[Sean_A]

Mayday

Blindfolded to the first tee with a cigarette and last requests?

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I am not a rater, but I have visited courses in the UK and Europe officially when writing for a magazine or book.  The Secretary at Huddersfield perhaps summed up their attitude most succinctly, 'Just write what you find.'  At each of the Belgian royal courses I was welcomed and left to my own devices, presumably confident that their merits would be obvious - they were, and a lot more.  I had a little abuse from the club president at Royal Zoute who was incensed that a visitor could be out on the course on a Sunday, but I showed him the confirmation from the club secretary.  He stormed off the course and tore a strip off the secretary, who was close to tears when I returned.  Only at Royal Sart-Tilman did I get a free lunch, as much because it happened to be lunchtime when I got back to the clubhouse.  

Slaley Hall put me up overnight and paid for dinner, but I bought my own wine.  The next morning they sent me out with one of their young assistant professionals.  It was a master stroke.  Here we were in a non-competitive situation and he was able to demonstrate the different ways of playing each hole (you didn't think there were strategic options at Slaley Hall, did you?) at the same time as I learned the highs and lows of the course from the rabbit's perspective.  What I was writing was a book for golfing visitors of all kinds, not just architectural scholars.  It's a jolly good place for a company day, for a fourball of occasional golfers or for someone who likes a few creature comforts and doesn't want to be made to feel a fool by unreadable greens, mischievously placed bunkers or optical illusions.

The Belfry accorded me every convenience, taking me out in a buggy and even stopping other golfers to allow me to take photos.  They are the only people who asked to see the copy before submission.  Out of curiosity I let them see it, knowing full well that I could write something completely different if they decided to be awkward.  The poor PR (actually, I don't suppose she's poor) sent my copy back with no factual corrections but a few grammatical ones - she put in a few errors!

Now, one particular club, which I shall not name (but it is VERY WELL KNOWN), contacted me after publication and offered my son and me a free round because of what I had done for the club by writing about them.  It's nice when you get it right.

[Jason Blasberg]

I find it absurd that anyone on this Board criticises the process of "ranking" after all we all do it every time we play.   Everyone here has a number 1 or favorite course.  While I may often disagree with how certain courses are ranked or are not ranked on any particular list I don't bash the entire process.  

Many here would be much better off playing more and talking less . . . and when speaking, try offering substantive thoughts about GCA and leave the paranoid "process" bashing posts home.  

The ostensible want of complex thought illustrated by much of this thread is sad.  

More thought . . . less banter . . . please.  

[George Pazin]

At the heart of it, I think most raters do it for fun.

The bigger problem is how seriously the magazines and the courses, owners, green committees, etc., take it.

[THuckaby2]

At the heart of it, I think most raters do it for fun.

The bigger problem is how seriously the magazines and the courses, owners, green committees, etc., take it.

Abso-positively 100% correct - both statements.

You do have a way of getting to the heart of the matter, George.  Well done.

TH

[Dan King]

Jason Blasberg writes:
I find it absurd that anyone on this Board criticises the process of "ranking" after all we all do it every time we play.

We do?

Everyone here has a number 1 or favorite course.

I don't, so your statement is untrue

Many here would be much better off playing more and talking less . . . and when speaking, try offering substantive thoughts about GCA and leave the paranoid "process" bashing posts home.

Let me see if I understand your point.

It is okay on this board to talk about the rankings as long as it is done in a positive light. If you critisize the process, then that shouldn't be done on this board?

Do I have your position correct?

Like I've said, there are three potential payers when a rater plays:

1. The magazine
2. The ranker
3. The course

Despite all the protests from all the rankers here, I don't believe I've heard anyone disagree with No. 3 paying is the worst of all possible ways of getting an honest ranking. I hear lots saying there is no alternative, none saying that is the best way.

So if there was a different alternative, wouldn't that result in a better ranking?

More thought . . . less banter . . . please.

Are you saying I haven't given this enough thought? Just out of curiosity, how much thought did you put into your post?

