[THuckaby2]

JK - nope, this is not the place for such.   And to be honest, I've misplaced it myself!  But it's not like I have a urgent need for it.  I also feel VERY confident it would take one email to get...

But this is not the place to publicize such things.  The last thing the woman needs is too many annoying phone calls. Just do believe me it's well-known amongst magazine raters.

TH

[rgkeller]

Adam:

Want the phone number of who to call?  There are many raters you could ask...
 
It's very easy... and if a yokel like me can make it happen, than that's not a very tough food chain.

I had it set up once, had to cancel.

TH

Do the raters also get relief from the outrageous caddy fees at Pebble?

[THuckaby2]

RG - I really don't know for sure, never having actually pulled the trigger on this myself.  I also don't recall what the raters who have done this said...

I would assume though if one takes a caddie one pays for it, at standard rate.  That is what's supposed to happen in any rating round.  I know if and when I do this I am gonna damn well pay the caddie... whatever one is supposed to pay him...

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Patrick,

Is Bo Derek still a 10?

Friends of mine ran into her at the Palm Restaurant in Easthampton.  According to them, the answer is YES.

But, I haven't played that course yet, so I'll have to reserve judgement. [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tyler,

CPC was a theoretical example, so I'm not going to argue about the relative merits of it's one-shotters versus other sets at other clubs.

CPC wasn't theoretical, it's a real golf course.[/color]

I find it hard to imagine that one can evaluate a golf course without any point of reference, except for the Golfweek criteria explanation  You need to have a fairly well-established resume of courses played to properly evaluate what constitutes excellent design.

Then how did Seth Raynor manage to design some great holes and golf courses when he didn't play golf ?[/color]

Looking at the critieria and explanation on Golfweek's website ,(http://www.golfweek.com/americasbest/criteria.asp) there exists a little room for interpretation. I would argue that the wiggle room is a little tighter after seeing some of the most highly acclaimed designs - because you have a reference point.

Then, should the opinions and ratings of those who have seen and played the highly claimed designs, be weighted ?
Should the opinions of those who haven't played the highly acclaimed designs be discounted ?[/color]  

I'm not saying every rater needs to play CPC or PV etc., but without question I think that experience would help shape their evaluative process in a positive way.

WHY ?[/color]

Can a rater's evaluation change from one year to the next?

If it does, which one is the more accurate or valid evaluation ?

If it does, should he be a rater ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B,

Comping is a clear conflict of interest.

It's also a double edged sword.

[John_Cullum]

Mike,

... I haven't played that course YET, so I'll have to reserve judgement.

I like your attitude Pat.

[JakaB]

Jaka B,

Comping is a clear conflict of interest.

It's also a double edged sword.

Pat,

Could you please explain what you mean by the term "double edged sword" when it comes to comps.   I just don't see how it could cut both ways..

[Sean_A]

Patrick

I would think it is nearly impossible not to change one's opinion of a course from year to year, assuming you have continued to study/play the course(s) in question.  You make rating seem an exact science.

Ciao

Sean

[Tom_Doak]

Pat is dead right.  

The yearly golf course rankings are a barometer of what is in fashion right now.  Fashion changes.  Orange is so LAST year, and so are certain architects.

The raters like to believe they are above this, they can pick the true classics which will stay in fashion when others fall.  Their success ratio on brand-new courses is probably less than fifty percent.

This is one reason that GOLFWEEK avoids comparing old and modern courses, by the way.  People remember it more when you put a new course ahead of Seminole, and then you have to take it back later.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Pat is dead right.  

The yearly golf course rankings are a barometer of what is in fashion right now.  Fashion changes.  Orange is so LAST year, and so are certain architects.

The raters like to believe they are above this, they can pick the true classics which will stay in fashion when others fall.  Their success ratio on brand-new courses is probably less than fifty percent.

This is one reason that GOLFWEEK avoids comparing old and modern courses, by the way.  People remember it more when you put a new course ahead of Seminole, and then you have to take it back later.

Tom,

Now that you have built Pacific, Barnbougle, St Andrews Beach and Cape Kidnappers, is Stonewall Old still an 8 on the Doak scale in your opinion ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Could you please explain what you mean by the term "double edged sword" when it comes to comps.   I just don't see how it could cut both ways.

Here's the dilema.

How does Golfweek get raters, a substantial number of raters to evaluate golf courses that are unaccessible or unaffordable for most individuals ?

Take Shadow Creek.  How many raters could afford to stay at the hotel and be a high roller, or subsequently pay $ 1,000 for a round of golf, later reduced to $ 500 ?

Few, if any.

Remember, initially, noone without Steve Wynn's personal consent could play the golf course, and that was after the golfer had established himself as a bona fide high roller or whale.

But, by being comped, accessabilitiy becomes universal, open to all, not just the super wealthy rater.

The same could be said of Pebble Beach and other courses, so, while compng presents a conflict of interest to me, it also represents an opportunity for more raters to to gain access to courses for the purpose of rating them.

I hope this clears up my point.[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

The course which makes rating Stonewall Old most difficult is not Pacific Dunes or Barnbougle or the others you mention.   [There are numbers above 8 on the scale.]  

The course which makes rating Stonewall Old difficult is Stonewall New.  I wouldn't give it an 8, and yet it is more fun to play than the Old course and probably more interesting to study as well.  It isn't nearly as tough a test of the game, and for some panelists that's the litmus test.  But I like them equally.  Most people wouldn't give them more than a 7 on my scale, maybe even a 6 if they're stingy.  Luckily I'm out of that business now.

