I think you guys do a wonderful job gathering research, but could do better in presenting your results in the future. A few nitpicks:

1) Really, performance only counts for 40% of your ranking? That seems ridiculous if you're using the hot list to give gold and silver medals. Aren't companies w/ smaller advertising budgets hurt in the "buzz" category? I would guess that Adams and Mizuno suffer in buzz compared to Callaway and TaylorMade. Don't you think most of your readers are interested in performance above all other categories? Can you take a poll of your readers, and see how they'd value the various categories? I'd venture a guess to say that they'd like to see it weighted 90% towards performace, 10% towards value, and they'd vote to ditch the other redundant categories (buzz, function and technology). What good is technology (even well explained technology) or function to a reader if it doesn't help performance?

[GOUGE: As we've said many times before, the Hot List is not a test. We're not interested in finding the wedge that spins the most from 87 yards, or even the driver that flies the farthest. The simple fact is those sorts of delineations aren't meaningful or statistically significant. We're looking for product that is most significant, based on our system of evaluation. Every year we survey our readers on the criteria that is most meaningful. The criteria percentages reflect that reader input.]

2) Some of your rankings don't stand up to scrutiny. For example, the Adams hybrid has the highest possible performance ranking and sells for $150. The Cobra Baffler has a lower performance ranking and sells for $150 - but the Cobra is a better value. What am I missing? Throughtout your list, cheaper clubs have a lower value ranking than more expensive clubs with equal performance ratings.

[GOUGE: In basic terms, value is a reflection of do you get what you pay for. It is not simply should the club that succeeds in one of our four critieria (like Performance/Playability) but costs the same as another club get the most points in value. Value is determined by a two-step process that incorporates 1) studying a product's merits in our other four criteria and evaluating that based on price; and 2) considering all sources of a product's post-purchase value, primarily by consulting used club websites like the PGA.com Value Guide. Perhaps this explains our grading of Cobra Baffler vs. Adams Idea a3.]

I think you're sitting on a treasure trove of research and information, but could improve on your ranking system.

Also, next year please add shaft reviews!

[GOUGE: If you believe there is a meaningful way to isolate shaft differences--and grade them in a universal way that determines their worth to all players--and measures the consistency of a product's performance through hundreds of shafts, we're all ears. Fact is, it is staggeringly more difficult than clubs. But we will continue to pursue this research. My advice would be to consult with your local certified fitter, many of whom have institutional knowledge about shaft differences and fitting them to particular player types.]

Posted by rickkane December 28, 2007 2:22 PM

I like the hot list and the products you display and if money was no object for me I would be heading out for a new set of $1200 dollar irons. But since my divorce papers would soon follow I won't be making that purchase. You guys said there were a whole list of products and companies that didn't make the cut for 2008, how 'bout listing all the ones you tested so people know how there's stacked up against the ones selected. Also, could you guys do a hot list for weekend duffers? There are quality companies out there that make clubs that don't cost a mortgage payment. Those companies are the ones who tailor to people like me who want to get the same game improvement but can't afford Callaways or Pings.

GOUGE: Our list of finalists should be up on the website now. Our best advice is to stick with the Hot List recommendations. If something is outside your price range, you might be able to find a better deal on a past year's Hot List selection that's now available at a reduced price, or even better, you'll get a great deal by checking out used clubs by searching the PGA.com Value Guide. There is plenty of good stuff cheap, but whatever you do, resist the temptation to buy "clones" or "free trial" offers. The latter is in the most simple terms a scam, while the former often results in shoddy manufacturing efforts and suspect technology (you can copy the external look fairly easily, you cannot as easily copy internal structures, acoustics, weighting, etc.). In short, it's not worth it.

Posted by fire69bird January 1, 2008 1:24 AM

Mike -

First, let me say thank you sincerely for your response. I understand that the Hot List isn't a test for specific performance categories. However, I still can not believe that you'd go through your exhaustive process and only attribute 40% of the final grade to performance. That's like finishing the Masters with the fewest number of strokes, but only winning second place because another player had a better reputation and a more connected publicist.

Since you're all ears, here are my four suggestions for improving next year's Hot List:

1) Re-weight your category rankings to eliminate technology. I love reading about the technology in the Hot List, but don't think that technology can be "rated" unless it leads to better performance. Technology should be a component of better performance, not its own category. This doesn't mean it has no place on the Hot List - any golf club junkie likes reading about what's new. It just shouldn't be incorporated into the club's overall grade unless it actually changes performance.