Andy Troeger writes:
Basing my argument on the answer to that being no, then to those of you bashing raters, why would the rater be inclined to prefer the course with better service/comped fees/etc? Its not like the course would find out.

I'll try it again, it is human nature to enjoy being treated special. When you are treated special, you are more inclined to enjoy the day, and therefore the course. The courses understand this, curious how rankers fail to.

Adam Clayman writes:
You and I were once fortunate enough to be comped a round of golf, together.

It was a great day, and the comp'ing of the round was one of the ingredients that made it special. Would I judge the day differently if I forked out a couple hundred dollars -- I'd say yes, it would effect my feeling about that day. I think I would still think I played a great course that day, but I know damn well I would have been more critical than I was.

I know it didn't influence mine. And as far as I can tell, I'm not kidding anyone, not even myself.

For some reason the courses still seem willing to comp raters. Guess why? Can you think of any reason for their motives other than public service?

Mike Cirba writes:
If all clubs/courses comp raters, then how does an unscrupulous rater determine who to favor?

Answer my question first -- who paying would result in the best possible system?

Mike Benham writes:
Are you bothered by the results of the rankings and reviews?

I've never seen one run legitimately, so how would I know if it can be better. I know something like the Michelin Guide is better because it doesn't rely on the objects being ranked to carry the freight.

Even if the current rankings come up with gold platted rankings, as long as there is such a huge question about how they are determined, there will still be questioned about the finished product.

Dan King

The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
 --Archibald Macleish

[THuckaby2]

Dan Quixote:

OF COURSE:
something like the Michelin Guide is better because it doesn't rely on the objects being ranked to carry the freight.

Can't you understand that such a thing just won't work in golf, though?  Come on man, the point has been made, it's acknowledged, it just has zero basis in reality.

That is unless you folks at GolfObserver want to spend the money to make it happen.  If you do, as JV says, we'd all be applauding all the way.

TH

[THuckaby2]

One more thing: any COURSE RATING PANELIST with half a brain understands that

When you are treated special, you are more inclined to enjoy the day, and therefore the course.

What YOU fail to understand is that we keep this in mind!  We know this is human nature, and thus balance against it in our assessments as best we can.  I believe this is what Adam is getting at.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, you GROSSLY overestimate the "special treatment" we receive.  Sure we get some tee-times made for us and some rounds comped.  But that's it.

Or maybe I need to do some of these "rating" rounds with you more often!  Screw it, I need some more free meals and hats.

 

[Dan Kelly]

Good for you, Dan Quixote (good one, Tom IV!), for carrying on the good fight.

But as for me, I've moved on -- as I have so many times -- to The Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

[THuckaby2]

Dan Kelly:

PERFECT addition here.  Here's hoping Dan King develops the serenity to accept the things he cannot change, as you seem to have found.

That's a big part of my argument in this, as you can likely tell.  The magazines are NOT going to set up a paid system.  Thus what exists is what it is, necessarily.  Quibbling over it seems to me not worth the effort.

But like I say, the world does need more Quixotes.

They're just rarely serene.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

The magazines are NOT going to set up a paid system.  Thus what exists is what it is, necessarily.

I don't think that follows -- at all.

Here's what I think:

There's nothing *necessary* about the rankings, or about the system set up to produce them -- except to those who produce them.

And the system set up to produce them seems *absolutely* necessary to those who produce them.

That's why the system won't change.

[THuckaby2]

I can live with that.

The bottom line remains the same; I also think we are saying the same thing, using different words.  Yours are just far better than mine.  Let's just say I agree with your post and yeah, that's what I meant.

And Dan King remains in dire need of more serenity - that's the main point.

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Doesn't a critic need a scale and something to compare that which is to be reviewed?  Restaurant critics have their various methodology, Michelin stars, points, gold and silver forks, etc.  Golf course magazines have their lead compilers of a system they follow.  Whitten, Klein, and who ever, and they follow their own system of rating on points and criteria.

But, where were we BEFORE the rating systems?  Were golfers totally in the dark about what was the elite, best courses?  If there is no restaurant critic in your area, or major publication that comes through your town to rate the eateries, how do folk know what is good?

