GOUGE: This is what I found in the old in box this morning. Here we go again.
A Matt Zacchio of Connecticut writes: "Golf Digest should be ashamed of itself, but I know that you’re not.  I also know why – you are a business and in business to make money by selling advertising space.  Therefore your interests and ‘real’ clients are the equipment manufacturers who buy ad space and not the readers to whom you dish out crummy advice by the boatload.
"I’m not sure why I’m writing this as I know it’s like shoveling sand against the tide, but have some comments anyway.
"I recently received my February 2007 copy of Golf Digest and have read/reviewed what was offered in the Hot List for 2007.  I think that the entire article is nothing but additional advertising space for the top manufacturers (who already advertise with you) and the commentary and ‘advice’ by your Equipment Editor nothing but a shameless shill.  While I generally enjoy the magazine and am in the midst of a three year subscription, something about the way in which this article is presented rubs me the wrong way.  Let me just say it here: muscle-back blades are not why or how Joe Average golfer shoots in the 90’s and carries a 20 handicap.  He does so because of his bad technique and golf swing, lack of understanding of what it takes to shot a good (better) round, general physical inability and a host of other reasons.  Suggesting that playing more ‘forgiving’ irons will make him a Tour star and cut his handicap in half is a joke.  If this were really the impetus for the article, the most forgiving clubs would be highlighted and not just those from the major manufacturers.  (I refer you to the Maltby Playability Factor for designs other than those cited which are at least as effective at yielding a ‘better’ result as deserved for an off center hit.)
"To cite the top 22 players on the PGA Tour money list and only 25% of all Tour players use true blades is a distortion of the facts and perhaps unconscionable in itself without explanation.  ANY player on Tour can play (properly fit) blades with NO effect on his game.  They can do so because they are great ball strikers and hit the ball in the center of percussion time after time.  Cavity backed clubs do them no good (and maybe take some things away from them) but they play them anyway…why?  MONEY.  It’s just too bad that you do not have the where-with-all to point out that Tour players are well paid to play the clubs that they play.  That Adam Scott, Tiger, Vijay etc. play what they want (regardless of the money they’re offered to endorse something else) should be heralded.  Think of how Nike could separate themselves from the pack if the Tiger-phenomenon trickled down from his endorsement of the Slingshot OSS or CCi (and they must be thinking the same thing too).  I would assert that Adam, Tiger and Vijay would be less effective overall with ‘game improvement’ clubs as they couldn’t work the ball in the way that they can work a blade iron, but I didn’t see that comment anywhere in the ‘For Purists’ section offered by E. Michael Johnson.  Yes they practice and yes, they are great ball strikers but, the fact is they all play the clubs that let them play their best (yes I said it) and they are blades.   That they all have enough money already is probably the deciding factor but noteworthy nonetheless.
We all know that the shaft is at least 50% of any golf club but I saw little reference to that fact.   I won’t go down that rat-hole here but to lead the poor schlep reader in any other direction is also suspect.
"I play blades because I know that they offer me the best combination of looks and performance and let me do things with my shot making that leads to my lowest possible scores.
I find it interesting that ‘combo’ sets exist and yet aren’t taunted as a holy grail of the golf intelligencia because they are of course, the best of both worlds.  I also find it interesting that while muscle-back blades are eschewed by the Golf Digest staff, no on seems ready to banish current/modern wedge designs from Titleist (Vokey), Cleveland, Callaway, Mizuno, et al.  Why not?  They are ALL blades designs with virtually no hosel offset AND these are the clubs most often used in a round by everyone.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the forgiveness of a cavity backed design in the clubs that you use the most?  And don’t tell me that a 20-something handi doesn’t miss a shorter club as much as he misses a longer iron…I’ve seen playing partners miss 50 yard chips by an inch or more on the face of the club lots of times (and/or hit hosel rockets off of a half swing).  BUT, all of the above manufacturers advertise with big dollars…I think you see the correlation.
"OK, I’m finished.  I don’t expect an answer but I just wanted you to know that I saw through the intent of the Hot List: to promote what your advertisers tell you to promote.  I think that there is a place for game improvement clubs out there (in perhaps more than half of all golfers), but to belittle blades so badly is to shake the foundation of what golf was built on and a sell out to all of the things that I hate about today’s game."

GOUGE: My response was mild. But I'm sure it will get us nowhere.
"Thank you for your recent thoughts on the Hot List. We are trying to learn how to produce a better product every time we do the Hot List, and your pointed criticism forces us to look at what we do.
However, if you believe that what we do is advertiser driven, then perhaps you can explain why we would have any Editors Choices at all? Certainly, disappointing three-quarters of our potential advertisers in the equipment category is not smart business. And believe me, the percentage of manufacturers displeased with the Hot List this year is much higher than 75 percent. I urge you to read our blog on the subject, even though your clear predisposition is not to believe it. http://blogs.golfdigest.com/equipment/2007/01/the_hot_list_20.html
"I am glad you enjoy your blade irons, but we respectfully disagree with your opinion. Your belief about tour players hitting their irons in the center of the face all the time is interesting, but wrong. Our sense is that more and more elite players' scatter pattern on the face is increasing in area, not decreasing. Playing with blades is just fine if you are a robot. Therefore, we will continue to not recommend them for humans. Hale Irwin, Dana Quigley, Annika Sorenstam, Phil Mickelson and dozens of others all could play with muscleback blades if they so chose. They don't. We think that's relevant. And to set the record straight, nowhere do we suggest that someone will become a tour star by switching to cavity back irons.
"As to the issue of wedges, the lack of precision on a chip shot cannot be resolved by a cavity back design, however with a full swing, the negative effect of a lack of precision can be generally mitigated with a well-designed, cavity back club.
"As to the issue of shafts, we welcome any thoughts on a meaningful, repeatable way of evaluating individual shafts for a group recommendation. Our sense long has been that the shaft search requires individual attention with a qualified fitter. That's why we recommend getting fit for every piece of equipment you put in the bag.
"I hope these answers have been helpful. Again, we value the comments we get from readers in assessing the Hot List process. We don't do the Hot List for manufacturers, we do it for readers. That's why it took us more than 50 years to get to the point where we felt we could put a valid process together for the magazine. It doesn't take much to satisfy only manufacturers. We could have gone down that road as early as Year 1. We didn't, and they will never be the audience we are trying to serve. But I certainly respect you enough to let you form your own conclusions. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me."

Peace be with you.