Another panelist story......

[C. Squier]

Private golf courses should not offer free golf or any other perks for rankers.  Rankers should be prohibited from not following club rules.  If accompanied play is all that is allowed guests, rankers must follow that rule.  If unaccompanied play is allowed at a higher fee, that too should be the rule applied to rankers.  The magazines themselves should mandate it and the clubs follow it.  If the ranker can play with a member at a reduced rate available to all member guests, that should be the most a private club ought to provide.  Rankers playing golf with a member is a safeguard against abuse and a well-chosen member adds to the rankers understanding of the golf course in one visit.  Public/resort golf courses can do whatever they like, it is a different story.  

I don't care for sob stories about rankers having to pay money out of their own pocket to do this so-called service, so they should be allowed free golf.  Many feel an overblown sense of entitlement.  That is a bunch of BS.  Pay as you go like the rest of us.  

There shouldn't be private club privileges for any rankers.  I don't base this on a few instances of abusive behavior.  The entire process is fraught with conflicts.  Joshua Crane tried to quantify greatness.  He was an intelligent and fascinating man, but it made no sense then and it does not make sense today.  

If I understand correctly, you feel that comp'ing a rater positively affects a rating?  That's flawed logic in my opinion.  I believe a person can be equally blinded by paying for an expensive item/service.  How many people have you seen giddy over their new $700 driver that they can't hit any better than the $50 outdated one they just stuck in the closet.  Or the $75 steak at Mortons that's not materially better than the $25 one at Outback.  Charging for play doesn't change the outcome.  It may pacify members who don't like non-paying guests.  But as I member of 2 clubs that charge me more to stick a tee in the ground than a non-member rater, I can say I could care less.  

[wsmorrison]

Clint,

While I do think that there is a conflict and that rankers and rankings at times are affected by extended privileges (why else would they do it?) my comments remain valid even if there was not a single example of an impact on the rankings.  

Magazine panelists should not be extended any privileges at private clubs that member guests do not have available to them.  In my mind, it is preposterous to think they should.  Let them pay for themselves and pay/play with a member (if no unaccompanied guests) or pay the unaccompanied rate (if allowed) and get on with it.  No friends in tow and no comps expected.

There is no cause worth having unusual privileges for magazine ranker guests that is not available to member guests.  This is a simple concept and one that many rankers seem too entrenched in the process to comprehend.

[Tom Huckaby]

Why are raters allowed to bring guests to a private course?

Because some might find it more fun to play the course with a friend than a stranger?

My my how this group looks for the worst in magazine panelists... and sure, there are bad apples... but isn't also a fair assumption that most of us aren't like this?

I have asked to bring a friend from time to time when doing "ratings".  Generally it's not at a private club, because that is somewhat asking for too much.  But if I'm in the middle of nowhere and know no one besides perhaps one local friend, I can see asking nicely if he can come along.  I fully expect to pay - and have paid - all applicable guest fees.   I also absolutely expect to follow and do follow all club rules - if they want me (us) to go with a member, we do.  Heck that can be more fun also.

Please understand that the vast majority of us do act just as I describe above.  We DO follow the rules.  We do NOT ask for any priviliges beyond just getting on a course we need to see.

But yes, there are bad apples.  If you want to condemn us for those, I guess that's fair.

Just do realize they are the minority.



TH

[Michael Christensen]

I would think the good guy raters would and should be more upset about these clowns ruining the process......it always seems like they are defending the 90% of the good rates instead of blasting the 10% of the bad raters.....hopefully the bad apples are taken care of or there may be instances where courses may not allow raters at all (paying, guests, etc)

[jeffwarne]

just for the record I agree with allowing the panelist to bring a guest. (that wasn't the problem)
(The caddie gets a day's pay rather than half)
It gives them someone else's game to observe and bounce ideas off.

[Mark Chaplin]

In the UK Golf World magazine uses respected professionals, county secretaries & administrators, current and former top level amateurs, etc as their panellists. Basically people who are unlikely to need to blag their was through the door or be seduced my hospitality.

Ratings are very important especially for proprietary clubs whose income can be greatly affected by a good rating. I've seen clubs in the high 90s with the certificate framed and displayed in a central position where as at another top 50 private members club the certificate was stuck by a drawing pin on the notice board until it got tatty and fell off!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael:
Of course us "good guy" raters get upset about these clowns who do everything wrong and get all the attention... that's obvious.

I just had to wonder, given how these issues get so jumped on every time they come up (and my, they do come up often in this forum - rater-bashing is great sport here), if most here realize that there ARE SUCH THINGS as "good guy raters"?

Believe me, there are, and they are the majority.

BTW, Jeff also makes a good point about bringing a friend... they do make nice sounding boards.