That is right... conversation, word of mouth, commentary.  If you came to a town, had no access to critic publications, or a restaurant guide, how would you find a good joint to go eat?  I think you'd ask some local that knows.

If you never saw a magazine ranking, but followed golf passionately, and were the type of fellow that wants to seek out and play the best, what would you do?  Ask someone in the area who knows.  Ask several.  Read commentaries.  Isn't that what Darwin, Wind, et al did before we had rankings.  

Hell, if there were no "best" lists published in magazine rankings at this advanced stage of world wide web conversation, I'd just read GCA.com and get a pretty good idea of which are on top of the highly acclaimed list.

Put me down in the camp of those that don't need rankings to seek and find out what is good, I'll just ask around and find some folk who know and are expressive enough to advise me.

[Matt_Ward]

I agree with the basic stipulations David M outlined in kicking-off this thread.

I've been involved with ratings as a rater for a good bit of time and frankly no system devised will be fool-proof because ultimately the subject of golf courses and their overall standing versus that of others is, in the final analysis, a subjective enterprise.

Frankly, I don't see why the magazines don't bypass raters and go completely in-house. Digest started the process in having rating panels (state and national levels) way back when simply because they wanted to avail themselves of such information -- for free I might add.

Part of the reason for panelists then -- as opposed to now -- is that the speed of information was much slower in terms of course knowledge beyond the immediate top tier layouts (e.g. Oakmont, Winged Foot, SFGC, Pebble, etc, etc.

That is not the case today.

If one keeps one's ears and eyes open -- you can very quickly fathom where the next wave of top tier courses are opening or have gone through significant improvements. Given today's reality I see no reason why the magazines themselves could not adequately cover the topic. If for nothing else -- the magazines could create their own Robert Parker (wines) expert who could handle such a chore -- provided such a person is not directly involved in the golf design business as some are today. The separation point needs to be a real one and not the klind of "fuzzy math" you see today.

Raters provide magazines with a free information source. But free doesn't mean necessarily informed, consistent or clear from other conflicts such as one's home course or region. Clearly, as David M highlighted in his quotations from the sources he provided there is and continues to be an issue in regards to the manner by which raters go about their business.

No doubt when free golf is extended there is a quid pro quo in the air. Clearly, the courses that extend such an invitation are looking for a good review or at the minimum not wanting to be looked upon in a negative light from the get-go.

There are plenty of diligent people who serve as raters but frankly the broader issue is one of credibility and the magazines need to be more attunded to that. Information today is very easy to acquire and it's not hard to understand where the top courses are and what is happening. Field work is not easy -- but that should not be an easy excuse for why magazines should not do it.

For those who complain about the subject of course ratings I say this -- get over it -- ratings of anything will continue because people have a fascination about how things compare and contrast whether it be golf courses, food, movies, etc, etc.

However, the process can indeed be made better as Dan King outlined. To often those on the "inside" are simply interested in preserving their "inside" status. The magazines should understand their role and most of all realize that giving their reader the best information possible -- minus any clear conflicts -- is what makes them standout in the long run on any subject covered within their pages.

[THuckaby2]

Here we go again.  Big sigh.

Matt, your views on this are well-known.  You could have just said "same as before" and saved all of that typing.

Look, I think we can all agree that the system is flawed, could be made better, etc.  There should be panels of paid raters and the magazines should handle this like restaurant reviews are done.  Fine, great, agreed, stipulated.

Just pray tell how are you going to make this happen?

Gents, it just has no basis in reality.  It's not going to happen.  As the magazines see it, the system works wonderfully - what's in it for them to change anything?  And even if they got this altruistic bent you seem to require, where are the funds going to come from to pay for all of this?

I can't believe we're still debating this.  

But ok Matt, I defer to you as the closest thing to an insider on these issues outside of Brad Klein, I guess.  So do outline how you're going to implement these wonderful ideas put forth by David and Dan.  Because as has been said several times already, if such are implemented, then great, none of us need do this any more, we'd have better ratings, and the game would be better for it.

I look forward to the practical ideas.  

