Or: The Editors at Bicycling Magazine are somebody's bitches.
Bicycling magazine, September 2009, Page 57: "Editors Choices: These Five Saddles Are Proven Winners" should read "Editors Choices: These Five Saddles Ponied Up the Cash to be Featured"
My preference for Brooks saddles is well known. Let me be perfectly clear: A Brook B-17 saddle changed my life. Period. If I had not found the comfort of the Brooks, I would not be riding today. Also, to be perfectly clear, I have no affiliation with Brooks or their parent company. They probably have no idea I exist. I paid for my Brooks saddle and have never received any compensation, endorsement, candy, Christmas cards or ANYTHING from them. They have my endorsement because they EARNED it.
However, I suggest that Specialized, Sela Italia, Selle San Marco ( Brooks Parent?), Fizik and Terry, all paid for the endorsement by Bicycles editors. Now, it should come as no surprise to anybody that magazine editors have to walk a fine line between product reviews and their high paying advertisers. Your subscription fees don't pay their salaries, advertising dollars do.
But annoyingly, not a mention of the Brooks saddles among all those soul-less ass-boards that they do recommend. Reeeaaallyy? I know a Brooks is not for everybody, ( for example: any of the typical losers who attend "Burning Man", because they clearly have their heads up their asses, so no saddle will fit) but it clearly out ranks some of the trash that was "recommended". Proven winners? Find out how many Race Across America riders have chosen Brooks. Yes, I know a B-17 weighs about twice as much as the heaviest saddle they recommend. So what? Is the extra 240 grams worth the long ride comfort? You know how I feel about "Gram Whiners".
Thus, my minions, I put it to you that you can't trust anything Bicyclist editors say. Just like my respect of Brooks was earned, your trust in their judgment must be earned. This article does not even provide a down payment on that....