[JESII]

Mark,

I know you can make a difference in the rankings...that wasn't intended to be the question...I thought I asked what you could possibly do positively FOR GOLF through the ranking process?

If you're trying to tell me moving one course up the rankings is a net positive I'd remind you it's a zero sum game...only 100 courses in the top 100...when you move one in, you also move one out...

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
What is a positive difference - How about down grading courses that are "over-maintained" and/or look artificial or contrived in appearance as a result of excessive manicuring, over watering, over grooming of hazards,...!  Granted this is personal preference and left to the individual club's discretion.  However, if we want to make a difference and maybe start a trend toward more economical and sensible maintenance practices, this could help.  If for example, you've read any of my post's about bunker maintenance (upwards of 25% or more of super's budgets) or looked through our hazards book, you would know where I stand on that particular issue.  

[JESII]

Mark,

That would be an interesting conversation with the panel heads for each magazine...which courses have been bumped off due to being over-manicured? Which are on a list on the basis of their lean maintenance routine?

[Adam Clayman]

Adam — But, what if the magazines and those in charge of ratings are not so inclined to push panelists to a particular course? What then?

Forrest, This question of yours does not compute.
 The magazine provides a list of courses on the ballot. (1500+)
 They are brokendown state by state. Some courses are marked "Priority" which means they need votes for stastical purposes. GW does not push us anywhere. Throughout the year we get emails that sometimes contains a list of courses that are either new to the ballot or have made a request to the magazine to inform their raters they would be welcome to visit their course, for reasons we've already covered.

Raters are encouraged and able to make reccomendations to add a specific course to the ballot.

GW does not push. Maybe others do. If so, I would have no idea, what then.

[Andy Troeger]

Many people keep saying they won't get a chance to rate some courses if there wasn't a system that is in place like the one we have.  I say, then perhaps some folks on the rating panel should be dropped if they can't get the job done.  Its more important to have integrity in the system then to allow comped (ie potentially compromised ratings) golf.

I don't think you lot are getting it yet.  

Sean,
Since I don't get it, I'm just wondering what category should I give the extra points to next time I get a discount or comped round? Ambiance seems to be the most likely but maybe shot "values" would be better.  

Not meaning to pick on you individually but yours was the easiest post to use to make my point. These rating threads get a bit too serious sometimes.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I think you might not get my point...I don't care if a course is 58 or 93 so the guy that got comped and gave a higher review because of it didn't effect my life at all...I also don't think that rating effects anyone other than the club itself.

I would be interested in hearing an indivuduals personal list with explanations.

Sully

That is exactly what I want - A Michelin approach to rating courses - their system just about lock stock and barrel.  There is no ranking number or set number of courses which earn stars.  If good enough, the course gets a star of some sort (1-3) and an explanation/description which helps the reader understand why the course & club (because ambience is an influential factor) as a tandem are great not only from a playing perspective, but also from an experience level.  Some courses get get recommended that presumably are just short of a star but there is less detail about their merits included - its sort of a red flagging for interested parties and may indicate what is up and coming and what is down and out.  

I am not interested in the breakdown of shot values and all that stuff either because its all mumbo jumbo to "scientifically" justify a rating for a course which players know from experience is great.  A tabulation of of numbers doesn't mean anything.  I am much more interested in a bit of background and general impressions backed up with specific examples.  Think something like the Legendary Courses.... series, but a bit more critical/analytical.  

Ciao

[David_Madison]

Sean,

I believe that GD publishes a book called "Places to Play" which is a star-based rating of courses that the public has access to. Don't know how those ratings are compiled, but I do believe that panelist ratings are included in the mix.  

[Mike_Young]

From reading this website for a few years I can tell you there are at least two things in the golf business where the barrier to entry is almost zero.  Those things are becoming a rater and stating that one is a golf architect.  As for those of us that are golf architects..I think now maybe a website is required.  But at least I admit the barriers for doing what I do.  But delving a little further.....I have many good friends who are raters....and these guys never really tell anyone.....I am sure the majority of the raters on this site fit into such category.  I don't think it matters to them whether their name is known or not. It will not change anything.  And then there is the 5%, or maybe less, who actually get into the rater stuff and start taking themselves seriously.  We all know these guys when we see them and their self importance when they come into a shop or onto a course.  They will take whatever you will give them.  What I don't think most people understand is how big of a business the "rating game" is to the real estate projects and the magazine advertising guys.  And this is not saying all mags.
There are companies that do nothing more than work with projects to help them get a #1 rating ...or a "best new"......IMHO random raters that are taken off of the street due to an interest in golf are a much better cross section than those that may hold a position in the golf business and "understand" the importance of rating to a particular mag.....The rating business is money and nothing more for most mags....it really doesn't matter if the raters are known or not....the results will be what they need to be.....I apologize if some see this cynical.....PROVE me wrong.....