None have been put forth yet.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
And Dan King remains in dire need of more serenity - that's the main point.

Don't start any telethons for me. Thanks to the miracle of modern drugs (legal and illegal) my blood pressure is in fine shape.

This whole issue got me thinking. Many people think I'm attacking the rankers. I guess joking around for a couple posts and calling them wankers didn't help. My problem is not with rankers it is with the system. I'm hardly convinced the broken system can't be fixed.

My sister is the mayor of a small town. I think very highly of my sister. Matter of fact, most weekdays I spend the afternoon watching her five kids so she can go off and do her mayoral duties. I think the world of her, but it doesn't stop me from being convinced our form of government is severely broken. I think my sister also recognizes this. If she wants to continue in a career in politics first she has to sell her soul to one of the two big political parties.

Her solution is to work within, and hope that at some point the broken system will make a mistake and she will be able to get ahead without selling her soul. I think she is kidding herself, but I have no problem being proven wrong.

Me, I'll continue to say how broken the system is and hope for something outside of the system shaking it up. I'll support Kinky Freedman and maybe even send him money in the hope that such a movement could shake up things. I don't vote Democrat or Republican because I refuse to become part of the problem. Some say I'm throwing away my vote. I disagree. Those voting for whoever pays for the most votes are throwing their votes away.

No matter how good of people go into a broken system, if the system is broke, it needs to be fixed. Hoping only good people will work within the broken system isn't going to work.

The rankings might be a decent idea (I personally think courses that have nothing in common competing against each other is a bad idea) and there might even be decent people involved in the system. But change won't happen until the system itself is fixed.

Having the courses pick up the tab for golfers is the fundamental problem with the ratings system. I'm stuck believing just like government can be fixed, so can the rating systems. I guarantee fixing government is a much bigger job, but yet I haven't given up.

Tom Huckaby writes:
Can't you understand that such a thing just won't work in golf, though?  Come on man, the point has been made, it's acknowledged, it just has zero basis in reality.

Why? What makes golf so special? If readers better understood the system then they would see the current rankings are seriously flawed. The publications either would have to fix or drop the rankings. Geoff's article pointing out the flaws, and perhaps someday GolfObserver when it has money spearheading a better system might help bring about change. I've never been one to throw up my hands and say the broken system can not be fixed.

Dan King

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'
 --Howard Beale (Network)

[THuckaby2]

Dan, I love ya man.  And I do appreciate all of that.  Of course you know though that as great as Howard Beale was, well.., on this issue it seems only you, Geoff, Dave M. and perhaps Matt W. are mad as hell.  But go ahead and yell.  I'll go outside and maybe I'll hear you.  

As to the issues at hand, just answer this:  what in god's earth is in it for the magazines to change the system?  For them, it works great, it gives them the results they want and they can point to a methodology that only the freaks in here care to ever question, and it sells them magazines.  This groundswell of reader angst against the system you describe is EXTREMELY far-fetched.  The readers LOVE the rankings and none give a rat's ass how they are compiled!

That's the bottom line.  You know this.  All the rest is just grist for this discussion group mill.

Saying something SHOULD happen is great.  Making it happen, explaining how it CAN happen is an entirely different thing.

And to that end, all you've given us is that you personally are going to continue your Quixotic quest, and Geoff is going to continue to be the curmudgeon they already see him as, if they read him at all.

I will grant you this though:  if this change is ever going to occur, it does happen with baby steps like this.  I just would wholly disagree that Geoff's article got anyone at GD thinking about anything other than what an asshole they see him as.

NOTE - please don't anyone thing I personally think that of Geoff.  I like the guy. I remain a big fan of his books and enjoy damn near all of his other writings. But if I'm Ron Whitten or anyone at GD, that article sure as hell doesn't give me pause nor cause me to re-examine my methodology.

Oh well Dan.  Stuff like this is why I enjoy having you as a friend, enjoy reading your stuff here and elsewhere, admire you as a person.  The world does need Quixotes like you, as I have said several times.  I guess there are too many guys like me who just try to have fun in life.




