Golf Magazine's Top 100

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I surely cannot remove a cap that is so securely tied to my head.

 

But what's the fear?  Well, if the goal here is to produce fair and accurate ratings - which we'd have to agree is the goal, IF WE CAN ASSUME IT'S NOT TO GET YOU A NEW AND BETTER JOB - but hey, I'll go with it...

Then the fear remains that one guy is FAR more easy to influence than is a large panel.

So in the end, I remain unsure that it would be a net improvement.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I am already employed and my wife would like me to stay more grounded to my immediate area given the traveling I have done.

Huck -- the one person solution would be insulated from the influences you mention through a much more rigorous ethical wall created by the host publications than what you see today.

Now, you have architectural critics venturing into the world of course design and still maintaining their positon as critic.

The issue with many raters -- of course not you Huck -- is a desire for self preservation. You have people more concerned with their own status than in possibly improving it.

What's even more disturbing is how the magazines now view raters as a prime dollar sign when they now create / organize such garthering like the one Digest held in Orlando.

I mean I can't wait for the next pitch to subscribers -- "You too can be a rater for us" -- Just send us "X" dollars and you will get a decoder ring and all the other neat benefits.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I can understand all that.  

My fear remains.  I also remain dubious that any magazine will actually go to this, as it remains not much in their interest to do so.  But you have given the one very practical alternate proposal, and the discussion has been fun and enlightening.  Many thanks.

As for the rest, I'll just leave it be.  I didn't attend last weekend's gathering, but I've heard it was quite worthwhile.

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

Matt,
With all due respect, only you could make the argument that you are making here.  Golf Magazine's panel of raters ranks Black Mesa, (a huge personal favorite of yours, I know) very, very highly.  An article by an individual writer for the exact same magazine does NOT rate the same course highly, and you construe that as an indictment of the specific writer, but NOT of the idea of a single rater!  Amazing.

 

[Matt_Ward]

A.G.

Always can appreciate what the wind blows in on certain threads.

The single writer in the aformentioned article is clearly uninformed -- geeze, just like you most of the time.

The person chosen to occupy the critic's position is someone well versed in what is happening and clearly has their eyes and ears open to what is shaking out in terms of new course construction and those that are mainstays.

Here's what you miss so pay attention -- Golf Mag has Black Mesa already rated, but for some reason the writer of this story would not have known thatthe very publication he is writing for already lists such a course. I'm sorry -- how silly of me -- of course -- that makes perfect sense -- just like the argument you attempted to make in your previous post.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.

Always can appreciate what the wind blows in on certain threads.

The single writer in the aformentioned article is clearly uninformed -- geeze, just like you most of the time.

The person chosen to occupy the critic's position is someone well versed in what is happening and clearly has their eyes and ears open to what is shaking out in terms of new course construction and those that are mainstays.

Here's what you miss so pay attention -- Golf Mag has Black Mesa already rated, but for some reason the writer of this story would not have known thatthe very publication he is writing for already lists such a course. I'm sorry -- how silly of me -- of course -- that makes perfect sense -- just like the argument you attempted to make in your previous post.

Matt,
I don't mind the insults; keep 'em coming.

BTW, who chooses this all-wise, all-seeing, all-knowing, uncorruptable single critic?  Someone even wiser?

Anyway, what I did NOT miss is that you make the case in the last couple of posts for a panel as opposed to the single critic better than Tom Huckaby or anybody else possibly could have.

Keep up the good work.
 

[Stan Burton]

I am glad to see that I am not the only person that has questions with the various list...

Wolf Run is in a geographically decent area, Indianapolis, and is always well received by the GolfWeek folks (thanks!). Now here is my beef:  we have had 25+ GolfWeek Raters visit this year, 2 from Golf Digest and 0 from Golf Magazine.  How is it that Golf Digest/Golf Magazine raters can visit Crooked Stick and not visit Wolf Run???  We are located @10 miles from each other.  I have annually sent letters to the person(s) in charge of the ratings for both GD and GM requesting more raters and I have yet to receive a response or more raters.

sorry for the rant...

[A_Clay_Man]

Those are interesting stats, considering there are three times as many GD wankurs as GW.

Maybe now that Smeyers is going to be part of the USGA, Digest can show his work some more respect, and go the extra ten miles?

[Stan Burton]

Don't you feel that the first couple of people that visit and "rate" a course set the standard that all others follow??

The first guys from GD that came to visit some 15+ years ago claimed that Wolf Run was too difficult and that seems to be all we hear from their group of "low handicap golfers" and yet they continually have PV rightfully at #1.

The opposite happened with GW; the first that came to play loved it and so have those who have followed.

Are experience is that the GW raters are more verse in a greater variety of courses and seem to get to the out-of-the-way places more often.

Adam,
Perhaps Smyers' election to the USGA will help with the raters, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Matt_Ward]

Stan:

You raise a valid concern -- the early herd mentality can opt for a spin on any course and then others that follow have to deal with that particular spin. Keep in mind, you have people on GCA who enjoy spinning courses from photos or even in the pre-construction phase if a given architect is involved.

There's no doubt that any course can / should rise or fall during it's existence -- not simply from what it offers or fails to deliver -- but in regards to the quality of the competition that comes forward. Too many classical advocaters fail to appreciate how high the bar has risen in the last 20 years or so with particular new courses that have come forward -- especially in the public arena.