Golf WRX - Golf Digest Influence

[oregongolf]

I was reading the latest GD on my flight back from Chicago and it seems the community has had a little influence on the magazine's material. I don't know if it's intentional or coincidental, but I thought it was kind of cool.

 

Am I the only one who's seen this?

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

Can you be more specific?

[jmc]

There was a coking the wedge article...

[bjackson]

The one thign I picked up from my last GD was the reference to "cokeing" a wedge.

[oregongolf]

exactly.

 

they also had a piece on high end shafts.

 

i've never seen them put any type of matrix product in the magazine (at least that i can remember).

 

after i saw the piece about coking the wedge, i had to chalk one up for golf wrx.

[Birdie Retriever]

Now if they would just listen to us on which factors the GD hotlist should be weighted on :bad:

 

Just kidding around...I know the hotlist is a sensative subject for the editors. But I think it deserves the debate.

 

In all seriousness..I think GD and Golfwrx teaming up is a win win situation...that way GD can keep a pulse on what the average golfer is thinking and talking about and us fellow golfwrx's get more access to what is going on in the golf industry thru GD writers and editors.

 

My hats off to GD for becoming a sponsor...I will continue supporting them with my subscription!

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

It would be nice if they would include top shelf, non-OEM products in their tests, eventhough those companies tend NOT to purchase any advertising. I am tired of seeing COBRA, Titleist, Taylor Made and others, when I know the KZG Gemini is just as good if not a better driver....do a REAL TEST.

[Big D McGee]

^^Agreed! All of the smaller mags did tests on the Nickent 3DX Hybrid irons I play, and they smoked every other max game-improvement irons. Yet, they didn't appear in Golf Digest or Golf magazine.

 

I noticed that GolfWrx was mentioned in the Editor's letter, which I thought was VERY cool!

[Gdmichael]

We are working on it guys and I'll will be forwarding your comments (or at least the links to them) to the gentlemen down the hall!

 

Right now we in the internet group are in a mad frenzy as we near the launch of the new GolfDigest.com. After that settles down I will follow up with our Editors on your comments.

[banistr]

The one thign I picked up from my last GD was the reference to "cokeing" a wedge.

 

 

 

 

kudos to the site, but the phrase "cokeing" has been around for a long as I can remember. I was told by my club pro to "coke" my BeCu Pings Eye II way back in 1987. Came out back then like a bright new penny...haha Seems like those of us that drink several cokes a day really should be worried.. :bad:

[Gdmichael]

I took your comments to our Equipment Editors and Mike Stachura from Golf Digest asked me to relay his reply to you guys:

 

First things first, folks: You're darn right Golfwrx is having an influence

on some of the things we do here at Golf Digest. If we didn't pay any

attention at all to what's being chatted about by websites like this one, we

shouldn't be in the golf equipment coverage business. So keep the comments

and revelations coming (And, yes, coke-ing wedges has been around forever,

but I believe we have a few different subscribers today than were around in

1987). As to the Hot List, let's try to be perfectly clear just one more

time: Advertising is not a criterion for the Hot List. It just isn't. Buzz

Factor is a criterion. In its most basic definition, Buzz Factor is a

measurement of how in-demand a product is based on a number of elements,

including sales, tour use and internet chat, among a host of other sources.

But we can assure you that the KZG Gemini driver and Nickent 3DX Hybrid

irons were both considered in our evaluations for the 2007 Hot List. One

other thing: I'm not sure what "a real test" might be, but I can say that

the Hot List is more complete and more fair than any other process out

there. We don't merely consider products that are provided to us. We try to

look at the entire marketplace, as best we are able to understand it. If you

want to conduct a robot test to find the hottest driver or the longest golf

ball, go ahead, but that test will be biased by whatever launch conditions

you set up, and frankly, whatever day you decide to do the test. We're

always looking for ways to improve our process, and ideally we'll continue

to improve it as a service to readers. But please keep the criticism coming.

It's how we get better at what we do. And if you're interested in

contributing to the next Hot List process, here's a hot list link that might spark your interest.

 

l

[oregongolf]

Cool :bad:

 

It's just nice to see some of the same buzz we see here making it into a magazine.

 

Simple request though. Can you put "SHOUT OUT TO GOLFWRX" on the next cover?

[Birdie Retriever]

What is the link supposed to be to?

 

Isn't GD looking for mid-andicappers to help test for the next hot list?

 

I thought I remeber reading something about them looking for testers on golfwrx.com. If so how do we get our name in the hat?

[oregongolf]

i think it's the same deal. they're just looking for mid-handicappers.

[Milo]

I'm not taking a shot at anyone here but I wonder how the average handicap of GD subscribers would compare with the average handicap of WRX members.

