[THuckaby2]

Mike:

GW ranks them.  Mike C. or someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I did think they compile their data, use it to arrive at a numeric overall value for the course, and do so relative to other courses - thus they do rank them.

GD gives numeric values to many specific criteria, with no "overall" value, and submits such to the home office.

I think GM just does a straight 1-100 ranking.

TH

[Dan King]

A.G._Crockett
So if I can learn more by walking a golf course than by playing it...

Could I learn more about sex by watching it than having it?

Yeah, you could probably learn more, but just like with rankers, it isn't goin to be as much fun.

Dan King

Woman: You are the greatest lover I have ever known.
Man: Well, I practice a lot when I'm on my own.
 --Woody Allen (Love and Death)

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Dan that was too good. I think walking the course and then playing much like surveying the woman before the fun begins is the path of choice for decerning rankers. lol

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan that was too good. I think walking the course and then playing much like surveying the woman before the fun begins is the path of choice for decerning rankers. lol

Yes, Tiger, but should you pay your own way, or accept the comp?

[ForkaB]

Tiger

Here is my ranking of all the women I have had sex with, in no particular order:

1.  Fifi LaFleur
1.  Missy Leatherbottom
1.  Mrs. Grundy
1.  Mrs. Grundy's twin sister
1.  (name witheld by request)
1.  The last woman left in the ***** bar on 11 August 1982
1......
1......
1.....

you get the picture.........

When you play you don't properly analyse and vice versa.

[Dan King]

There are two events in life that can really make me feel special (there are probably a few more, but for this discussion we'll stick with two.) Getting comped at a golf course and having a hooker tell me to hold onto my money, that the sex was so good it should be her paying me.

I've had the first happen a few times, but I'm still working on seeing if the second will ever happen.

Dan King

Love is not the dying moan of a distance violin -- it's the triumphant twang of a bedspring.
 --S.J. Perelman

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

FANTASTIC!  I am busting up.  

But on point here, the key is your "and vice versa."  That's all I was getting at.

But man, see what I mean about preaching Islam in Vatican City, or Christianity in Damascus?  Pray for the man who dare says anything remotely denigrating "architecture" in here.

 

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Great stuff.  I'm sure your efforts toward the second goal will be enjoyable.  

 

But interesting.  Getting comped at a golf course made you feel special.  All it's ever done for me is make me feel dirty.

Am I perhaps way too Catholic?

 

[Dan King]

I sure as hell don't understand you Tom.

If Golf Digest assigned me a course to go review, told me I'm on my own figuring out access and getting there, taking my own time and money while they don't give me a dime and make huge profits off my effort, and then on top of all that it made me feel dirty, I'd tell them to pound dirt.

But then I belive in causes and you don't.

Dan King

A priest is a man who is called Father by everyone except his own children who are obliged to call him Uncle.
 --An Italian proverb

[Jerry Kluger]

Certain things are inevitable and to me that would include disagreement about how golf course ratings are established.  If you walk a course and don't play it, you will never see how a ball bounces when it hits a fairway or hits a green and basically how does it accept a well struck shot and what is the consequence for a poorly struck one.  You will see that a hole sets up for a fade or a draw and what are your options when you are playing the course but until you hit that shot you won't get a feel of how it plays.  It's not like hitting a baseball and you know how far it is over the fence.

But if you play it and never consider why it was good or bad, then you haven't done the architect justice as you are probably more influenced by how you played as opposed to how the course played. My favorite course that I have ever played is NGLA and I will say that I played the entire round with a smile on my face.  I imagine that if you walked the course you would get a great deal of information and appreciation of the course but there ain't nuthin like playin it. You could read George Bahto's book over and over again, like I did, but there still is nothing like playing it.  

In my opinion, for what it's worth, you would have a better sense of the course and give a more informed rating if you played the course twice with a caddie or carrying your bag, and not riding in a cart, than you would if you walked the course once and played it once with a caddie or carrying.    

[A.G._Crockett]

Jerry,
We'll never get anywhere if you inject reason, truth, and common sense into this.

Now cut it out.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

I'm easy to understand.  I believe in causes that are worth fighting over.  I also love PLAYING GOLF far more than I care about any cause involving it.

Being a course rating panelist for Golf Digest has allowed me to play more golf, at some nice places I wouldn't have otherwise seen.  If I have to sell a bit of my soul to do this, I'm not above doing so.  I figure my soul is redeemed in far more important other areas of life.

