[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

I'm talking about safety issues that get implemented not the tweaking of architectural features.  If you were given free tolls in exchange for your advice on the radius of a curve and a bus crashed...I think you may be liable or at least named.  It is without question a problem if you present yourself as a traffic expert and have documentation from a major publication to prove it..

[wsmorrison]

"Since there are no access difficulties for GB and Ireland, there aren't any official raters."

Paul,

If there are no access problems in GB&I, why do they have memberships?  There has to be some differential between member play and non-member play.  Do locals have to be accompanied by a member?  Wouldn't non-members have to pay a significant green fee?  Or do locals have a reduced fee, country residents a slightly higer guest fees and the highest guest fees for internationals?

[ForkaB]

Wayne

In the spirit of "Spartacus,"  "I AM PAUL TURNER!!!"

There are memberships in the UK for a few simple reasons:  somebody has to "own" the club; somebody has to be financially and operationally responsible for it.  No more, no less,

You can call just about any UK club in the middle of the summer, ask for a tee time tomorrow (even without having to flash your club or rater affiliations), and if you can't get on then, they will suggest a time when you can.  It has absolutely no relevance whether or not you are rich or poor or a UK citizen or a Colonial, and you all pay the same price (with a very few exceptions).

Surely it works the same way at, say, Gulph Mills or Rolling Green?  If not, why shouldn't it?

Rich

[John Kavanaugh]

Rich,

Aren't there discounts for locals like the good people of Oregon get at Bandon.

[wsmorrison]

You mean local non-members pay the same price to play Dornoch, Muirfield, Aberdeen, N. Berwick as international guests?  I mean the dollar-pound is awful these days, but that amazes me that they pay the same price as international guests.

By the way, I'm not at Rolling Green anymore.  I think they've always welcomed raters since they're of that mindset despite the fact that their ratings have plummeted--probably due to deplorable conditioning for many years.  They've apparently turned that around so I'm sure they welcome the spread of the news so their ratings will climb once again.  The club I am now at has a lot of rater requests and I think the small allotment is used up by May.  Given how often it has been rated, I'm surprised there is any accomodations made.  Maybe there aren't, I'm not involved in that regard and am simply reporting what I've been told by rater friends.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Surely it works the same way at, say, Gulph Mills or Rolling Green?  If not, why shouldn't it?

Rich,

The economic throughput that Gulph Mills GC provides to the Radnor, PA area economy is probably .0000001% of the local economy. Can the same be said of Royal Dornoch? If Royal Dornoch, closes its gates, it shuts off visitors, which shuts down at least some inns and restaurants which forces at least some members (the inn and restaurant owners) to resign. Scotland is an economy driven by tourism way more that Radnor or Springfield, PA, and nobody knows that better than you!

Let's remove the standard GCA excuses such as laws, lawyers and GCA Doyens. If the typical members of GMGC, work hard, send their kids to good schools, kiss their wife in the morning and drive under the speed limit, are they bad people for wanting to have access to playing golf without interruption from outsiders? It is my understanding that you can basically walk up and play most anytime at GMGC.

[John Kavanaugh]

I was thinking this weekend that having unlimited public access to your course is kinda like living in a hotel as opposed to a private residence.  No matter how expensive the rates the hotel charges it is just not the same.

[Allan Hutton]

When Mad River opened July 5, 1991, Bob Cupp told the owners that the course was nominated for "best new course" and they asked the name to be withdrawn, they were not interested.

Has this not continued?  In the recent score rankings, I seem to recall Mad River was a notable omission.  Perhaps they do not wish to take part....

[David_Madison]

John Kavanaugh -

The area of the course that caused the conflict was specifically because the owner wanted a 7000+ yard course, thinking that it would make his course more highly regarded as a championship layout. Yet the vast majority of his play was from older/average golfers who typically played from the 6200 - 6500 yard tees. He's now seeing that at 6850 from the tips, the conflict area can be sorted out and the course still retain all of its playing value for the people who play it. Didn't steal any work from architects; maybe created a little.

