[Matthew Mollica]

I've read many critical and angry words on GCA directed to those who are recognised as raters for various publications.

If you could give a word of advice to those charged with the task of rating golf courses, what would it be?

Matthew

[Tom_Doak]

When you are seeing a golf course for the first time, preface any opinions of the course with "maybe" and "on first glance" and such conditional phrases.  (Believe it or not, I do the same thing when visiting a potential consulting client for the first time, even if I've already shot my mouth off in print about it.)  There is no way on one trip around that you are going to understand the course as well as the members or the person who designed it.  

You might see something they didn't, but more often you'll see things which they considered and decided against, for reasons you don't yet understand.

And if you really want to be taken seriously, don't show up with three of your buddies and try (without saying so directly) to get them comped with you.  There is way too much of that in the golf business today, and you know you're not supposed to do it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sean,

In principle I can understand your reasoning, but if the reason you are visiting a particular course is to to give it a rating that allows it to be measured against others as to greatness (i.e. - 100 greatest, etc...) than to do as you suggest is unfair to the course you are at and all others who are being rated for this purpose.

I think it is greatly important that those who rate courses for different journals need to be on the same page as to what should be examined and why. The closer to having a consensus on this the more fair and correct the rating process becomes.

For example, like the standards set by Golf Digest or not, if someone decides that the price tag to play Pebble Beach is so extreme that it takes away from "ambience" might be understandable. Taking it away from "conditioning" is not.

If the purpose of a rating is to measure course design greatness vs. affordability (e.g. - Best Bang for the Buck) go ahead & apply the principle, but to judge a course's value as better or worse simply on the basis of price structure, I believe does a disservice to the magazine one is rating for and their readership.

Oh yes, and for those raters who haven't looked at it - play BETHPAGE RED! You will be stunned by it.

[Brian Cenci]

I've often wondered about this as well when it comes to ratings.  I think they are a good guide or starting point, but to really figure out which course may be better than another you have to play it yourself and venture your own opinion.  I don't put much stake in ratings because to tell you the truth they've never really held up that way in my own personnal rankings.  

I like to read ratings that sort of "hold up" or echo my own opinions about a course, but...just recently for example there was a rating or review in Golfweek regarding Greywalls that in my opinion didn't fit the quality of the course at all.  Did I miss something or did the author miss something?  Sometimes good courses and rating them are like trying to rate the best chili or the best wine.  Everyone has a different palet or taste preference and over 100 people you may have a majority or consencous as to the best, but that doesn't mean it is the best to you.  

I travel all over the U.S. playing and usually do a lot of research regarding where to play and basically start at GD of Golf Magazines list and then dig deeper and find local reviews or opinions before selecting where to play.  That's as much as I use ratings.

Look at the last GD ratings for public courses and there are some things I just don't understand (I won't even get into private courses which make even less sense on rankings....way too much stock put on tradition, etc., for the sake of not offending anyone I'll reserve my opinion on those courses):

GD Rankings (top 10 courses in their opinion of courses I've played):
#10  Arcadia Bluffs
#24  Tullymore
#25  Black Lake
#26  World Woods - Pine Barrons
#25  Bay Harbor - Quarry/Links
#39  Dunes Golf and Beach Club
#43  Shephard's Hollow
#47  Lakewood Shores - Gailes
#66  Red Hawk
#67  Tidewater

My Rankings(I will rank through all GD courses):
#1   Arcadia Bluffs
#2   Lakewood Shores - Gailes
#3   Marquette Golf Club - Greywalls
#4   Dunes Golf and Beach Club
#5   Eagle Eye Golf Club (Lansing, MI)
#6   Tanglewood Park - Championship (N.C.)
#7   World Woods - Pine Barrons
#8   Tidewater
#9   Bay Harbor
#10 High Pointe
#11 Tullymore
#12 Wilderness Valley - Black Forest
#13 Red Hawk
#14 Black Lake
#15 Shephard's Hollow

Everyone has an opinion.  Nobody will ever convince me that Lakewood Shores - Gailes for example is not as good as the 6 courses that GD puts above it (except maybe for Arcadia Bluffs).

[Forrest Richardson]

My strongest advice would be for raters to see courses that may not be the "hot topic" — i.e., raters should strive to see courses that are discovered rather than those always suggested by other raters. This advice also extends to the designer. Visiting and rating courses done by a select group of architects limits the spectrum of work which gets rated — and ultimately this keeps our GCA world smaller and more narrow.

[Matt_Ward]

Keep an open mind -- too many raters reflect regional bias in their assessments. Superior / noteworthy golf design happens in more than just one area of the country.