TH

[wsmorrison]

Tom, Clint, Michael, etc,

I do recognize that there may be an overwhelming majority of good guy rankers and a few very bad apple rankers.  But that doesn't matter.  I think the process itself is wrong, I am not considering the participants.  

Private clubs should not do anything for rankers (and their buddies---though that is an out-and-out abuse in my mind) that they don't do for member guests.  No special privileges for rankers at private clubs.  Period.

I wish you rankers would please consider that this is not a personal indictment (although some in the ranker ranks merit it) but a process issue that needs to be addressed.  There should be no special privileges or compensations for rankers.  Play with a member or don't play if accompanied policies are in force--but always pay for your private golf.  If unaccompanied allowances apply, the ranker must be sponsored by a member who is responsible for your conduct (maybe a designated ranker liaison or club historian) and pay your unaccompanied rate or don't play.  

Pay to play; otherwise walk and study the course that way if allowed.  That would be my rule.  But who listens to me?  

[wsmorrison]

"BTW, Jeff also makes a good point about bringing a friend... they do make nice sounding boards."

So what?  That is the height of absurdity.  I would rather play with a friend than not at my private club.  I pay for them to play or they pay their own way.  Why should you have more privileges at my club than I do?  If a ranker cannot rank a course without having a friend along holding his/her hand and being their sounding board, then they shouldn't do it.  

I am simply amazed at how these rankers want more privileges than members.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne:

Methinks you need to step back, relax, and look at this with less venom and perhaps more understanding.

Where did I say I wanted more priviliges than any member, or other guest?  I have at times asked nicely if I could bring a friend, because it would be fun for me, and for him.  I fully expect to - and do - pay whatever fees are required.  We play with members if required, or if any want to play with us.  In the end, having the sounding board is a nice thing; certainly not required - as their presence is not required, but just tends to make it more fun.  If the course says that the friend is not allowed, he doesn't come; no harm nor hard feelings nor anything of the sort.  And if it's a place where I know in advance such a thing would be frowned on, of course I don't even ask.

So tell me, what have I done wrong?

Relax, my friend.  I want no more privileges than any members or other guests; good lord, far far from it.  At times though I do need to see certain courses, so I have to ask.  

Tom Huckaby

[Tom Huckaby]

And Wayne, understand also that damn near all of us would tend to only ASK to play on such Mondays and other off-days as Shivas alludes to.

Of course there are bad apples....

But man, give us a break.

[wsmorrison]

Tom and Dave,

I certainly consider both of you men with integrity.  I did not have any specific comments about anyone in particular.  The general notion that some rankers (I'm not pointing fingers) want to bring friends to the clubs as part of the comp process is absurd.  Again, I am speaking about the process being flawed not individuals.  Certainly some individuals abuse the system and many do not.  But the system is absurd in my mind.  I am not stressed or in a rage about this.  I am typing calmly and deliberately.  

I think private clubs should not extend any privileges to rankers that they do not extend to other guests.  So privileges to some panelists by some staff are not completely abolished if other non-ranker guests have privileges.  Professionals and some superintendents can have discretion to let non-members have access to the course.  But it is either professional courtesy extended to members of the pro or superintendent ranks or it is extended to someone they know or that have been vouched for.  This is not the case with magazine ranking panelists.  

We can mention many exceptions and the good and bad of each.  But please try to understand that I am speaking only of the process.  It should not exist as it does.  There should be no comps and no special privileges to rankers at private clubs that other guests of the club or member guests do not have available.  That's it.  It isn't complex so try not to make it that way.  Let's not try to find little cracks or sympathetic exceptions as there are bound to be some when a general position is taken.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I understand where you come from on the subject....and i agree there are 90% good guys......BUT as WAyne says.....the raters have more priviledges than the member in many cases.....because the member is paying an initiation fee and dues.....I would venture to guess that on any day a rater plays golf he was going to play somewhere and he is not looking at this rating thing as a job.  If it happens to be he has developed a golf trip around rating courses....i would venture to say he would still do a trip if there were no rating comps.....AND I would guess that many of the courses are courses the ranker wished to play above the wish to rate them so he bases his rating of courses on where he wishes to play...
I do not have issue with most raters but I also cannot give one good reason why any course needs raters IMHO....and I certainly think they should pay without exception.....
IMHO one of the reasons the bad rater dudes get into rating is to abuse the system and play free golf......the good rater dudes would actually pay to play ....AND last but not least.....do you think that all of the magazines actually tally the paelist votes or do they arbitrarily adjust rating decisions?  