 

[JohnV]

Matt Ward said:

If for nothing else -- the magazines could create their own Robert Parker (wines) expert who could handle such a chore -- provided such a person is not directly involved in the golf design business as some are today.

I don't believe Robert Parker pays for all the wine he tastes.

Since the entire process is a marketing tool for both the magazines and the courses, it really doesn't make a bit of difference if anyone is paying or not.  The magazines sell more copies of the issue when the rankings come out.  The courses sell more tee times when they get listed.  And they both do it by using the raters.  The only "payment" the raters get is a free round of golf to play a course they might not have visited otherwise and, maybe, a hat or lunch (I've never gotten any hats.)    The rater has usually spent more than that on gas or plane tickets.  Look at the opinions on golf courses posted by most raters that post here.  Most are cynical old farts who feel very free to knock any course they don't like regardless of whether it gave them a free round or not.

Having spent an afternoon with a couple of other raters at a course that none of us liked, I can assure you that the free round not only didn't help the rating, it didn't stop a certain well known poster here from telling the pro exactly what he thought of the course when asked.  He wasn't rude about it, just honest,  and he still gave the pro a copy of one of Geoff's books as a thank you for letting us play.

When I get comped (which is usually because I work for the WPGA not because I'm a rater), I try to buy something in the pro shop to let the pro know I appreciate his generosity.  I think a lot of us do that.

But, like everything in life, there are cynics who will claim that the fix is in.  Especially if they don't agree with the results.  So be it.  Enjoy your whine, many of those who drink the wines that Parker pans also do.

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
As to the issues at hand, just answer this:  what in god's earth is in it for the magazines to change the system?

Absolutely nothing right up until the readers realize the low standard used by the magazine. Once they come to realize that positions on the rankings are bought not earned, they will stop relying so much on the magazine. You don't believe that day will ever come, I do.

The readers LOVE the rankings and none give a rat's ass how they are compiled!

You might want it to be true, but things can change very quickly. There is a reason rankers got very hot and bothered by Geoff's piece. It takes things like that to change people's mind. The problem was it was published on little old GolfObserver with its few hundred readers. But it is a start.

And to that end, all you've given us is that you personally are going to continue your Quixotic quest, and Geoff is going to continue to be the curmudgeon they already see him as, if they read him at all.

Golf Digest isn't going to change unless they are encouraged to change. The only hope is the gullible reader loses a bit of their gullibleness and realize how meaningless ranking are. Only then will Golf Digest decide to use Basic Reviewing 101.

I guess there are too many guys like me who just try to have fun in life.

I know it is hard for you to believe, but I manage to fit in plenty of fun in my life.

John Vander Borght writes:
Since the entire process is a marketing tool for both the magazines and the courses, it really doesn't make a bit of difference if anyone is paying or not.

Someone is paying.

You are right, the system is working for the publication, advertisers, raters and even readers as long as they stay in the dark. As long as the readers never understand that the whole thing is a marketing tool that the publications try to do as cheaply as possible regardless of ethics, then it will all continue to work. Hopefully someday, with the help of columns such as Geoff's, the reader will realize that the ratings are bought and paid for by the courses and will want something better.

The only "payment" the raters get is a free round of golf to play a course they might not have visited otherwise

And all the publication gets is someone else paying the freight when they should be paying.

Having spent an afternoon with a couple of other raters at a course that none of us liked

Yep, you can't shine sh&*. But the difference between a top 20 course and a top 30 course can depend on which one comps the rater and which one doesn't.

But, like everything in life, there are cynics who will claim that the fix is in.  Especially if they don't agree with the results.

Heck, I don't even know the results. I ignore the ratings as much as I can. I know the fix is in. I'm having trouble figuring out my ulterior motive here.

Dan King

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
Cicero 55 BC

[Jim Nugent]

"Yep, you can't shine sh&*. But the difference between a top 20 course and a top 30 course can depend on which one comps the rater and which one doesn't."

Dan -- do you know, or think, that has happened?  Real curious to know which courses you think are overrated, and that may have bought some raters with the bribes you are talking about.  

If you don't think this has happened, then you only have a theoretical problem, but not one in practice.  In which case, there is nothing to fix.  

