[Jonathan Cummings]

I just heard that GOLF Magazine just fired all their raters!  Tom D, Ran - any truth to this??  My source said that they are going to establish a new panel - I find this a little hard to believe.

JC

[A_Clay_Man]

Good luck to GM.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Adam - I think (and have always thought) they need 300 or so raters to do justice to a world list.  Somehow I think that Gary Galyeon (if he still the leader) won't be calling me as to my opinion!  (Some may not know that Galyeon is a contractor for GM - he is not on staff).

JC

   

[TEPaul]

Who is Gary Galyean? He wrote some pretty damn good articles for the USGA October Newletter, mostly involving the issue of distance.

[Jonathan Cummings]

"I know Mike Corcoran just hired
Joe Passov to revamp their rating system".....

This just came to me from someone "inside".....

JC

[Norbert P]

           

         WILL WORK FOR FREE GOLF

[ForkaB]

Might this have something to do with that pushy Korean course ("Ninety-nine Teardrops" or something of that ilk) making the latest list?

[Mark_Guiniven]

Nine Bridges, Rich?

I thought it a little odd how they hosted that tournament for teams from top 100 clubs before they themselves made the list. The attempt to attain greatness by association seemed to work. Or did it?

---

I would nominate Mike Clayton and Greg Turner to be panelists by the way.

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:

It is true that they are taking a fresh look at their system.  The new editor [David Clarke, who has been there less than a year] really had no understanding of the system that was in place, and has taken the criticism of the latest results under consideration, and he wants to get a handle on it.

The panelists were all contacted by Gary Galyean, thanking us for our service and not knowing what changes will result.  I've heard through the grapevine that Gary is out and Joe Passov [who's perfect for the job] will run it now.  I don't expect that they will completely start over with the panel, but likely either they will choose get rid of those of us in the business and keep many who aren't, or vice versa.  I have no idea which way they are leaning.

In the end, the selection of the panelists is the most critical component of any ranking system.  If you've got people who don't know what they are looking at, or influenced by factors other than the quality of the golf course, you've got no chance to produce a viable ranking.

[John_Cullum]

           

         WILL WORK FOR FREE GOLF

Norbert:

You're not supposed to admit it.

[Dan Kelly]

It is true that they are taking a fresh look at their system.  

I hope it's a really fresh look -- and that it comes to this conclusion:

If the best golf courses are, as most of us here seem to believe, works of art, then it's just plain *stupid* to rank them 1 through whatever -- even if those 1-through-whatever rankings sell some magazines.

[TEPaul]

Oh, GOD!! Oh NO! MY GOD!!!  Have they really fired their entire 89,000 member rating panel??

Oh God, I sure hope so. If they have maybe they'd consider calling me up to be one of their new panelists.

OH MY GOD, if they'd only do that for me. If they'd just call and ask me if I'd be interested it would be the greatest dream come true.

It would give me the opportunity to see how many times I could say "NO, NO, NO, NO", in the space of ten seconds and how loud I could say "THAT's THE DUMBEST EXERCISE IMAGINABLE THE WAY YOU MAGAZINES DO IT" before hanging up the telephone.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh, GOD!! Oh NO! MY GOD!!!  Have they really fired their entire 89,000 member rating panel??

Tom,

No, that's Golf Digest.  

Golf Magazine has always used an appointed panel of mostly industry-related people (including folks like Tom Doak, Rees Jones, and Ran Morrissett), and I'm not sure if they have even 200 panelists.  

[Lou_Duran]

What's being heard on the grapevine about upcoming changes in the Golfweek panel?  Is a purge in the works?  I met a couple new panelists during my latest trip.  It seems that GW is broadening its group, perhaps seeking more ballots on individual courses to increase the validity of its process.

I have heard from a Golf Digest rater that the magazine is now having special group events for its panelists.  Apparently, the first one features several prominent speakers including Jack Nicklaus and is rather expensive.  Hardly complimentary or supportive of ratings, I would love to hear what Nicklaus has to say to the good Golf Digest folks.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
No, that's Golf Digest."

MikeC:

Getoutatown! Golf magazine, Golf Digest Magazine, Golfweek Magazine, Victoria Secret Magazine----what's the difference? All of them are only trying to sell stuff and don't know much of anything about how to rate and rank golf courses properly. None of those rating panelists were much good except maybe Heidi Klum. I'd say she was the best at it of anyone I ever saw. I guess TomD and Ran are OK at it but personally I always felt Elle MacPherson was better at it than either of them.

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
None of those rating panelists were much good except maybe Heidi Klum. I'd say she was the best at it of anyone I ever saw. I guess TomD and Ran are OK at it but personally I always felt Elle MacPherson was better at it than either of them.

There's a new ratings system. Rating the raters. Could have certain criteria, such as background, experience, number of courses, but most importantly beauty.

Dan King

Give me golf clubs, fresh air, and a beautiful partner and you can keep my golf clubs and the fresh air.
 --Jack Benny

[Dan Kelly]

I always felt Elle MacPherson was better at it than either of them.

Cf. http://images.google.com/images?q=elle+macpherson&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images.

Unexcelled Maintenance Meld?

[David Lott]

Hope Doak is wrong about eliminating people in the industry, as they are likely to be replaced by less knowledgble. The only reason to replace industry people is if you doubt their integrity. Golf is a game of integrity, right? So if there's an "insider" rater who lacks integrity, give him/her a quiet exit, but don't ignore people who know the business and the art.

[Sean_A]

Tom D

How does one separate the experience of a club from the quality of the course?  I think the extras such as history, ambience, clubhouse-proshop and scenery influence everybody.  Some more than others.  Categories should be made for these extras.  I reckon it is similar to listing ingredients for products.  Essential info for the consumer.

Ciao

Sean

[Jonathan Cummings]

David - I disagree.  There are tons of folks knowledgeable about golf courses out there - both in and out of the golf industry.  Were I running a panel I would be much more interested in productivity.  Give me a group of quiet raters with the time and means to travel to all the out-of-the way places and see golf courses and I will get you the most statistically sound, stable and meaningful list.

Famous golfers/architects who are also raters tend to be less productive.  They play few courses other than their own and generally haven't the time to play anymore than a handful of courses a year.

JC

[RJ_Daley]

ZZZZZZZZZZ...

[ChipRoyce]

Who is Gary Galyean? He wrote some pretty damn good articles for the USGA October Newletter, mostly involving the issue of distance.

Gary's an interesting dude, I had the pleasure of working with him when we helped launch iGOLF (now part of Time4Media /AOL Time Warner), though have not spoken with him in many, many moons.

His background in golf is pretty deep and diverse. USGA Rules official, publishes his own newsletter on Golf Travel and might even do some consulting to resort (Clubhouse design) as I think we works with his brother who is a high-profile consultant in that area. His involvement in the rating panel came seemed to have come from the iGOLF acquisition.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()