Mike

[jeffwarne]

this just keeps getting better.
(Note I'm not trying to indict raters but this does make good sportreading)
When bullying my shop attendant for a cart, the rater stated
"I can make or break a golf course"
(somewhat hard to when a course is sold out and the owner doesn't care whether I let raters play or not)

at the 1/2 way house-"Do you know who I am?"
Then proceeds to help himself to snacks,sandwiches, beers,etc. without paying and tells the girl he's "a friend of mine"
Makes multiple incoherant inappropriate remarks concluding with "If you want it baby it's right here so come and get it"
as he stuffs a $10 bill (which wouldn't sniff what he ordered ) into her breast pocket oh not so gently.

I'm emailing him as we speak and will be calling the magazine after I get a response.

I think Mike Young kind've sums it up above, but I really don't care either way.

[Mike Erdmann]

I think what some are losing sight of here is that all clubs , private and public, have the right to do whatever they want in regards to raters.  There are plenty of public and private clubs, both on the top 100 lists and nowhere close, that don't extend any priviliges to raters at all.  Some comp the rater, some charge the accompanied guest rate, some charge the unaccompanied fee.  Some let a guest join the rater, some don't.  There's no obligation on the part of any club to extend anything they don't feel like extending.

[Craig Sweet]

In all this discussion no one has given a single reason WHY we should be rating golf courses in the first place. What possible practical purpose does it serve?

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne and Mike:

Please point to where I ever said magazine panelists should get privileges that members should not.

We're being hosted by the club.  We may ask if we can bring another with us.  The club either says yes, or no.

What privileges are we getting that members do not?

Please.  It's you guys, not me, who are making WAY too much of this.

But you will seem to believe whatever you want no matter what I say.

So we can end this.  My attempts at shedding some light on this darkness have failed.

Oh well....

As for the rest of the process, should we be comped, how should the votes be tallied, etc. etc. etc. it's all been discussed so many previous times in here, it gives new meaning to the term "ad nauseam."  So I'll step out of the debate, where no common ground has ever been found.

Cheers and best to you.

Tom H.

[Jim Franklin]

this just keeps getting better.
(Note I'm not trying to indict raters but this does make good sportreading)
When bullying my shop attendant for a cart, the rater stated
"I can make or break a golf course"
(somewhat hard to when a course is sold out and the owner doesn't care whether I let raters play or not)

at the 1/2 way house-"Do you know who I am?"
Then proceeds to help himself to snacks,sandwiches, beers,etc. without paying and tells the girl he's "a friend of mine"
Makes multiple incoherant inappropriate remarks concluding with "If you want it baby it's right here so come and get it"
as he stuffs a $10 bill (which wouldn't sniff what he ordered ) into her breast pocket oh not so gently.

I'm emailing him as we speak and will be calling the magazine after I get a response.

I think Mike Young kind've sums it up above, but I really don't care either way.

Jeff -

You are kidding aren't you? Who acts like this in the 21st century? I hope, if it is true, he was a GW guy and not a GD guy. That is ridiculous and the magazine should be called at once.

[wsmorrison]

Wayne and Mike:

Please point to where I ever said magazine panelists should get privileges that members should not.

I don't recall you saying that nor do I suggest that you did.  What I did suggest is that it happens and yet should never happen.  It remains true, whether you advocate it or not, that rankers do get privileges not extended to members.

We're being hosted by the club.  We may ask if we can bring another with us.  The club either says yes, or no.

It is quite simple.  In the mind of many clubs and courses, rankings mean quite a lot.  There can be a lot on the line for new courses, second or third-tier courses, publics and resorts.  Just because you ask for permission and leave it up to the clubs, doesn't mean it is right to do so.  There is a perceived leverage on the rankers part (and it is partially so judging by the behavior of some rankers and some clubs) and any request, benign or not, is likely to be granted.  The ranker is taking advantage of a situation whether or not the request is made and true whether or not the added access request is granted.

What privileges are we getting that members do not?

Free play for yourself and buddies.  Members don't get that and member guests don't get that.

Please.  It's you guys, not me, who are making WAY too much of this.

It is you and your fellow rankers that don't have the big picture.  In general rankers seek privileges and entitlements for a service that is valueless.

But you will seem to believe whatever you want no matter what I say.

Not true.

So we can end this.  My attempts at shedding some light on this darkness have failed.

Yes, they have.

...Cheers and best to you.

Tom H.

And to you.  Just because I disagree with you and the validity and value of the ranking process doesn't mean we can't be friends.

[Michael Christensen]

jeff,

who is this guy, John Kerry???  He has just about copyrighted the "do you know who I am?" comment!

[Tom Huckaby]

Two can play this game, and since this is more civil than it first appeared, I shall soldier on.



Wayne and Mike:

Please point to where I ever said magazine panelists should get privileges that members should not.

I don't recall you saying that nor do I suggest that you did.  What I did suggest is that it happens and yet should never happen.  It remains true, whether you advocate it or not, that rankers do get privileges not extended to members.