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,

I believe that GD publishes a book called "Places to Play" which is a star-based rating of courses that the public has access to. Don't know how those ratings are compiled, but I do believe that panelist ratings are included in the mix.  

David,
You could rate courses for the Places to Play guide if you wanted. Just go to the GD website and do a little searching and the link has always been pretty easy for me to spot. The star rankings take a lot into account though other than quality golf architecture but it truly is a rating by the average golfer. Unfortunately as time has gone by the star ratings have inflated somewhat so there are a lot of 4 star courses (out of 5) that don't distinguish between really good courses and the middle of the pack.

[wsmorrison]

Let's take David's suggestion a step further along his natural progression and have it that no one pay for golf.  In this way, the raters won't be unfairly privileged and the members would have nothing at all to complain about except the closing of their courses due to checks bouncing.  But hey, that wouldn't be for a couple of months at least.  

Panelists request that a private club grant them special privileges that are not only unavailable to all other non-members but also unavailable to the members' guests.  This situation only exists because the clubs hope that it will benefit them.  Often this creates a conflict because not only do they grant access not allowed to others, they add another layer of perks and often don't charge the panelists or discount the charges, a benefit which isn't grantedto member guests.  

Don't any panelists (and this site is chock-full of them) see a problem with that?  If not, they are to enmeshed in the process to think objectively on the subject.  The patent response is that  they pay for airfare, rental cars and hotels.  Who gives a rat's ass?  So does every other out of town guest.  It is a decision made freely and without coercion.   The panelists seek access they are not entitled to.  If granted, they should at least pay for it like everyone else.  Ideally, the clubs and magazines should work together (obviously the leverage is on the ratings side) and mandate that raters only play with members and always pay the typical guest fees.  

It is very simple.  No panelists get freebies or discounts or unaccompanied play unless the club allows it and only then at the going unaccompanied rate with the responsibility for the rater falling on a member or committee's account.  

It is shocking that David is strangely wondering why no one suggests that issues disappear if no rater ever pays?  Getting something for free is influential when everyone else has to pay and you don't not merely if you have to pay for it under other circumstances.  I can't tell if he was being satirical or sincere.  I hope it is the former because the later has no support whatsoever.  

[Andy Troeger]

Wayne,
I think Shivas' post had at least some element of sarcasm in it, but that's just me.

Remember, panelists should never ask for a complementary or discounted green fee at any course. I think that applies across the board.

[wsmorrison]

Andy,

I hope you're right and I expect he was being sarcastic.  I remember that a panelist should not ask for compliments or discounts but I think the clubs and magazines should go well beyond that and mandate that these are never granted or accepted.  Anything less brings in the element of conflict and whether perceived or realized, this needs to be factored out completely.

Hey, I admit as a member of a private club that I don't want panelists getting comped or discounted while my friends (who I vouch for) or I have to pay.  There, I said it.  I wish panelists would be half as honest as that and recognize (even the one's with the highest motives) that it is unfair and a conflict or the very least a potential one.  They can't even do that.

By the way, Mike Young's post was right on target.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
The "places to play" guide with its star-based ratings seems to be what you want.  It might also be what Mike Young thinks is a better rating system as well given his comment that he believes, "random raters that are taken off of the street due to an interest in golf are a much better cross section".  Most of the ratings come from golfers like this as anyone can contribute to it.  

I really don't think the majority of raters would care if they get charged to play.  They expect to pay anyway and always offer to do so.  Many show up under the radar and clubs don't even know they are getting reviewed.  They get on through a friend or the Superintendent or someother manner without ever revealing that they are a panelist.  It is interesting, however, that there must be half the current Top 100 clubs that are "seeking out panelists" because they are concerned they don't have enough votes and not enough guys are visiting them.  Why they care is a whole different discussion.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have an idea....lets just require that every course wanting to be considered COMP all of the raters and then there shouldn't be a problem!  The playing field should be level.  

Mr.(DR.) Bryant suggested a parallel with the drug reps and the rating panelists.  Drug Reps are being compensated greatly for their work and the "freebies" offered by the drug companies are expensive bribes where everyone is profiting greatly.  

Rating panelists are for the most part avid hobbyists who are spending pretty good money travelling from one place to another on their own buck.  To think the majority of them(us) are lacking the integrity to make some informed comment is ludicrous.  Ask some of those who have showed lack of good judgement who are no longer card carrying raters what this can cost them.  