2) Ditch the funtion category and incorporate it into performance by having your raters only rate the clubs that are appropriate for their own game. If you're doing this already, kudos and please stop reading. I just doubt that a plus 1 handicap player can give valuable feedback re the Callaway Big Bertha irons and the Cleveland HiBore irons. To him, they all look big, the shafts feel mushy, and they probably hit the ball high. A low capper measuring which one is best for a high capper is just pure speculation. Same thing goes for high cappers hitting players irons. As far as drivers and fairway woods go, I think it would be fair to have a sub category for players drivers and fairway woods (Titleist, Mizuno MP series, TM) in addition to the existing ratings. Perhaps you can even do this for putters as well (players v. game improvement).

3) You need to recalibrate how you give points for value. As an example, take two clubs with identical prices, identical re-sale prices AND identical scores for performance, function and technology. The first club, say a Mizuno/Adams, has less buzz. The other club, say a Taylor Made/Callaway, has more buzz. The way you currently give points for value (by incorporating ALL of your other categories and comparing them to price), the Mizuno/Adams will lose points in the value category compared to the Taylor Made/Callaway by virtue of solely having less buzz. It seems like an unecessary two-stroke penalty. A good advertising department can lead to a better buzz score AND a better value score, despite the clubs having equal performance, sale value and re-sale value. If value was determined only by comparing performance against sale and resale price, then you wouldn't double count the other categories.

4) Shafts: If you can't grade them, at least give us a summary of what they are supposed to do. For example, the Aldila NV is intended for player X that is looking for a lower ball flight, the NVS is for player Y. At least that will help us narrow down our shaft choices. Let us know what the pros are using, what's out there, and what we should look for next year.

Thanks for your time, and have a great 2008.

Posted by rickkane January 2, 2008 11:14 AM

I read your list of all the clubs that were submitted for the Hot List.
My question is do the participants test each club that is submitted by the manufacturer ?

[GOUGE: With a few exceptions, our panel of players and teachers hit each of the 240 finalists in clubs and balls. The exceptions: Our mid- and higher handicap players do not hit any clubs from the Player's Iron category, while our low-handicap amateurs do not hit any clubs in the Super Game Improvement Irons category.]

Posted by mainuh January 3, 2008 7:47 AM

I enjoy your Hot List every year and this year is no exception. I have noticed a trend in the golf ball section. A ball may rate in the silver category one year and the next year it is moved up to gold without explanation. It would be nice if you included the reason. For example, the characteristics of the Top Flite D2 Feel golf ball has not changed from 2007 to 2008, according to Callaway. Your rating has changed and I have asked the question, but have not received an answer. Thanks

Posted by texasgolfer January 5, 2008 8:18 AM

In Jan 2008 issue, you reviewed shafts and their performance. Can you explain why you did not list their names as a "hot list" category.

[GOUGE: I think you may have misunderstood our testing story in the January 2008 issue. This was a small test to show the subtle differences between shaft performance for one particular player. It in no way is a performance evaluation akin to the Hot List.]

Posted by paddy January 6, 2008 11:30 AM

The hotlist is great and as I am about to buy a new set of irons I was very happy to see it come out.
I am a bit suprised that the 755's didn't make the final cut in the players irons. I guess the other irons just performed better? From what's in my bag it seems a couple of the titleist pro's use them - any comments on why they didn't make the cut?

GOUGE: Remember the Hot List is about what's Hot. The Titleist 755 irons have been on our list in the past, but Titleist will feature a completely new lineup of irons this spring, thus diminishing the juice for the 755s.

Posted by golfnut11 January 9, 2008 8:02 PM

I think the Hot List is far superior to what any other publication has to offer or website has to offer regarding golf equipment testing and results. You and your staff produce and deliver what I believe to be exceptionally through and non-bias information. I know that with the extensive testing with clubs and balls its difficult to spend time with shafts or training aids. However on the other hand I do have some recommendations that are similar to what other readers have commented on.

First, I have seen others comment on buzz factor and functionality. I certainly agree with buzz factor and believe this criteria make it difficult for smaller, lesser known companies with better than above average (potentially better than what is on the hotlist) products to make the hotlist. Although the cirteria is based on a small percentage, it certainly will hurt those small to midiszed companies especially those in the super game improvement category which might have little to no tour use (do the math). This is why I believe the Buzz criteria should be dropped for 2009 (at least from game improvment and super game improvment categories).

Second, functioality is a great category and most could make an agrument to keep or drop this criteria. However as an avid golfer (consumer), it seems as though every company has the same promise. Hit it farther and straighter. Every wedge promises to have improved feel and more spin. All putters seem to promise a true roll with laser accuracy and so on and so on. Exception is in the sub categories of players clubs, game improvment and super game improvment equipment, promises and guarantees all seem to be the same. Besides the functionality of the custom fitting options. i.e. Callaways Opti-fit system, interchangable shafts, etc. How can we differentiate the functionality of one driver to another. Most promise the same sometimes with different technology. I and many others would like to hear your opinion on this this criteria. If possible, do you believe this could be improved.