I still don't see what privileges we are getting that members do not.  Do you mean comps?  OK, fair enough.  Just do note that I said several times I pay for all fees when I am allowed to do so.  So delete that, my friend.  If a  course offers a comp, it's at times difficult to pay even if one wants to.  I have tried and been rebuffed.

We're being hosted by the club.  We may ask if we can bring another with us.  The club either says yes, or no.

It is quite simple.  In the mind of many clubs and courses, rankings mean quite a lot.  There can be a lot on the line for new courses, second or third-tier courses, publics and resorts.  Just because you ask for permission and leave it up to the clubs, doesn't mean it is right to do so.  There is a perceived leverage on the rankers part (and it is partially so judging by the behavior of some rankers and some clubs) and any request, benign or not, is likely to be granted.  The ranker is taking advantage of a situation whether or not the request is made and true whether or not the added access request is granted.

so you tell me then, if they do want to participate in the ranking process - and most clubs do - how are we panelists supposed to access a course without asking for permission?  Do you really think we have member friends at every club we need to see?  And do you really not get the concept of being a guest of the club?  

What privileges are we getting that members do not?

Free play for yourself and buddies.  Members don't get that and member guests don't get that.

But I said several times I pay.  I'll assume going forward you can read, though you are making it difficult to have much faith in that assumptiuon.  

Please.  It's you guys, not me, who are making WAY too much of this.

It is you and your fellow rankers that don't have the big picture.  In general rankers are infected by privilege and entitlement for a service that is valueless.

That's an awful tall statement for something I do about 3-4 times a year, if that.  I don't doubt SOME are infected as you say, but my point remains the vast majority of us do treat this with honor and do recognize the privileges we are extended.  Are you aware we write thank you notes each and every time?  Well, at least I do and most I've talked to do... But if you want to continue to focus on the bad apples, feel free.

But you will seem to believe whatever you want no matter what I say.

Not true.
I see little evidence to make me back away from my statement.

So we can end this.  My attempts at shedding some light on this darkness have failed.

Yes, they have.
Agreed.  Closed minds rarely open.

...Cheers and best to you.

Tom H.

And to you.  Just because I disagree with you and the validity and value of the ranking process doesn't mean we can't be friends.
That's good to hear, although if I am to choose friends, my preference is for those with open minds and not a slavish desire to prove a point that's been beaten down ad nauseam as it is.  Here's hoping you aren't what you seem in this thread, which I am fully prepared to believe.

[Mike_Young]

Tom H,
Tie ball game......
Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H,
Tie ball game......
Mike

Mike, I'll take that, as I rarely even get to that level.

 

[Andy Troeger]

Mike E. makes the point I'd been thinking as I read though this. Each club has the right to have whatever policy they like regarding raters and rating. As raters, we should always follow the policy of the club. I think Tom H. has already made any other points I could think to add.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

While you pay fees and expenses, I was not referring to just yourself, but rankers in general.  If my comments implied that I was aiming at you specifically, I apologize because I did not meant to do that.  Anyone that gets comped in the ranking process is getting something members and member guests do not get.  That is not fair and I do not wish to subsidize that process.  There are exceptions to any of my general comments, however you come across as exceptional in your integrity and willingness to play the ranking game in a fair manner.

"so you tell me then, if they do want to participate in the ranking process - and most clubs do - how are we panelists supposed to access a course without asking for permission?  Do you really think we have member friends at every club we need to see?  And do you really not get the concept of being a guest of the club?"

My comment, which sparked this reply, was about a rankers request to bring along a friend or friends.  Nothing more or less than that.

"That's an awful tall statement for something I do about 3-4 times a year, if that.  I don't doubt SOME are infected as you say, but my point remains the vast majority of us do treat this with honor and do recognize the privileges we are extended.  Are you aware we write thank you notes each and every time?  Well, at least I do and most I've talked to do... But if you want to continue to focus on the bad apples, feel free."

I changed the way I phrase the point that resulted in this reply.  Again, there are good guys and bad guys in this process.  I say the process has little to no merit, not every participant.  Regardless of the number of times a year a panelist participates, I still don't think it has value.  Please tell me how a top private club benefits from the ranking process.  Again, I said second and third-tier privates, new courses and public/resort courses can benefit (and they usually bend over turn around and smile while being used) thus providing leverage to the rankers and the abuses that occasionally takes place (though not by you).

I guess I have repeated myself enough as well.  We do not see eye to eye on this subject.  You are a ranker and I'm not.  It is no surprise, given your high road approach that you take that you think there is value in what you do.  I am not a ranker and chose not to be one.  I have a different perspective, but mine is not invested in the process and thus has the potential for impartial objectivity.  I may have failed in your mind.