GD Hotlist for Balls is out.

[RichB]

If GD is promoting a product solely based on how much it will impress the rest of your foursome, they truly have sunk beneath the Weekly World News in terms of credibility... :lol:

 

 

They sunk years ago. *Demand* as a qualifier for performance, is no different,

and just as convoluted as *buzz*.

[SaltytheSlicer]

Just remember this one thing:

 

It's not a GOOD list. It's not a BEST PERFORMANCE list. It's a HOT list.

 

I fully agree Demaind or Buzz as it was called in past years shouldn't matter. But it's a HOT list which is more about what they expect will sell. I wish it were a Best Performance list. I want to see what works the best and I want to hear how it works (spin characteristics, distance, straigh or workable, trajectory, feel, etc.). I don't give a rip if demand is high or not.

[Sean2]

the VAST majority of golfers will never derive any benefit from premium golf balls. why not focus on the low and mid-priced balls? i am beginning to think the "advertisers" want there premium balls pushed.

[maskedman]

I have not received my GD yet. Was there any real testing done (necessary)? Or does it just follow the usual Hot List format (worthless)? I'll be curious to see the piece, but it will have to go a very long way to equal the ball article from Golf Magazine (Feb. 2008), which, IMO, reigns as the best ball review in many years.

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

Can someone please explain to me how "demand" has anything to do with the quality/performance of a ball and whether I should be using it???

 

"Demand" is a ridiculous factor for judging a ball. :nono:

 

That is so true.

[sk373]

the VAST majority of golfers will never derive any benefit from premium golf balls. why not focus on the low and mid-priced balls? i am beginning to think the "advertisers" want there premium balls pushed.

 

1) depends upon what you define as "benefit". i fully believe that every golfer can derive short game benefits from premium golf balls. at the very minimum, premium golf balls imho feel *much* better for putting, which translates into greater comfort and confidence, which in turn translates into a better putting stroke and more putts made. if you're talking about distance, well sure--just about every golf ball made is within 5-7 yds of each other at a SS of 90.

 

2) why would a publication focus on the low and mid-priced balls? that's not glamorous. just like car magazines--the readership would rather read about a Chevy Corvette than a Chevy Cobalt. or the hi-fi/home theater magazines--no one wants to see blurbs about 32" LCD's instead of 65" LCD's or megabuck projectors, etc.

 

3) you've only now realized that the "advertisers" want their premium balls pushed? really? you do know that they're in business to make money, don't you?

[thenation48]

ZstarX is HAWT. GET'EM

[SpinMill75]

These GD Hotlist articles are getting weirder and weirder.......

As far as golf balls are concerned, I conduct my own test every year by buying a sleeve all the new tour quality balls and judge for myself.

How can I trust some writer on what he thinks is the best ball of the year for my game and conditions??????

[TUJJ]

zzzzzzzzzzzz-star.

 

Titleist, show me the money

[Sean2]

the VAST majority of golfers will never derive any benefit from premium golf balls. why not focus on the low and mid-priced balls? i am beginning to think the "advertisers" want there premium balls pushed.

 

1) depends upon what you define as "benefit". i fully believe that every golfer can derive short game benefits from premium golf balls. at the very minimum, premium golf balls imho feel *much* better for putting, which translates into greater comfort and confidence, which in turn translates into a better putting stroke and more putts made. if you're talking about distance, well sure--just about every golf ball made is within 5-7 yds of each other at a SS of 90.

 

2) why would a publication focus on the low and mid-priced balls? that's not glamorous. just like car magazines--the readership would rather read about a Chevy Corvette than a Chevy Cobalt. or the hi-fi/home theater magazines--no one wants to see blurbs about 32" LCD's instead of 65" LCD's or megabuck projectors, etc.

 

3) you've only now realized that the "advertisers" want their premium balls pushed? really? you do know that they're in business to make money, don't you?

 

1. probably, but what is the cost/benefit derived?

2. if you can only afford a cobalt you don't want to read about vettes.