Not as though I am an expert, I have several suggested inclusions that I would like to present that are of interest to me and believe would be of equal the average golfer.

1) Greatest technological advancments of the new year.
2)Reweight criteria so that smaller companies and less recognizable product have a better opportunity to make the hotlist.
3)Because little attention is focused on the high handicap golfer, it would be nice to see an ideal set and or ideal setmake up for this category. Example: best driver, fairway metals, hybrids, etc. Given that this demographic makes up well over half the golfing population, it would be great to see more time spent here.

One last question I have that everyone else seems to have is why did and how did a particular club make the list. I know this is almost impossible to answer. So here comes yet another suggestion to help others when making their buying decisions for the new year. Lets see a list of pros and cons of new technology. For example: highlight for the year popular trends in club manufacturing and on the other hand those technological ideas that are deemed undesireable by consumers or those trends that dont live up to their guarantees.
I think I speak for all my golf buddies when I say we golf nuts who own three sets of club and 10 drivers, what to know all the answers.

Finally, keep up the great work that you and your staff does. It is obvious why your golf publication is #1. Most of my friends and I are avid readers of your publication and we can attribute much of are success to yorur monthly content.
Thank you for your time.

Posted by justthegolfguy January 12, 2008 8:09 PM

I'm a long time reader and subscriber of Golf Digest. I respect the publication and have trimmed many strokes off my game due to the lessons taught in your publication. However each year I cringe with each new "Equipment Hot List" issue. Don't get me wrong, I love hearing about new products and how they will improve your game. But lets be honest- your scoring system and more to the point your hesitation to select a clear winner in each category leads me to believe advertising money plays a major role in selection and not true club performance. Case in point- You reviewed 17 drivers. 7 of the 17 were awarded gold status while the other 10 received silver status. Is each driver really that good? Or is the pressure to please the many advertising golf giants (where you make your true money) the real reason every companies products scores high? I welcome your thoughts on my comments.

Best Regards
Scott Mclaughlin
Graham North Carolina

GOUGE: We're tired of this complaint. It bores us. But here's some perspective: Bomb and I will be at the annual PGA Merchandise Show this week (and we'll be posting our thoughts). If anybody thinks advertising plays a role in the Hot List, please come along and join us in our meetings with every company here. Each of them has a complaint of one kind or another about where the Hot List has failed them. If the Hot List was meant to satisfy advertisers, we're either doing a pathetically awful job, or -- aha! -- the Hot List is not about pleasing advertisers.

Posted by johnscottanthony January 13, 2008 9:49 AM

GOUGE
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment. And I hope you didn't take personal offense to my comments. However if you don't ask you won't know right? Obviously a project such as "The Hot List" will always come under some sort of fire by both manufactors and consumers. Basically you can't win for losing. My suggestion would be to let your selected equipment testers especially those from the general public give their personal review of the product thus washing your hands clean of any heat that golf manufactors may apply to you. I say this out of experience as I was an owner of a sports card trading web site where free products were sent to me for review and promotion on my web site. I quickly learned that giving my members the ability to review the product kept companies honest and my reading public confident that the truth was being told in each review. Again I appreciate you taking the time to respond to your readers comment. Rest assured that although we may question some aspects of the "Hot List" we do enjoy reading it and find it helpful when buying new products.

Thanks and Best Regards

Scott Mclaughlin

Posted by johnscottanthony January 14, 2008 12:11 PM

I have read all the comments and I need to respond to the negative comments from a different angle. As a panelist (not associated as an employee of the magazine or any equipment company) on this years Hot List.
I can assure anyone reading the reviews, that from a panelists standpoint no one ever mentioned advertising revenues, favored brands, or any reference to bias of any brand or type. The men & women from the magazine staff, the teaching Pro's on the panel and everyone associated with the project used every effort to give every product a thourough and valid examination on the merits of each product as an individual entity.
Clubs & Balls were presented with no bias of any kind and the editors were beyond reproach in their efforts to include all entries a level paying on which to be evaluated. The scoring system was constructed to preclude any individual from improperly "weighting" a specific product (ball or club) From having an invalid rating. And from the educated view of an onsite witness I can tell you that these guys busted there collective tails for months to put this thing together. To properly evaluate everything from so many sources took enless hours of tedious work, peer review, and elbow grease. Frankly I think they nailed the results from what I experienced during the summit.

Posted by 1958lpjr January 17, 2008 8:17 AM

Please excuse the above typo. I intended to say a level playing field

Posted by 1958lpjr January 17, 2008 9:38 AM

Will the editor publish the results of the clubs and balls that did not get a gold or silver rating on the 2008 HotList?

Posted by dbrediger January 25, 2008 7:42 AM