[Tim Bert]

Are the various ratings out there (GM, GD, GW) set up such that a course is more or less likely to achieve a higher overall rating if it is played by a higher percentage of the universe of raters?  I'm sure that none of them are intentionally set up that way, but from experience does a course tend to have a better shot, worse shot, or neutral shot at ascending on the list of more have played it?

I'd love to hear how the % of total raters that have played a course impacts each of the systems (directly or indirectly.)

[Gib_Papazian]

Tim,

Having marched under two flags in the past, it has more to do with the complexion of the panel than whatever dogmatic evaluation "system" is employed to reach their respective entirely subjective stratification.

All have their strong and weak points, except GM . . . . where the panel is Ran and a bunch of famous dribs would not know a hidden gem if it jumped in their pants and bit their dick.  

It would be far easier to take them seriously if Ran simply penciled out his evaluations every couple years and Bryant Gumbel stuck to . . . . well, whatever he is good at. I don't know what that is, but I think the same thing about Rees after playing Torrey South last week.    

There is no right or wrong and personally, the concept of a "Top 10" and so on and so forth makes more sense these days.

The idea that in, say 2002, PB gets atop PV and then magically in 2004 the reverse is true strikes me as a bit like choosing which of your two perfect children you love more.

Take it for what it is . . . . I read the comments on the newer courses and ignore the rest, mostly because I am that one idiot who fills in the numbers (don't the nerds refer to it as "populating the field?) and then composes a lengthy treatise that almost always over-runs the available space.

I'm operating under the hallucination that somebody is reading my didactic analysis, but then again, the same could be true for the meandering "trains of thought with no caboose" that spew from my fingers on this board after a Margarita or two . . . . or three.  

[Brad Klein]

Tim,

I handle 10-15 inquiries a week from owners, course developers, architects and private clubs in which the assumption of the call or email is that "if we just get more raters out" it'll boost the ratings. This assumption is wrong, and I usually have to explain it to them.

In many cases, the more raters who come out, the lower the ratings become, because the tendency of the early, pioneer raters is to be more favorable to because they know folks at the course or are friends with the architect, whereas subsequent raters might not have that affiliation or affinity.

I'm not entirely sure if this is the question you are asking, or whether you are really asking whether it's better to have a wider representation of the actual raters and their playing skills out to see and judge a golf course. All I know is that having more raters out will often lock in lower ratings or solidify wherever the course presently is and is not at all some likely path to higher ratings.

[Gene Greco]

  Gib:

     Wasn't Ran and the Hollywood types he runs around with    politely excused from their roles at GM?

[PThomas]

Gene:  yes, GM did "disband" its panel last year...I'm not sure if they put another one together yet

(I was later told that they they did put their panel back together with most of its old panelists returning to the fold)

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul Thomas - Golfweek rater.  I don't see where your spreading of rumors helps this or any discussion.  I would suggest that anyone who in interested in the truth to contact the following:

Joe Passov is the Architecture and Course Ratings Editor of GOLF MAGAZINE. E-mail him your questions and thoughts at askjoe@golfonline.com

[ForkaB]

John

Can we ask him about the "Three Bridges" fiasco that probably led to him taking over the job?

Constructively

Rich

[John Kavanaugh]

Rich,

He was not architectural editor at the time of the time of TB Gate...He is just an email away and I'm sure would love to get his hands on one or both of your fine books.

[ForkaB]

John

I just checked and there are NINE bridges now!!  This fiasco is mutating exponentially!

Thanks for the tip.  A former editor of a gofl magazine told me recently that when someone sends them books for review they give them to Paula Creamer (or whomever) in hopes of reciprocity.  I'll give it a shot anyway.

Cheers

Rich

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Brad's answer was generally correct.  Most new courses tend to debut high, because the panelists who are most likely to like them tend to go first ... then after they are ranked highly, the other panelists go and knock them back a bit.

Although, when dealing with small samples, it is also possible that one or two panelists who think they weren't treated well enough will post unfairly negative votes on a course and that will keep it low in the rankings until (and if) enough other panelists go to see it.

[Gib_Papazian]

Brad & Tom,

But don't you think the most important aspect in this equation is the complexion of the panel?

Brad's gang appears to be a different demographic than Topsy's GD'ers. This is based not only on the disparity in average handicaps (correct me if I am wrong), but also on the "whimsical adventure vs. objective test" comparison.

I did not know GM dissolved their panel . . . shows what four years of litigation will do to you.

Tom, I know you quit once, but any thought of starting up a new panel over there? Kind of a "group Confidential Guide?" . . . . or are you too visible now?

[John Kavanaugh]

Gib,

I am surprised you believe a rumor started by an anon Golfweek rater.  The ratings panel at Golf Magazine is in very good hands.

[JR Potts]

Let me ask a question that will expose my ignorance on this matter.

What the hell does "how a rater is treated" have anything to do with the golf course and its rating?

[Tom Huckaby]

Let me ask a question that will expose my ignorance on this matter.

What the hell does "how a rater is treated" have anything to do with the golf course and its rating?