3. yes, i do. but thank you for the clarification.

[307golf]

1) depends upon what you define as "benefit". i fully believe that every golfer can derive short game benefits from premium golf balls. at the very minimum, premium golf balls imho feel *much* better for putting, which translates into greater comfort and confidence, which in turn translates into a better putting stroke and more putts made. if you're talking about distance, well sure--just about every golf ball made is within 5-7 yds of each other at a SS of 90.

 

2) why would a publication focus on the low and mid-priced balls? that's not glamorous. just like car magazines--the readership would rather read about a Chevy Corvette than a Chevy Cobalt. or the hi-fi/home theater magazines--no one wants to see blurbs about 32" LCD's instead of 65" LCD's or megabuck projectors, etc.

 

3) you've only now realized that the "advertisers" want their premium balls pushed? really? you do know that they're in business to make money, don't you?

 

 

 

1. I disagree fully. Most golfers suffer more lost strokes from inconsistent spin, or in trying and failing to generate the spin they think they should have. Feel is completely subjective. If you think it feels better, it 'does'. If nobody tells you its supposed to 'feel better', then it wont.

 

2. I agree. Even if I can't afford a vette, I'd rather read about that than the Cobalt.

 

3. There's a lot more money in bad golfers than in good golfers. Pure market analysis...

[ericld]

3. There's a lot more money in bad golfers than in good golfers. Pure market analysis...

 

 

+1, I'm a total money printer for these companies.

[sk373]

1. probably, but what is the cost/benefit derived?

2. if you can only afford a cobalt you don't want to read about vettes.

3. yes, i do. but thank you for the clarification.

 

1) that would depend upon the golfer, wouldn't it? for me, it's worth it (especially when i buy last year's premium model for half the price, but i digress). but it's not like anyone's commissioned a large-scale controlled test to see how many strokes a golfer saves in the short game on average with a premium ball. without such a study, any cost/benefit analysis rests with the golfer who compares a premium ball with a low cost ball.

 

2) that's not true at all. people like to dream--to aspire to what they perceive as the "good life". this is why you see posters of Ferraris and Lamborghinis in the bedrooms of teenage boys. look at the fascination in this forum with what equipment the pros play.

[sk373]

1. I disagree fully. Most golfers suffer more lost strokes from inconsistent spin, or in trying and failing to generate the spin they think they should have. Feel is completely subjective. If you think it feels better, it 'does'. If nobody tells you its supposed to 'feel better', then it wont.

 

we shall agree to disagree. my position is this (as a general rule):

 

the average golfer doesn't have the technique to generate backspin like someone of your caliber. they *can't* spin the ball like you can. it's easier to generate backspin with a premium ball than a rock, obviously. a premium ball gives an average golfer more control from 100 yds and in--so when they're hitting their 9i or PW, they can hold the green better if they hit a shot that lands on a green. there are few things that are more discouraging to casual/beginning/average golfers than hitting what they feel is a good golf shot onto the green, only to have it roll right off.

 

i believe that most average golfers suffer more lost strokes around the green not from inconsistent spin, but from making bad shots (i.e. flubbing/chunking/skulling chips). and in general, i believe most golfers suffer more lost strokes from the following than anything else: poor course management, poor shot selection, and poor club selection (i.e., "i'm 175 yds. out---easy 7-iron!) the average golfer doesn't get the ball to check up on pitches or chips--they don't have that shot, premium ball or no premium ball. what a premium ball does give an average golf is a ball that doesn't run 20 ft. past the hole.

 

i'll use my wife as a example. before September last year, she had never played a premium ball. she had always played Precept MC Lady's or Pinnacle Lady's (which are fine low compression 2-piece balls in their own right). she enjoyed the game just fine, but always had trouble with control around the green, and from 100 yds. in. she was resigned to the fact that even when she hit what she felt was a good approach shot onto the green, the ball wasn't likely to stay on the green. chipping was always an adventure, because one of two things were likely to happen: a flubbed/chunked chip, or decent contact, but the ball would roll forever.