What bothers me most about this conversation is the level of criticism.  This isn't the START talks or a solution to world hunger.  This is an industry seeking critiques in an effort to get some marketing and in the process to benefit the industry.  An industry, I might add, that isn't very healthy.  

I will admit that in my 11 years as a rating panelist, I have received comped rounds, and paid for many. I have received a few shirts (less than five that were all part of some other event, should I burn them as an offering to the GCA thought police?).  I would like to think that a bribe for my opinion would cost quite a bit more.  

Mr. Brauer asked whether the panelists should be identifed, instead this has become yet another way to pound the comped round issue.  What disturbs me more is that this website was once a place of serious discussion and it is now all too often a rerun of the Jerry Springer Show.

[wsmorrison]

WH Cosgrove,

My observation is that panelists have thin skins when they are confronted with unfair practices at private clubs that benefit them and their magazines.  OK, the clubs decide to act as they do, but why is that?  If the magazines and clubs worked together to establish a standard, would you have a problem with that even if it meant no comps or discounts and accompanied play?

What bothers me is that some panelists have a complete lack of understanding that those outside the process, the ones without a vested interest, may have some valid points.  

The only reason the entire enterprise exists is because of an assumed benefit to the clubs that are trying to stay viable.  In this tougher economic condition, the pressure on them is even greater.  Don't you think this environment presents even more opportunities for conflicts?

If you think that this discussion degenerates to the point of a Jerry Springer show, then your sense of perspective is in need of adjustment.  Certainly panelists aren't as bad as the guests he has on his show  

[Adam Clayman]

Not that I feel as though I 've seen it all... but, when I have been invited to different private clubs they all have their own unique policies and pricing structure.
 One member told me to call the club and see if they are receptive to panelists. His reasoning was if I didn't, it was gonna cost somebody $150.
 In another case, I was invited to play, but the member had run out of his "cheap tickets" for guests.  So he too asked me to contact the club as a panelist knowing they would be receptive to comping my round(s). In another case the same issue with the lower price of guest rounds was exhausted. Rather than question the policy I just paid the member for my round assuming it was what he was charged for it. How do I know I wasn't scalped? I don't. Do I care? Not really, other than if I was lied to, I would care about that.  In any of the above scenarios, Did it affect my rating of the golf course? Not one iota.

Now, let's get to some deeper questions about the industry, specifically pricing. Why do course comp anyone? I'd say partly due to protocols and partly due to the real economics inherent in golf. It does not cost the course to comp yet, Pricing is out of control. Thanks to RJ at Pebble Beach we all pay a higher fee wherever we golf. Does it cost the club any money to comp individuals? I'd say it's neglible to nothing in real terms. Sure there's a chance for a lost opportuity cost, but once again, most of these clubs costs are sunk and only have the maintenance and f&b to subsidize. Lowerng the costs to their members, maybe?

Golf really does not fit into models well. does it? Under normal circumstances the price should be dropping, not rising. The glut of courses with shrinking demand should create a pricing war. Has it? Surely not at the green fee level.

[Mark_Fine]

Quite a few panelists are PGA professionals.  If I am not mistaken, there is a common courtesy among clubs to comp such individuals when then visit to play golf.  Do you force these guys to pay so their review of the course is not compromised    Or maybe you just kick them off the panels and pull someone off the street to replace them  

[Andy Troeger]

Wayne,
Who ever said much of anything in life, let alone golf, let alone magazine panelists, was fair? I think I understand your viewpoint and certainly respect it though, even my father grumbles at me for some of the opportunities that I've had. I feel very fortunate to have the time and ability to play golf and see as many courses as I do. Hopefully my viewpoint adds something to the finished lists in promoting good golf courses and architecture.

Adam makes very strong points IMO as to why clubs act the way they do. In some way THEY must feel its worth their while. The ones that don't want panelists have no requirement to allow us at all.

Would there even be a GCA.com or much interest in golf course architecture without these lists? I know that being a fan of lists in general its how I was introduced to the topic. I would guess some others could say the same.

[Adam Clayman]

Andy, Ran's own evolution and history tells us that it was some list, that prompted the discussions amongst his family.

While I consider it a travesty that PR firms, like the one I posted, have the gaul to hint at their prowess in manipulating golf course magazine ratings. I would defend to death their right to do it. But as ol' Abe Lincoln use to say,,, You can fool some of the people some of the time...

I've always believed that what goes around comes around.