[Dan King]

Jim Nugent writes:
Dan -- do you know, or think, that has happened?

I know it is happening.

Real curious to know which courses you think are overrated, and that may have bought some raters with the bribes you are talking about.

Do you think there is a real-world difference between a top-20 course and a top-30 course? The difference only is in the minds of the gullible reader and the marketer who milks the fact that the reader thinks there is a difference.

Answer the question, are courses comping rounds for rankers out of public service or is it possible they believe they can get a return on investment?

If you don't think this has happened, then you only have a theoretical problem, but not one in practice.  In which case, there is nothing to fix.

There is an ethical problem. Reviews should not be paid for by those being reviewed. Even assuming the best intentions of those reviewing, it will always leave the review in doubt. It doesn't matter if the rankings are right, wrong or somewhere in between. The fact that courses can buy those positions is what is wrong.

Dan King

Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.
 --St. Augustine of Hippo

[Jim Nugent]

"Answer the question, are courses comping rounds for rankers out of public service or is it possible they believe they can get a return on investment?"

Of course they hope to get a better review.  The question is, do they get what they want?  I don't have much of an opinion, as I have zero experience with this.  It surprises me to hear the raters can be bought off so cheaply, though.  

How many courses comp the raters?  If they all do, the playing field levels out.  Maybe that's the answer.  Can't obligate the course to do this.  But certainly is in their interests.

I am more curious than ever to hear which courses are overrated, because they paid off raters with hats and a lunch.    

[ChasLawler]

Isn't the solution pretty simple?

Raters MUST pay their own way? If they're caught taking a comp - they're fired?

What is so complicated with that?

I suppose you might lose a few raters due to the "financial burden", but I imagine most would stay on - comps or no comps.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

You claim to only want to "fix" the system, yet you also say that "The rankings might be a decent idea (I personally think courses that have nothing in common competing against each other is a bad idea)".  

I think therein lies part of the crux of your problem with ratings.  Philosophically, you don't believe it's possible to compare and contrast say, Pacific Dunes vs Quaker Ridge vs Rustic Canyon.  While each occupies different types of landforms and environments, I do believe it's possible, even interesting, to compare how they each use (or not) the existing land, how they are routed to take best advantage of the property, how interesting and fun the individual holes are, how balanced, varied, and perplexing are the strategies, how the properties are maintained for golf, how clever and coordinated with the land are the greens and their complexes, how are artificial features like bunkers utilized, etc.etc.etc...

Your premise is also based on the very faulty assumption that raters are selling out to the highest bidder, so to speak.  Dan, if a rater is willing to take a full day and drive 3 hours each way to play and rate a course, or fly across the country to see courses that need seeing (which all raters I know do on a regular basis), then the comping of a 50-100 green fee is a very small part of that financial equation.  Also, if many courses comp (which is a common practice), then where is the incentive to favor one over the other, even if someone was completely unscrupulous.

If votes were up for sale, I can assure you we'd see a much different listing from all of the magazines.  Why is Pine Valley and/or Sand Hills at the top when neither is amenable to raters?  Is Augusta National or Cypress Point secretly flying in raters to stay in the Butler Cabin to keep their lofty statuses?
Yet, a great new course like Pacific Dunes can jump to the #2 modern, even if people (raters included) need to stay at the pricey resort to play there.

Frankly Dan, I don't see the darkness you're portraying.  Instead, I see a 13 year old golf-struck kid who only knows golf courses thru what is portrayed by the PGA tour weekly sitting somewhere is Oshkosh, WI, or Boise, ID and getting his monthly or weekly magazine and wondering about places like National Golf Links, and/or Fishers Island, and/or The Kingsley Club and being intrigued about what makes them great.

Some of those 13 year old will end up becoming tomorrow's architects, and some of them, like me, will just derive a lifelong passion and interest in the playing fields of the game.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

I would also point out that the VAST, VAST (90%) majority of courses that raters end up visting to play NEVER end up on any ranking listing, comped rounds or not.

How would the conspiracy theorists explain that one?  

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()