At the end of the day, it's all about personal preference.  How the club feels in your hand, how it sets up to your eye (confidence)... How it impacts your wallet (some people don't care about price)... I mean there are hundreds, possibly thousands of different clubs out there to game.  And for what it is, just a simple 'Hot list' - I think they do a solid job.

An area I would like for them to add in the future is coverage on blade based irons and boutique wedges and putters.

[Domenic]

I was dissapointed in the Hot List this year. It offered way less info than Golf Mag's Club Test. And most were comments from 0-4 handicaps, and 5-15. Lame.

[BushwoodCC]

Very surprised that the TP Mills putters didn't even get a "silver" ranking.  Although the anvil series is not "hand forged" as Mr. Mills formerly made them, they are incredible putters....Feel is noticeably different (and better, IMHO) than a Cameron or anything else.

[LuciusWooding]

The Ci9 vs Ci11: Specs appear to be about the same; lofts are too strong for my liking and you may need 2 gap wedges due to the 44* PW. However, they are both good looking, well regarded, and a lot cheaper than most irons on the market.

The difference: basically the finish, the price (Ci9 can be gotten for 250$ new, I'd go with that), and they changed the weighting a bit to make it more forgiving, which every brand does every year. I wouldn't expect much difference.

The reason Wilson Staff doesn't get gold ratings is because the hot list is a load of BS, essentially. Either of the 2 irons is a solid choice.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

The Ci9 vs Ci11: Specs appear to be about the same; lofts are too strong for my liking and you may need 2 gap wedges due to the 44* PW. However, they are both good looking, well regarded, and a lot cheaper than most irons on the market.

The difference: basically the finish, the price (Ci9 can be gotten for 250$ new, I'd go with that), and they changed the weighting a bit to make it more forgiving, which every brand does every year. I wouldn't expect much difference.

The reason Wilson Staff doesn't get gold ratings is because the hot list is a load of BS, essentially. Either of the 2 irons is a solid choice.

The weighting changed? Interesting.

My Ci9 PW is 44* which is VERY strong..but comes with a 48* GW ( also very strong ) then my next wedge is 54*

Bit of a gap there....I used to have a 52* GW, then 56* and 60*....too many wedges. So I got a 54* SW and dropped the 52* entirely.

[B-Con]

Also, the Hot/Not notes are stupid as hell. They complain about everything, whether the club is too innovative, not innovative enough, too loud, not loud enough, or if it doesn't come in enough options. The reviews make OK readings, but are far from objective and essentially reinforce the manufacturer's message. If you want to buy a certain club, and want to be encouraged to buy said club, look it up on the hot list.

[quote name="sean_miller" url="/t/54963/2012-golf-digest-hot-list-results#post_671580"]The Hot List is what it is. A popularity contest. A snapshot of the projected 2012 sales figures dressed up like an objective review. [/quote] Meh, indeed. I saw something that illustrated this mindset wonderfully, what was it, last year or the year before? It was a wedge whose "not" listed consisted [i]entirely[/i] of "we'd like like to see more education for the consumers regarding the options". Really? The club is worse in my bag because they didn't spend enough time talking to me about it on their website? Isn't that part of your job, as the magazine, to show me the diamonds in the rough and fill in the gaps of my knowledge? Why are you dinging the club because the customer don't already know enough about it? Another example was a ball, again from the last year or two, that was nicked because it "wasn't being aggressively marketed". They're practically admitting that they're just ranking popularity. Half of their pros and cons have nothing to do with how the equipment performs once it's in my bag (assuming that I have the correct configuration). Who cares about the club when it's still on the shelf? However, their ball reviews are actually nice given the spin numbers. I think that is well done.

[LuciusWooding]

The ball reviews are pretty good, except at the top level. They just give every ball gold and regurgitate why the company says it's good. The mid and value priced balls are better done though, and I'll admit there's not that big a difference between different tour balls.

[jamo]

Yes, yes, yes... I saw something that illustrated this mindset wonderfully, what was it, last year or the year before? It was a wedge whose "not" listed consisted [i]entirely[/i] of "we'd like like to see more education for the consumers regarding the options". Really? The club is worse in my bag because they didn't spend enough time talking to me about it on their website? Isn't that part of your job, as the magazine, to show me the diamonds in the rough? Why are you complaining that I the customer don't know enough about it? Another example was a ball, again from the last year or two, that was nicked a point because it "wasn't being aggressively marketed".

Yes, and even worse, they don't keep it consistent across different clubs. For instance, in this year's issue they deride the TaylorMade RocketBallz driver for "messing up the white with Snooki-like tattoos," yet they don't mention the fact that the R11s has nearly the same crown design. Speaking of the R11s, I find it interesting that they blast it for having too many adjustable settings, yet they complain about the Cobra AMP for not having enough settings, and the Titleist 910 for having alphanumeric options (all got gold, and it seems a lot of the "Not" comments for clubs that got gold are either extremely nit-picky or made-up issues that no one would care about). What is the optimal makeup of hosel adjustability, Golf Digest? It'd be nice to know what exactly they are looking for.

[newtogolf]

The "NOT" on the Cleveland 588 CB irons was they offered a 2-iron.  They are in the players irons section, what's wrong with offering a 2-iron?

[mlf16507]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The "NOT" on the Cleveland 588 CB irons was they offered a 2-iron.  They are in the players irons section, what's wrong with offering a 2-iron?

Maybe because their 2 iron has same loft of a 1 iron back in the day. According to Lee Trevino,even God can't hit a 1 iron!

[LuciusWooding]

It's not that hard to hit a 1 iron, but it's very hard to hit high, especially with today's balls. Distance control is also difficult, and hitting from crappy lies isn't easy either. Basically, you need a lot of clubhead speed, a perfect strike, and a good bit of spin to get a decent trajectory, and it is hard even then to stop on a green. Nicklaus was one player who hit a 1 iron well since he had a strong and steep swing, putting lots of spin on.

the 2i has been largely obsoleted by the 5 wood and hybrid, but playing in the wind with those clubs can be tough due to the high launch, whereas the 2i can hit a screaming punch. Also 2is ar valuable for those who ditch their 3 and bend the 2 a bit weak to cover gaps. Players irons tend to have higher loft, where GI irons have 3i lofts around 19* or less sometimes...