[Mark_Fine]

Ran has been a panelist for a long time.  Does anyone really think that he would change his reviews depending on whether he gets comped or not.  I don't think so and I feel the same way about others.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

I have already established that I understand that professional courtesy is and should be extended to golf professionals, superintendents and general managers.  These industry insiders have nothing at all to do with panelists.  I doubt very much you believe there is a connection and thus the wink and smile guys.

Then you bring up specific individuals with recognized integrity.  This doesn't have anything to do with the general principle I advocate either.

You skirt around the issue when it is plain and simple.  You try to make it complex when it isn't.

[Mike_Cirba]

What I'd like to see more of here is simply this;

Instead of another post about raters, why don't we discuss ratings?

For instance, if graft, bribery, and general lack of integrity are wholesale issues amongst raters of various publications as seems to be the contention here, then that should be obvious from the highly tainted and suspect ratings.

I can only speak for Golfweek, but their ratings of Classic and Modern courses (as well as public "state" listings) are posted on their website.

Can anyone point out some of the obvious, financially-influenced flaws?

I suspect raters from Golf Magazine and Golf Digest would also want to put their same ratings to the sniff test as a defense against their own individual and collective integrity, but for now, I'll be happy to discuss any Golf Week course rating with anyone and tell you why I think it is where it is in the ratings.

Before we cast aspersions or call into question the general moral fiber of any group, I think we should produce hard evidence, lest we find some nameless, faceless "raters" guilty of some imaginary crime.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
The reason I bring up those groups is because many of them ARE panelists!  How do you propose handling them as people who are out there reviewing courses for the rankings?  Do you charge them if they are there to review a course?  Also, why is their integrity any different than that of any other panelist?  They are not panelists because someone forced it upon them.  Furthermore, if a panelist abuses their position they don't last long!  

Mike makes a good point.  Show some evidence before making blanket accusations against a large group.  

[Bart Bradley]

Ok, my second 2 cents.

Rankings are useful...for numerous reasons.

Most raters are probably men/women of integrity.

Receiving something for free gives, at least, the impression of impropriety (if the person receiving the freebie has some control/valuable opinion etc over the gifting party).

The rankings are affected little by the freebies (but probably a little)...so there is not some gross misranking to discuss.

Revealing the names of the panelists would probably make very little difference in the final outcomes of the rankings but might make it better or worse to be a panelist.

Those of us who are not panelists wish we had access to the great private courses that are not accessible through our current connections.

If receiving freebies does affect the rankings of some panelists, then the other money that panelist does or doesn't spend to rank courses is irrelevant.

The golf digest way of ranking courses "you can play" is not nearly as helpful as the panelist rankings.  Grade inflation and overall lack of perspective leads to clumping of the course ratings in such a way that you cannot tell the difference between a Doak 4/5 and a Doak 7 by the "5 stars" method.  I have clearly played Doak 4/5's with 4 stars (UGGHHH).

We should be generally grateful for the men/women of integrity for the job they do ranking courses and not treat them with disrespect unless they (a particular individual) has earned it.

It is interesting the disparity of the TOP 100 lists and I have always been curious as to why?

All right...good luck.

Bart

[wsmorrison]

Last post on this thread.

Mark,

If you will please consider the structure of my consistent argument, you would know that I wouldn't treat anybody differently be they Ran, Mike Cirba or anyone else.  That is the crux of my whole argument.  You on the other hand advocate that one group, panelists, merit different treatment than is given anyone else other than industry insiders including professionals, superintendents and general managers.  Fact check.  Panelists are not industry insiders.  Sorry.

This isn't, as Bart Bradley suggests, a matter of disrespect.  It is a matter of recognizing a process that is flawed and discriminate in its execution.  

As for demonstrating evidence before "making blanket accusations against a large group."  I am not inclined to do so.  I am arguing against the process and privileges more so than the results, no matter what the results are.

I don't value the product highly so I am bound to be disinclined to award favors and favoritism towards the participants.  It doesn't matter what percentage of panelists demonstrate integrity, the process isn't worth any special treatment irrespective of the quality of the panelists.  You, as a participant, disagree.  I get it.


Mike,

I hope you understand that even if there is a lack of linkage between rankings and comping, I still don't think it is a good idea.  I am not pointing fingers or lumping everyone in the same category.  

By the way, some of the lists contain enough head-scratchers that indicate a flaw in the system be it internal or external.  Of all the mag systems, I believe GW has the best system.

Like Sully, I'd rather hear your analysis of courses or Ran's or Mark's.  That's a lot more meaningful than a compiled list of people I don't know or understand their tastes.  Although in Mark's case, his preference for Lehigh over Rolling Green leaves a lot to be desired  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()