 

when the Bridgestone B330-RX was released in September, i, of course had to buy a box and try them (because i am a ball ho). while i liked the B330-RX, i didn't like it as much as the Nike One (Black or Platinum), the TM TP (Red or Black), or the Z-URS--so i went back to playing the aforementioned balls. i was curious to see if the B330-RX would do anything for my wife's game. i actually had to persuade her to try them--she doesn't like changing up things nearly as much as i do, and really liked how the MC Lady's and Pinnacle Lady's felt off the driver and full iron shots. i told her that the B330-RX was essentially a premium version of the MC Lady (and that's really not that far from the truth, if you think about it)--and besides, i'd already paid for them. so she tried it. you know where this story is going--suffice to say, she hits the B330-RX longer than anything else she's tried, she started to hold greens with her iron shots more often than not, and her chipping has improved substantially. i have yet to see her hit a pitch or chip and have it check up unexpectedly short, due to putting more spin than expected--she just doesn't have that shot yet. this is no small feat--before trying the B330-RX, there was no way you could ever convince her that paying $42/doz for golf balls made an iota of sense. now, she's bought herself a stash of 3 dozen B330-RX's (which will last her a long time, since she rarely loses golf balls--one thing she does very well is hit the ball straight, and i mean straight). now if only she can learn how to putt . . .

 

yes, feel is subjective. but you can't deny that the softer urethane cover of a premium ball results in a softer feel around the greens and on the putting surface. i suppose that whether it feels "good" or not is up to the individual golfer, but i'd argue that the majority of golfers would prefer the softer feel of a urethane ball if given a choice and a chance to compare.

[Konklifer]

It's ridiculous...Z-Star gets 5 stars in every category except demand but receives a silver.

 

It's a joke. I can say for sure, the Z-Star is certainly in demand by me. Maybe the most impressed I've been with a ball since the original Maxfli Revolution.

[flyhighandlong]

is this list online?

[Alefty]

Of course it is a joke, GD even pushes demand because the companies than put "GD hot list" on their product and people buy it because it is on the list. Last summer I picked up a lot of lost balls while walking the course and had the opportunity to try them all. I must say titleists were the most common but bridgestone and srixon were the ones I really were happy to find. I don't know if I found less of them because of less "demand" or because the people who played bridgestone and srixon didn't lose balls as often. ;) probably both.

[daydreamer]

Golf Digest is supposed to be telling me what is good, not what is popular. If I want to know what is popular, I can just look for sales figures.

 

 

well said Harry_L!

 

I want from Golf Digest the honest medicine as to how a ball performs, not if there were sales info. Something to help my purchase decision, independent of popularity.

[Godfather]

2 things I noticed (in addition to the Z-star BS):

 

1) TaylorMade Burner TP ball - very impressive numbers again. Third test I've seen where it puts up premium ball numbers. Great ball.

2) Who on Tour plays the NXT Tour? I can't imagine any pro using this ball when money is not an object. Seriously.

[cristphoto]

A poor review. As others said, demand should not be included as a gradeable category. Is this the same magazine that includes "buzz factor" as a category? Stupid. Also the ratings section is DUMB. Many of the most popular balls are lumped together but given one grade. For instance Titleist ProV1 and ProV1X as a pair are given one grade. Same with the three Bridgestone B330 models - one grade given. However balls like Nike Vapor, Callaway Diablo, Nike PD Soft and Wilson Zip are given one grade (which is as it should be). Plus this year there is not any distance data. Last years test gave distance data for different swing speeds which was somewhat helpful. But even that was dubious since they used the same 10.5 regular flex driver for both low and high swing speeds. Not many high swing speed hitters play a regular flex 10.5 driver.

[cristphoto]

Where can I see a copy of this HOT LIST?

 

 

Go buy a copy of the May 2009 Golf Digest.