Wayne Morrison -

If I got a call to play Pine Valley or Cypress Point, it sure wouldn't be because I was a rater. And of course I'd be on that plane (and likely without the cheap 2-week advance fare!) I'm already a member at a pretty good club and spend plenty of money to play there. Most of my rating rounds are substitutes for rounds I'd have played at home and already paid for. Being a rater definitely costs me a lot of money, but the economics are okay because I do get enjoyment out of seeing and playing courses that I probably wouldn't get to otherwise, learning more about golf course architecture than I likely would had I not experienced those courses and had access to the people who I get to speak with, actively thinking through what I'm seeing, reporting as farily as I can, and hopefully adding to a process that many golfers, even if not many here, find interesting and helpful.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would like to see a link to the 1700 couses nominated for review by Golfweek.  I found it valuable the time someone was nice enough to send me just the Mid West courses.

[Adam Clayman]

The fellow rater who I traveled with and I got to spend some time with one of the course's owners, discussing ways to fix a potentially dangerous area on the course where three holes come together. If that results in something being done that improves that situation, it was worthwhile, and we wouldn't have been asked and had that access without being raters.

So now you are steaing work from architects...I hope you have insurance if your consulting ideas don't work out.  I don't think you should be messing with safety or environmental issues.  If you see a potenial problem or asked to solve one simply tell the owner to hire a professional because you are not qualified to comment.

J.B.- Wasn't it a professional that created the dangerous situation to begin with?

[wsmorrison]

David Madison,

I hope you realize that I am speaking generally and not specifically.  I do not criticize your own efforts and think highly of most of the individual raters I have come to meet, but I do not care for the process in general.

If magazine ratings were not influenced by these Best Of editions, do you think the process would be in place?

[Jack_Marr]

Wayne

In the spirit of "Spartacus,"  "I AM PAUL TURNER!!!"

There are memberships in the UK for a few simple reasons:  somebody has to "own" the club; somebody has to be financially and operationally responsible for it.  No more, no less,

You can call just about any UK club in the middle of the summer, ask for a tee time tomorrow (even without having to flash your club or rater affiliations), and if you can't get on then, they will suggest a time when you can.  It has absolutely no relevance whether or not you are rich or poor or a UK citizen or a Colonial, and you all pay the same price (with a very few exceptions).

Surely it works the same way at, say, Gulph Mills or Rolling Green?  If not, why shouldn't it?

Rich

Yes, currently there are no golf clubs in Ireland that you can't play (with or without a member) if you have the greenfee. This will likely change, though.

[wsmorrison]

Jack,

Are the greenfees the same for all non-members or is there a sliding scale?

[Bob_Huntley]

What is the ratings process in the UK, Australia, etc.?  Maybe they do it differently and better.

Let's not lose sight that golf raters want to play golf and they will pay to play golf.  The sob stories of paying travel expenses doesn't cut it.  How many of you would hop on a plane right now, damn the expenses, to play Cypress Point or Pine Valley?  If you didn't want to do it for yourself, you wouldn't do it.  Is it an altruistic act?  For some, maybe.  Sorry to come across as a cynic.

Those that travel out of their way to play public courses or play second or third tier privates are doing it for what reason?  I'm sure these are the raters that do it for more noble reasons.  But maybe it is to stay on a panel so they can play privates they'd never see otherwise.  Who is being helped?  How many resort courses do you play anonymously at your expense?  How many are you comped on?

Of course some, hopefully many, do it for some greater good.  But I doubt it is a majority, except maybe on here.  But then again, I think the greater good is rather narrow in scope and limited to the magazines themselves, the raters themselves, up and coming courses that need members, resorts and public golf.

As usual, Wayne gets to the nub of the matter.

Mentioning the expenses and hardships of travelling to a rating assignment is not much different than that of a politician declaring the sacrifices he has made in perfoming his public service duties.

Altruism is a wonderful thing but no matter the cause, whether it be caring for the unwashed in Calcutta or advising golfers on the nuances of Foxy at Dornoch, it gives satisfaction to the provider. There are few of us here that do something that we loathe.