[JakaB]

Could you please explain what you mean by the term "double edged sword" when it comes to comps.   I just don't see how it could cut both ways.

Here's the dilema.

How does Golfweek get raters, a substantial number of raters to evaluate golf courses that are unaccessible or unaffordable for most individuals ?

Take Shadow Creek.  How many raters could afford to stay at the hotel and be a high roller, or subsequently pay $ 1,000 for a round of golf, later reduced to $ 500 ?

Few, if any.

Remember, initially, noone without Steve Wynn's personal consent could play the golf course, and that was after the golfer had established himself as a bona fide high roller or whale.

But, by being comped, accessabilitiy becomes universal, open to all, not just the super wealthy rater.

The same could be said of Pebble Beach and other courses, so, while compng presents a conflict of interest to me, it also represents an opportunity for more raters to to gain access to courses for the purpose of rating them.

I hope this clears up my point.[/color]

Pat,

I don't buy your line of logic for a second....Access is one issue and comped fees is another.  I don't believe in the history of golf there has ever been one rater who rated a course where he could not afford the fee.   One or two great courses a year is perfectly fine for anyone.. rater or not..

[Joe Hancock]

Could you please explain what you mean by the term "double edged sword" when it comes to comps.   I just don't see how it could cut both ways.

Here's the dilema.

How does Golfweek get raters, a substantial number of raters to evaluate golf courses that are unaccessible or unaffordable for most individuals ?



But, by being comped, accessabilitiy becomes universal, open to all, not just the super wealthy rater.
[/color]

Pat,

Why does any of this matter? The reason these rankings exist is to make money for publications. The financial status of their raters matters not. If the publications want raters for financial gain, why not foot the bill and take away all doubt as to who/ what/where, etc?

Joe

[THuckaby2]

John K:

I seem to exist to disprove your statements.

I rated Shadow Creek.  There is no way on God's green earth I could have afforded to play it without the comp.  We got a good deal on staying at Bellagio through a connection my wife had, so that worked... but $500 plus caddie fee for the round?  Nope, no way.  Sans comp I wouldn't have ever seen the course.

Now perhaps some might find that to be a good thing... but in any case, your statement is wrong.

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

You live in a $600,000 house and can't afford to pay $500 for a course ranked top 10 while staying at the Bellagio....that is a load of crap..

If you don't want to pay $500 then fine....but why then should you rate the course for people who do want to pay it....its like having a vegatarian rate Mortons..

[JakaB]

March 3, 2005...9:23 am. Central Standard Time....Huck has no reply...

[THuckaby2]

JK:

You are so dumbfounded by CA real estate prices.  That's OK, we are too.

Yes, my house likely appraises at that value.  But I also have about a $360K mortgage balance still being paid.  So sure, if I sold the house and moved to Indiana, I could afford to pay $500 for a few rounds of golf every once in awhile.  Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.  My house is paper money.  Damn near all of our income goes to mortgage and bills.  Get the picture?

So no, I can't afford to play Shadow Creek.

I gather you think only those that can afford to play the course deserve to rate it?  Interesting concept... One that I'm not wholly against.

But Patrick can argue against that.

I just wanted to refute your exaggeration du jour.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

March 3, 2005...9:23 am. Central Standard Time....Huck has no reply...

Huck does work for a living.
Huck also just replied your ass off.
Take a hike, John.

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

I only want people who want to play the course to rate it....Your good friends at Golfweek say it is a top ten course...you are staying at the Bellagio...you claim to love golf...If it was Shinnecock, National, AGNC, Oakmont, Sand Hills...etc, etc you would pay $500.....go play golf and quit mucking up this thread by lying to yourself about what you can and can not afford.

[THuckaby2]

JK:

You are off your rocker on this one.  I wanted to play Shadow Creek for sure, as much as I wanted to play any of those others you mention.  AT NONE OF THEM would I have paid $500 per round.  NONE.  I have never come close to paying that for one round of golf in my life and never will.

So I am being absolutely honest here, and I believe I know myself better than you know me, as much as you seem to believe the contrary.

So how about you contribute to the topic here and quit with the horribly exaggerated statements?

My friend, I absolutely WANTED to play Shadow Creek, and all the others you mention.  I moved mountains marriage-wise and spent a lot of money on travel to make them all happen.  It was no accident I talked my wife into spending our anniversary weeked in Vegas, and at the Bellagio.  So don't you dare tell me what I want and don't want to do....

I just was VERY VERY lucky at all of them that either comped fees or fees that I could afford were part of the equation.  If that were not the case, those courses wouldn't be played.

$500 per round is out of my league... especially when you factor in the already very high cost to get to some of these places.

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

I'm going to Vegas in a couple of weeks....staying at the Bellagio and not playing Shadow Creek because I just don't think it is that good....I wouldn't pay $150 to play it..has nothing to do with what I can afford..

[THuckaby2]

John:

Well great, that's very cool for you.  You echo Tommy's take on the course, and this without seeing it in person.   I disagree and found it to be a VERY fun golf course.  No hassles there.

Just be a little more careful with the judgments from afar and telling people they are lying to themselves, OK.  Given all the crap I take from you, it's hard to believe, but I remain a Friend of Barney.  But even I have my limits.

Still smiling....

 

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

Don't you agree because of my preconceived notions about Shadow Creek that I am not qualified to rate the course....What possible good could come from my opinion based on the simple fact that I am not in the demographic that would ever play the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()