Don't simply chase course because of so-called "name" architects. There is plenty of talent in the field and if some of these folks should secure a solid site it's very possible the next "great" course could very well be from their handiwork.

I agree with Tom Doak -- a one-time visit can only reveal so much but it's no less important for those who rate by aerials and the like to get out and play the courses before throwing forward commentary simply from the comfort of their living room chair.

One last thing I do when I visit places is to ask the people in a given area where they play. It can be illuminating to get the feedback of those who live in that particular area / neighborhood, etc, etc.

[A_Clay_Man]

My advice would be to learn to know what, and why, your preferences are your preferences, and vote it.

Often, when I ask someone why they like this place over that place, I get an answer that usually makes me think alittle more. But the real proof is usually found in the non-answer.

[Mike_Young]

If you are really serious about it.....never tell anyone you are a rater....just see the course...play the course and go about your business....

[HamiltonBHearst]

Why would their ever be a reason for the club to know the person golfing is a rater?  

[Mike_Young]

Hamilton,
comp rounds

[Wayne Freeman]

I think Golfweek has come up with a sensitive and pretty straightforward way of rating courses that holds up.  If you want to keep your own system or list this is a good place to start.  If you are a rater, it's important to be very respectful of the places and people you are going to encounter.  Most of the time it is a real priviledge to play, especially if they are going to comp you, and never try to take advantage of the situation.  

[Brian Cenci]

Sean,
     I think you are somewhat correct in that you should look at price as a minor element of how a course rates.  I mean when does cost not have at least some affect on your decision in a day?  If you played the exact same two courses, same everything, etc.....and one was $200 bucks cheaper then why would you not then say the one that was cheaper is better.  Therefore cost should have some merritt in a rating in public courses, but not private.  

-Brian

[A_Clay_Man]

There isn't an argument alive that can corrolate the price to  the quality of the GCA. They will always be mutually exclusive, save for the experience factor.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sean,

A real world example of why cost should not be a part of the rating process. Not knowing where you live, suppose you reside in Manhattan and you decide to go play Bethpage Black to rate it. In fact, you are going to play it with your good buddy Matt Ward.

Now the two of you play the same course on the same day at the same time, but by your standard of including price, Matt has to rate it lower than you do because he pays the higher out-of-state rate where you pay less as a New York State resident. That is absurd!

Rating golf courses, unless the ranking is SPECIFICALLY for this purpose, is for aiding the golfer in deciding the Quality of the design. Can you honestly say in the above example that Matt would be rating the design per the same standards as you do?  

[David_Madison]

Hamilton and Mike Young,

A far bigger reason to let  the course know that you are a rater is access. The vast majority of courses I rate are private, and I wouldn't get on otherwise. I don't have a network of club members all over like some on this site. And because I work, many of my rating rounds are on quick 2 or 3-day trips. There's just no other way to line up two or three courses that I'd like to see back-to-back, with tee times that work.

I've payed my share of green fees, and always offer for both myself and whenever I bring my son or a friend, which is perhaps 1/2 the time. Whenever I'm with a group and playing a course that is a candidate course for ratings purposes, I never announce that I am a rater in an effort to get comped or any other preferential treatment. Perhaps there are other raters who operate differently, but most of the raters I know handle things in the same manner I'm describing here.

[Mike_Cirba]

David Madison,

Exactly.

I'm hoping this doesn't turn into another rater-bashing thread.

I spent yesterday playing the 9-hole "Watkins Glen Golf Course" in upstate NY.  It was pretty, overlooking Seneca Lake from a nearby hillside, and was designed & built in 1957 by Bill Garrett and Joe Franzese.

Conditions were not optimum, but it certainly did play firm and fast.  

I wonder how many of the well-heeled folks who grew up in the Country Club lifestyle would even play such a course?  It seems a number of them sure take every opportunity to rail against raters and even the system of rating courses.  

For me, I just like to see and play different courses...always have.      

[A_Clay_Man]

My argument is that raters don't just look at architectural features in rating courses.  

Sean, I'm new to this magazine thang, but it seems that ferretting out those who allow external factors to influence their rating, should be job one.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

If price is part of the criteria then it will be a consideration in the final assessment. A number of pubs and magazine do include such categories and I find them to be especially helpful for people who cannot gain access to the more exclusive and pricey places to play.

However, a pure ratings should take into account only the design and leave off the other elements -- this includes the silly retention of such inane categories as walking, tradition, etc, etc.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I had coffee with the secretary of Ashridge some years ago.  They had just been demoted from the Golf World Top 100.  He had no argument with that.  His argument, however, was that nobody had visited from the list of Golf World raters since the last Top 100.  How did they know it wasn't Top 100 if they didn't visit?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()