[TheIronChef]

Well, this is the Hot List, not the Performance Test. I am pretty convinced they put demand (demand from sponsors) there to keep the sponsors happy. While I am not impressed by this, at least they are (presumably) honest about Srixon outperforming Pro V1s. For us golfnuts, we can just read the performance rating and ignore the rest.

[Lefty4par2]

Just a thought... If everyone sent them an e-mail that posted (or even read) this thread, I think that would have some impact. I sent them an e-mail this morning, because it's such a ridiculous review. Take a minute (from the hours you are on this forum lol) and send them a "what the heck are you doing" e-mail!

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/contact/dynamicEmailForm

 

Make your voice heard!

[Bomb and Gouge]

The first thing you see when you open the newest issue of GD:

 

A two page Titleist ProV1(x) ad.

[cristphoto]

Thanks for the link. Attached is my input to Golf Digest:

 

"If I'm looking for the best ball available for me (as stated in your May issue, page 71), I surely don't care about "Demand". Also on page 74, and 76 you combine balls into one rating. For example are you saying the feel is 4 1/2 stars for all three Bridgestone 330 series balls? Hit a B330 and a B330RX and tell me the feel is the same. Who edits these articles before going to publication?"

[caller]

3. There's a lot more money in bad golfers than in good golfers. Pure market analysis...

 

 

+1, I'm a total money printer for these companies.

 

 

+2, ATM for them!

 

I started to realize that some components companies makes better clubs than OEM

Also, I noticed that a lot of people will just buy Prov1 not fully knowing what it does but heard

commercial and hearing from the store guy saying, "all the pros play that ball!"

 

Well, I was not impressed with Prov1 and did not see what it would do for me

But once I tried Zstar, it was very obvious to tell how good it is.

 

Now, GD ball testing is infulenced by the sponsors (IMHO) and rating Zstar silver is

like getting robbed

[thenation48]

Zstar the way to go. I hear overall demand for ZStarX is 75% to ZStar 25%. ProV on the decline IMO. SUMITOMO RUBBER'S R&D IS SUPERIOR.

[jrsharp21]

2 things I noticed (in addition to the Z-star BS):

 

1) TaylorMade Burner TP ball - very impressive numbers again. Third test I've seen where it puts up premium ball numbers. Great ball.

2) Who on Tour plays the NXT Tour? I can't imagine any pro using this ball when money is not an object. Seriously.

 

I had the same question about the NXT Tour.

[harold baines]

looking at the charts,

 

I wouldn't understand why anyone would play a premium ball ($40/dozen) when the TM burner TP ($25/dozen) is smack in the middle of all the premium balls on those graphs.

[bladerunner80871]

Just a thought... If everyone sent them an e-mail that posted (or even read) this thread, I think that would have some impact. I sent them an e-mail this morning, because it's such a ridiculous review. Take a minute (from the hours you are on this forum lol) and send them a "what the heck are you doing" e-mail!

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/contact/dynamicEmailForm

 

Make your voice heard!

 

JUST TOOK YOUR ADVICE... Heres what I wrote them...

"The Hot List for Balls was INSULTING. Golfers choose equipment based on performance. Your magazine advocates fitting as a great way to improve ones game - and yet your ball test uses DEMAND as a criteria for the best ball. So why should anyone get fit? Just ask what is the most popular ball and play it. Let the retailers worry about popularity and what to stock. You are hurting the game of golf. Most golfers are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of launch conditions and what they should be looking for in a ball. If the sport is to survive (its hard enough as is with adjustable drivers, deep grooves, etc.) then this veil of mystery around balls and fitting needs to be lifted. Who better to do this?

 

SORRY to say - Golf magazine whooped your a** on this one. So did Todays Golfer out of the UK. Your little popularity contest lowered your magazines credibility once again. Do the right thing next time and test each ball with an iron byron at 3 typical launch conditions... NO HUMANS !!! Use humans for feel and putting.

1. 75 mph swingspeed - 12* driver

2. 90 mph swingspeed - 10.5* driver

3. 105 mph swingspeed - 9.5* driver"