I'm not proud of this, but then who is proud of their addiction?

TH

[Mike Benham]

What happened to Huckaby ?

A guest ...  Not only is he America's Guest but now GCA's also?

How about a conspiracy theory that he has been banned because he is a rater?

As Dick Enberg would say "Oh MY!!"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, Tiger, but should you pay your own way, or accept the comp?

AG, I think most guys would say they pay for sex, one way or another, even when it appears to be free.......

Mike B,

Given this thread started with a review of GS fireballing of Golf Digest readers, I presumed that they simply rate a course using the GD criteria.  The main office does the tabulating of individual evaluations.  As posted above, others have different systems.

[Mike Benham]

Mike B,

Given this thread started with a review of GS fireballing of Golf Digest readers, I presumed that they simply rate a course using the GD criteria.  The main office does the tabulating of individual evaluations.  As posted above, others have different systems.

Thanks Jeff ... that's what I assumed.  My point is that an individual who is on the rating panel of a magazine doesn't rank courses.  They play them and review them on an individual basis.

[ForkaB]

What happened to Huckaby ?

A guest ...  Not only is he America's Guest but now GCA's also?

How about a conspiracy theory that he has been banned because he is a rater?

As Dick Enberg would say "Oh MY!!"

Mike

Yours is the least frightening option.  I will have nightmares wondering if there are two or even more Huckabys out there.  I wouldn't put it past those geeks at Yahoo........

[Mike Hendren]

I lack the discipline to turn away from this train wreck.  Please let it go boys.

Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

I started this mess because I thought Geoff's copy was entertaining. A Roykoesque-like piece deeply rooted in sarcastic cynisism.
If the future of GCA is at all influenced by these magazines by repeatedly placing strickly commercial designs on their lists, it is counter productive in the long run, and in the short, awefully transparent.

[George Pazin]

Also, the argument that raters rate based on how they play has no basis in fact.  I have heard none stated.  And I can say from personal experience that it doesn't impact a thing.  If anythign, there is an inverse relationship.  I tend to play worse on courses that are so damn interesting, I catch myself not giving a damn about how I play -- precisely because the course is so damn good!

I don't have a big problem with your other points, but this one is suspect, imho. Just reading the posts of reviews of courses by people that I know are raters is evidence enough for me (we're not sending someone to jail here, where we require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - we're simply judging others' thoughts). Of course, I don't have access to the number they submit, they may rate a more objective number than their posts imply, but I'd be a little surprised if that were the case.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

On that point, I would have to guess it's based on the individual and how much he cares about playing well.  In shivas we have a man who has gone through the competitive golf wars, and no "rating" round is ever going to matter to him in terms of how he plays or what score he turns in. He's done way too much of that already.  So I have no doubt that how HE plays has absolutely no bearing on what rating he gives, and that the greater the course (outside of competition and betting games) the worse he plays, as he's focusing way more at studying the course and smelling the roses, as it were, and way less on his game.

On the other side there is no doubt there are individuals for whom good score/play means happiness, bad score/play means anger, and this can't help but have an effect on their assessments.

My experience with all this - based on the course raters I know, damn near all of whom are participants here - is that there are far more like shivas then there are like the other individual.

But this does remain a unique group.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:

I'm sure George can understand how it works FOR YOU.

But there also are those for whom good play = good mood = good rating; bad play = it's not my fault, it's this crappy course = bad rating, and they exist on all panels.

Hopefully there aren't many like that.  But I have no doubt at least a few exist.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:

I'd agree that those who want to do so SEVERELY overplay its importance.

I just don't dount it exists.

I've seen it in action.  I'd bet you have also.

But you're right, you need to finish your point - for every 3-4-5 who act this way, there are 100 for whom their own play doesn't make a lick of difference.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Agreed.  As you see, I'd put it at around 4:100 in the ratio.

TH

[George Pazin]

Annd I would argue that, if anything, there is an inverse relationship:  For every guy who lets it get to him, there are more saying "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

This is also bias, just of a different form.

[George Pazin]

Bias was a poor choice of words, and I can't think of another one off the top of my head. I was trying to get across the notion that some people over value difficulty, so if they get their butt kicked, they are more likely to give an incorrectly high rating.

There are certainly some that can objectively view an ass kicker as a challenge, but there are plenty that completely miss the nuance that makes different courses challenging in different ways.

IMHO, there is good difficult and bad difficult. Some people know the difference, some people don't. Those who know the difference can likely be objective, those that don't likely can't.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()