Bob

[ForkaB]

Rich,

Aren't there discounts for locals like the good people of Oregon get at Bandon.

Not for any private club I know of.  |Most ublic courses (e.g. Old Course, Kingsbarns, Kinghorn, Balgove, etc.) do give locals a break.

As to your second musing, you get to meet a wider variety of people in hotels than you do at home, and you don't have to carry out the garbage.

Wayne

Yes--the non-member locals at every private club I know (e.g. Dornoch, Troon, Muirfield, Pitreavie, Aberdour, etc.) pay the same green fees as the overseas visitors.

Mike S.

The local economy does beneift from remote public access golf courses like Dornoch and Machrihanish, as do the fine people in Bandon and Carmel.  You would be surprised, however, to find out how few visitors to Dornoch (say) come there for the golf.  From my visits to Gulph Mills, spreading a little of their wealth into the immediate surrounding area would not be a bad thing.  Maybe they could replace the ghastly King of Prussia shopping mall with a Pinehursty type "Royal Dornoch Village?"  Maybe there could also be a "Tom Paul Golf Trail?"

Rich

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

Thanks for the clarification.  In reality, how many local non-members play the privates in GB&I?  Most of the outside support that keeps fees low for members are not county or country guests.  I suspect that the overwhelming number of guest plays at many of the courses you cite are not locals but internationals.  I may be wrong, I sure was when it came to thinking there was a scale of guest fees.

[ForkaB]

Wayne

My guess is that the visitor numbers at Dornoch are 50/50 between UK residents and overseas players.  It was about 95/5 in favor of the Brits when I first visited there in 1978.

BTW, total visitor rounds (including member's guests) are no more than 10,000/year.  On the days when the Perry buses arrive it may seem like a plague of locusts, but most of the time the place is more like a home than a hotel.

Rich

[Tim Pitner]

I don't have anything against raters (heck, I'd be one in a second if anyone asked me), but let's not pretend that raters perform their function as some sort of public service--they do it to play golf and play certain courses.  I'm confident there are at least as many negatives as positives when assessing the utility of ratings.  

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't have anything against raters (heck, I'd be one in a second if anyone asked me), but let's not pretend that raters perform their function as some sort of public service--they do it to play golf and play certain courses.  I'm confident there are at least as many negatives as positives when assessing the utility of ratings.  

Tim,

That is not a fair assesment and screams of a biased view from someone who really doesn't know very many raters personally.  I know for a fact that most raters do not need their card to play most courses they end up seeing and see many courses they would not normally play if not for their service.  Please let me take this time to apologize to all the noble raters of courses out there who may have been offended by this stereotype.

[Jeff Shelman]

Shivas,

One thing I always look at when I'm traveling is the Golfweek state-by-state public list that is in addition to the top 100 classic and modern. If I'm going to an unfamiliar city, I'll sometimes ask on here or I'll go to that list.

It's worked out pretty well for me as a "these are pretty good and worth your time" list.

[SPDB]

The fellow rater who I traveled with and I got to spend some time with one of the course's owners, discussing ways to fix a potentially dangerous area on the course where three holes come together. If that results in something being done that improves that situation, it was worthwhile, and we wouldn't have been asked and had that access without being raters.

David - What you find as an example of the utility of raters, I find quite alarming. Its fine for someone to solicit advice, but I wonder if this owner (or anoother owner under similar circumstances) was under the misguided impression that he was somehow consulting expertise. This would seem to be a fertile area for abuse.  An owner might be inclined to accept a rater's suggestion (solicited or not), without any regard as to whether the person is qualified or not, simply because the rater is in a position to affect the public's perception of a course. It seems to me that for the ratings system to work it should be done anonymously, and with the only focus being on the golf course as it presently plays.

For a rater to remove his "raters" cap and substitute in its place a consultant's hat is crazy, irrespective of his or her best intentions.  I don't know you or what you do, and I hope I'm not insinuating anything sinister, but most raters i know aren't qualified to offer such advice, and even if they were, they should stick to what brought them to the course in the first place - to play and then to rate, not, play, rate and then consult.  