Ryan:
In a perfect world, nothing.  But course rating panelists are human beings - as much as those in here would have you believe otherwise.    And it does remain human nature to favor a place where one is given the royal treatment, and perhaps devalue a place where one is not.  Of course the panelists are not SUPPOSED to do this - nowhere in any magazine system is this a criterion - but human nature is what it is, so Tom D. makes a very valid point/speculation.

TH

ps to Gib - thankfully you and I and Jim Franklin and a few others into the whimsy keep the GD demographic from being completely lock-step.  

[Brad Klein]

Gib, you are right that GW and GD have very different profiles to our members, mainly because we (GW) don't require excellence of playing ability; rather we emphasize experience in judging ability. I don't know where you got that "whimsical vs. objective" characterization but I think it is a caricature of the differences.

We each have our criteria and fairly rigorous mathematical standards designed to arrive at an objective accounting of a subjective valuation. I think it fair to say that GW's criteria are more based on elements of landform, overall experience of the site, and diversity of playing options, whereas GD's criteria are more tightly honed in on the challenge and the aesthetics of a site.

[Glenn Spencer]

Let me ask a question that will expose my ignorance on this matter.

What the hell does "how a rater is treated" have anything to do with the golf course and its rating?

I would imagine it has the same importance as whether you can walk or not. I will never understand the ratings until I die. Pebble Beach #1? Muirfield Village 50 spots or even 1 for that matter, ahead of Crooked Stick.

[Jim Franklin]

Ryan -

I try not to let how I was treated influence my ratings at all. In fact, one of my top 5 favorites treated me like a second class citizen. I don't let that stuff bother me much anyway. Most places I have been to are usually very nice so this is not much of an issue.

[Andy Troeger]

ps to Gib - thankfully you and I and Jim Franklin and a few others into the whimsy keep the GD demographic from being completely lock-step.  

Tom...agreed, I try to fit into the whimsy group too!

[David_Madison]

And here's one more GD rater very high on whimsy and low on the formulaic stuff. Just played Old Town today, a fabulous Perry Maxwell design in Winston Salem, NC. Brilliant greens and greens complexes, more blind shots than would ever be allowed now but so what, and maybe the best walk on a golf course you'd ever want for an in-land lay-out. The course can't crack the top 25 in the state in any ranking I've seen, but I place it in my top five. The course just isn't all that well known, and maybe it's not been played by enough panelists to get into the mix. Didn't mean to go off topic, but my point is that a course still has to get at least a certain number of raters out there before it can even qualify.

BTW, I believe that NC Golf magazine had a rating system where panelists scores were cumulative. Twenty ratings of 4 points beat eight ratings of nine. Ended up with Wade Hampton at around #17 in the state.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy/David:  COOL!  I knew there were more of us in here.  It would seem the whimsical of us gravitate to this place.  But Gib is right about our demographic in general, wouldn't you say?

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I've certainly felt that my personal tastes are occasionally outside what the panel as a whole comes up with. I keep a spreadsheet with my own formula and list in addition to rating for the magazine, and only 4 of my top 10 are also on the GD 100 (The Golf Club, Crystal Downs, Harbour Town, and Blackwolf Run--probably not going to get many arguments with those).

The rest include Kingsley, Black Mesa, Paa-Ko Ridge, and Wolf Run. I guess those all go high on the whimsy side of things!

From what I've taken from the lists and the courses I've played is that solid courses that don't take a lot of chances tend to do better than the ones such as Kingsley and Black Mesa that have some unique holes.

[David_Madison]

Tom-

I'm not really sure about the GD demographic. While most I've met are pretty solid players, I've seen a suprisingly wide spread in playing ability. Probably a good thing, as long as everyone can visualize how very low handicap player would handle the course. On one hand, I am friends with a panelist who qualified for the Senior Open. On the other hand, not too long ago I hosted a panelist at my club who was an absolute hack. When he putted from thirty yards off an elevated green with a pin tucked behind a bunker, I almost lost it.

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

"How the raters are treated" should have nothing to do with the rankings, but it does.  I have personally heard raters from each of the three magazines say aloud that they rated some course or other lower because they were comped at course A and had to pay at course B, in fact I heard it out of a rater's mouth just in the past week.  And I've worked at courses where they have meetings to discuss how to treat the panelists who come to call, or how to get more panelists to show up.  

All the magazines wish this didn't happen but they're lying if they say it doesn't.  I thought that GOLF Magazine's old panel was the most immune to this since many of the panelists were in the golf business and didn't need "panelist" status to see the courses they wanted to see ... but now that's out the window, because I don't know who a lot of their panelists are.

Brad:

Haven't you said here before that your "criteria" are suggested but that only a single bottom-line score is actually used for the rankings?  If so, don't try to sell the "rigorous mathematical standards" of the ranking.  Taking the average of a bunch of subjective numbers is not really higher math, and in the end, that's what every ranking does.

[cary lichtenstein]

I know dozens of raters for all 3 magazines, and the only thing that is consistent among them is their inconsistency

Some are very good and some...

[Jerry Kluger]

Ryan: I was a rater at one time and I can remember going to play a course and played with a caddie and I told him during the round how much I appreciated his assistance and how great the course was, and he told me that he was surprised at how nice I was as most raters he caddied for were full of themselves and not interested in talking. (I did give him a generous tip) I must say that the raters I've met took the job seriously but I never envisioned them being anything but respectful to all the employees at a course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()