It's just my feeling but it seems to me that WRX is decidedly less mainstream than mags like GD.

[Gdmichael]

As far as I know the expertise and composition of the Hot List panel in terms of handicap level is not changing for 2008.

 

The 2007 panel was composed of 5 groups-

 

Judges - 4 GD staffers - handicaps of 13, 6, 9 and 3

Retailers - 6

Scientists - 7

Golf Teachers - 4

Players - 8 - handicaps of 12, +1, +1, 12, 14, 3, 1, 14

 

From that I wouldn't draw the conclusion that there is a mid-level bias. If anything, one could argue that high handicappers ae under represented.

[villa]

How interested are you in feedback?

 

In fact, scrap that, i'll give it anyway!

 

Being in the U.K, I don't regularly buy GD but I do pick it up every now and then and I did pick up the hot list issue.

 

I was quite surpised that there were no muscle-back irons in the list. I'm aware of the given reasons (lack of tour pro's using them) but there is still a demand and the fact that most OEM's are still producing them means that they also think there's a demand.

 

I also found some of the 'not' comments in the 'hot' and 'not' section at the bottom of each test a bit strange. Two of them were why the Titleist Spin Milled wedge didn't come in a lower loft than 54* (because the ball would scuff up too much with the full shots of a gap wedge), and the same question for the Cleveland 588 DSG (because that particular grind would probably be more of a hindrance on a gap wedge).

 

Anyway, i'm not trying to be a pain. Just posting my thoughts.

[Birdie Retriever]

As far as I know the expertise and composition of the Hot List panel in terms of handicap level is not changing for 2008.

 

The 2007 panel was composed of 5 groups-

 

Judges - 4 GD staffers - handicaps of 13, 6, 9 and 3

Retailers - 6

Scientists - 7

Golf Teachers - 4

Players - 8 - handicaps of 12, +1, +1, 12, 14, 3, 1, 14

 

From that I wouldn't draw the conclusion that there is a mid-level bias. If anything, one could argue that high handicappers ae under represented.

 

Here's my suggestion:

 

Judges - 4 GD staffers - Understandable as someone has to take charge make the final decisions based on the PLAYERS testing.

Retailers - 0 - Why would you need retailers for the hotlist? Yea they probably have great knowledge of clubs but they are going to tell you they like certain brands since they are the ones who have to order millions of dollars of those particular brands.

 

Do you really think they are going to say " I think the Wishon 770 iron is the best" Highly doubtful since Wishon irons are sold directly to clubmakers that only Wishon golf approves. I am not trying to say Wishon irons should be editors choice but I think you get the picture.

Scientist - 1 - Use the scientist for factual information about the club like face height, MOI, etc.

 

Golf Teachers - 4 - I'll go along with this becasue they know what a lot of golfers swings look like and they know which clubs will suit which golfers.

 

Players - Minimum of 100 players of all different handicaps

This is the most important judge in my eyes. Granted it might get a little expensive flying them all out to a hot list summit but who says they have to all be in the same place to test a club? With e-mail, Fax, Mail and phone...geography should not be a factor.

 

You can still bring a handful out to the summit for final testing but I think this group needs to be expanded. If the Hot List is supposed to be "More Complete" than any other equipment test in golf, then how can they have have less testers than Golf Magazine's Monthly Club Test?

 

Again not trying to bash GD...just trying to give you my opinion of how the test should be done.

[Gdmichael]

Your feedback is appreciated. I will pass it on.

[chop180]

I think Golfwrx, should make a hot list of its own based soley on board chatter and polls, and then compare to GD's Hot List. Wonder how close they would be?

[Birdie Retriever]

I think Golfwrx, should make a hot list of its own based soley on board chatter and polls, and then compare to GD's Hot List. Wonder how close they would be?

 

 

My guess is the comparison would be drastically different..kinda like comparing my golf game to Tigers's golf game. :)

[Dyno]

As far as I know the expertise and composition of the Hot List panel in terms of handicap level is not changing for 2008.

 

The 2007 panel was composed of 5 groups-

 

Judges - 4 GD staffers - handicaps of 13, 6, 9 and 3

Retailers - 6

Scientists - 7

Golf Teachers - 4

Players - 8 - handicaps of 12, +1, +1, 12, 14, 3, 1, 14

 

From that I wouldn't draw the conclusion that there is a mid-level bias. If anything, one could argue that high handicappers ae under represented.

 

 

Too many scientists and not enough clubmakers/fitters. I am one of the former but consider myself more of the latter. I can tell you the former often thinks they know more than the latter, but it's the latter that actually understands how all the pieces work together.