I'm sorry if it seems like I jumping on you,  but I was pretty shocked by your example and if it is common practice, I think the whole ratings game is broken to a greater degree than just standard conflict of interest.

[David_Madison]

SPDB - I appreciate your point, especially if we were being asked or if we volunteered to solve via real architectural changes what a number of people felt was a potentially dangerous situation. But that wasn't the case here, and I certainly don't see fixing golf courses as a valid function of raters.

The conflict was obvious to us because I flew a slightly pulled tee shot of a par-4 into the teeing area for another hole (which was blind from my tee.) Our discussion with the owner revolved around the need for a 7,000 yard course where every possible square inch was used to get that yardage. If the owner solicites our feedback about the course, and is clear that he wants our real opinions and not fluff, are we just suposed to say thanks for the hospitality and drive away? I'm no architect, never professed to be one, but I can sure tell him what I did an such and such a hole. And if he happens to respond by saying that this seems to be a not rare event, and he had a solution but that it involved reducing the course's yardage, but he thought that 7,000 was a magic number that if not achieved could reduce the marketability of his course, then that seems like a pretty interesting and fair conversation that anyone on this board would jump right into.

[Ulrich Mayring]

In order to maximise integrity, raters should be thrown out, when they compromise their anonymity, like the Guide Michelin does it (since 1926). This ensures not only integrity for the course, but also for the raters - they do not have to defend themselves, are free in their judgment and self-important know-it-alls will never apply for this anonymous and unpaid service.

If a rater wants to play a course, he will drive far, he will pay a lot, he will write a review and he will do all that because he is interested. If he lacks enough interest to go to these pains, then he should not visit and very likely, if the course can't generate enough interest among raters, it shouldn't be reviewed.

What about private clubs? They should not be rated, if they can't be accessed anonymously. Why should they be rated? Who for? If not even enthusiastic and spendy hardcore raters can get access, then who of the audience can? The Guide Michelin doesn't rate private restaurants - people buy the Guide, because they want to know where they can eat.

Ulrich

[Mike_Cirba]

In order to maximise integrity, raters should be thrown out, when they compromise their anonymity, like the Guide Michelin does it (since 1926). This ensures not only integrity for the course, but also for the raters - they do not have to defend themselves, are free in their judgment and self-important know-it-alls will never apply for this anonymous and unpaid service.

If a rater wants to play a course, he will drive far, he will pay a lot, he will write a review and he will do all that because he is interested. If he lacks enough interest to go to these pains, then he should not visit and very likely, if the course can't generate enough interest among raters, it shouldn't be reviewed.

What about private clubs? They should not be rated, if they can't be accessed anonymously. Why should they be rated? Who for? If not even enthusiastic and spendy hardcore raters can get access, then who of the audience can? The Guide Michelin doesn't rate private restaurants - people buy the Guide, because they want to know where they can eat.

Ulrich

Thank you, Ulrich.

We'll all follow your impeccable and unchallenged words of wisdom.   Lord knows we couldn't live, much less eat happily without knowing if a restaurant is *, **, or *** stars and we also know there isn't a single smidgeon of difference between restaurant food and golf courses.  

While a golf course is a multi-million dollar endeavor architected to be a combination of artistry, engineering, and nature across hundreds of acres of land, one with true vision can see a clear parallel to whether the lamb chops were slightly singed, or enough Sweet and Lo was provided for the tea.  I'm quite sure it's also true that those dedicated Michelin guys drive hours and hours, or fly across the country to partake of a hearty meal.   It's clearly worth the drive to a neighboring state for a Peach Cobbler with a single * rating better than the local greasy spoon.

There are also many private restaurants who obviously shouldn't be rated.   Frankly, they probably just hold their members captive while serving slop, just because they're the toney place in town, and I agree with you heartily that it's a clear waste of time, while also being insulting to the readership to point out the attributes and flaws of such meaningless establishments.

Thanks for showing us the light.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()