[Craig Sweet]

Personally, I could care less about their ratings and who rates what...as a reader of many golf magazines, architecturally wise I don't want what reads like hype and gushing and the "oh my god you have to play this course" kind of crap.

[Craig Sweet]

John, that's interesting that you should even care what the other guy is doing...unless of course you have money riding on the match...in fact, I pity the person that is so wrapped up in "the rules of the game" that they can't go out and enjoy the game and their friends free of worrying about scores, cheating etc...

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks John..totally see the conflict.
I thought there was some direct conflict with the noose I was missing.
I do think raters in general should be able to view a course beyond an editors involvemnet though..naive maybe?

You really can't prove bias any easier than proving racist intent.  The best a magazine can do is eliminate the question.  That is why these topics are related.

[Joe Hancock]

John,

I did not say I quit BECAUSE of cheats. I said, I had quit playing tournament golf. I also have witnessed cheating.

I quit because I'm not good enough.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

John, that's interesting that you should even care what the other guy is doing...unless of course you have money riding on the match...in fact, I pity the person that is so wrapped up in "the rules of the game" that they can't go out and enjoy the game and their friends free of worrying about scores, cheating etc...

I had money on the match.  We were playing for so little that when weighing the cost of causing a conflict and ruining the day against the three or four dollars I decided to let it go.  My threshold for calling people out begins with Mr. Jackson.  Funny thing, Jackson is famous for cheating at dueling.

[tlavin]

The game represents integrity and responsibility.  It is one of the few "games" that is largely self-policing.  The stories of players calling themselves on rules violations are far too numerous to even begin to discuss.  A person with integrity and a sense of responsibility who makes an error that offends people and offends people's sensibility about the game that they cover should make an apology.  Golfweek's editor made a mistake.  His employer canned him.  Whether you think the penalty was too harsh or not harsh enough or perfectly appropriate, there is still room for apology.  Its apology didn't follow the time-honored non-apology route of apologizing "if" anybody "was offended", in straightforward fashion, they said the cover "offended our readers, advertisers", etcetera.  If somebody doesn't want to accept that apology or if they want to lampoon the situation, or if somebody wants to continue to swing brickbats, we always have the First Amendment at the ready.

Terry,

I hope I am not casting an image of glee over this situation, lampooning, or throwing brickbats because that may show a lack of character on my part.  I will admit that I am never interested in apologies because they are too easy to produce.  They say they are going to change, I don't believe them because I don't know how they can.  I am sorry but I don't think they are.

John:

Well, if given the choice, I'll vote for brazenly provocative!

Terry

[John Kavanaugh]

Terry,

Next time you are in court why not take 30% of an apology for your fee.  I think we are close in what each of us thinks these apologies are worth.

[tlavin]

Terry,

Next time you are in court why not take 30% of an apology for your fee.  I think we are close in what each of us thinks these apologies are worth.

I always hold out for a full third (33 1/3%).  In fact, I'm horrible at math, but I'm like Rainman at dividing numbers by three.

On an unrelated note, there's a doctor's group that's pushing apologies to avoid malpractice suits.  It's called, "Sorry Works".  Not for me, it doesn't...

[John Kavanaugh]

Could someone please name exactly what Golfweek does so we might discuss what they can change.    

[Jeff Doerr]

Could someone please name exactly what Golfweek does so we might discuss what they can change.    

John,

As a subscriber, GW is a fun read for me each week. I like catching up on a number of aspects of competitive golf, the golf industry, and various courses/architecture. I also like their edge and approach in a lot of ways. AND, I like that they don't tend to clutter my mind with 50 new swing thoughts per issue!

What can they do to change? I think Chip Gaskins pointed in a strong direction with his post of the columnists. Will they seek out more diversity among their staff? We'll see. For that matter, will other media in the golf industry seek it out? Golf is still an "old boys (and white boys at that) club" in a lot of ways and places.

[JESII]

Could someone please name exactly what Golfweek does so we might discuss what they can change.    

They do tournament scoring so much better than the second best publication it's not even worth mentioning...and they separated the classic from the modern so my course made it into the top 100...

[John Moore II]

JES-I agree, I think that the way they break up the rankings of courses makes for a better rating. Its really hard to compare old courses with modern ones, I think. They are designed for far different times.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

You say...."Golf is still an "old boys (and white boys at that) club" in a lot of ways and places."
A few years ago I was involved with several prominent black men that wished to start a black Country Club in Atlanta....they could not make it work....they just could not find enough interest......GOLFWEEK...what can they do architecturally?  nothing.....Time is what will calm this down.....if i was Dave Senor or others involved I would be working on a clone of Golfweek as we speak.....and if I was golfweek I would just change my name and continue.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()