Magazine raters and the oldest profession......

[THuckaby2]

Rob, that is how I plan to tackle this, exactly.  Thank you very much for expressing it so perfectly.

TH

[Rick_Arnett]

This is a great question. Actually, I've never seen a negative course review. Why? Because most media members love playing free golf. A negative review almost cinches you as a curmudgeon and unlikely to be invited back. Forget the word "review" and insert "feature" instead. In addition, many features are thinly veiled advertisements and magazines hate missing out on future ad revenue.  One would be wise when "reviewing" to still give honest assessments on what type golfer (ability) would enjoy playing the course.  That's not slamming the course, but advertising to the correct group

[John_Conley]

Rick Arnett:

What course reviews are you reading?  I'm always amazed that Ron Whitten is as harsh as he is when I read his Thursday feature for courses he doesn't like.

Dr. Klein isn't always as rosy as the PR types probably want, either.

I don't think your point is valid unless you only read "Links" or similar local publications.

[Brad Klein]

There are two separate issues here, not to be confused.
It's one thing how to handle yourself when on site, talking with your hosts, and making post-round chatter. I always think it's good to be polite, but never to lie or mislead.

It's quite another to write a review in which you are honest, analytical snd critical. Only a very small perecentage of you ever get to do that. I dare anybody to go back over the hundreds of reviews I've written in Golfweek and my Best/Worst columns there and tell me that I've been mindlessy upbeat and rosy. That's certainly not how those are read in the industry. To his credit, I don't think even Ron Whitten could be accused of that. I can't vouch the same for other national magazines.

Back to the experience that's more common. I think it's smart to be polite - the "what do you think of my wife" analogy is pretty good. Of course, most people aren't dumb enough to ask that - my wife, Jane,  is wonderful, smart. pretty and I know it as does everybody else by the way, and so I never need to ask. But people are dumb enough to ask it in golf, and you have to know that when they do, they rarely expect a real answer. Sometimes, they do take you aside and ask "what did you really think." Here's my suggestion how to handle that:

1) be polite. don't lle. I it's awful, I'll say, "It's an amazing piece of land for golf," or "Some really fine holes out there, but a few awakward ones as well." Not more than that the first go around.

2) If they seem to really want to know, the conversation has to take place quietly, not in publuc view (never in the pro shop, better in the bar over a drink). Then a somewhat more detailed assessment of strengths and weaknesses can take place. But it never helps to say outright "it stinks." I don't care how bad a course is, if that's your reaction, then you shouldn't be a rater. Our job is to make distinctions, draw from experience, and distinquish strengths and weaknesses. Which is not to say that everything is good or wonderful.

[Tom Doak]

The most cornered I've ever felt was when trying to get a "sneak preview" of Whistling Straits (from Mrs. Lisa Morrissett), and running smack into Pete Dye and Herb Kohler, who were out for their first 18-hole round on the yet-to-be-opened design.

Mr. Kohler asked what I thought, and I told him I was just there to see if all the rumors I'd heard were true, and they were.

In truth, the course was so raw I really couldn't form a good opinion of it, and I still haven't been back.  But that answer was good enough for my hosts!

[rater]

Joel:

I am not going anywhere in particular, but I must say that I have heard any number of excoriating reviews of courses in this forum and have yet to read a review in one of the widely read golf magazines that comes close to what we write here. My point, can George Peper, or his fellow proprietors, allow a really negative view to be shared?

Raters and writers are totally different people with totally different restraints, needs and goals.

Raters can render whatever opinion they want.  There is no consequence, they do not write, their votes just get put in hte ballot box.

Raters who write obviously have some conflict.

[Brad Klein]

What conflict? Maybe different functions, but a conflicting one?

[Anthony Pioppi]

For me there is one tried and true response. When asked what I thought of a course that I did not like I always say, "I had a great time."

It's true. I love playing golf and I love visiting new courses. I've played some stinkers, but still had a damn good time especially if I'm with friends.

AP

[Gib_Papazian]

You can easily be a writer and a rater at the same time. You just need to make sure you keep straight which hat you have on.  

#1. As a rater: If your host asks you what you thought of the golf course after you have finished, it does no good to spit out some kind of non-specific generalization like:

"The golf course sucks, your clubhouse looks like a nouveau riche NBA player designed it, and by the way, tell your wife she ought to spend her money on plastic surgery instead of  hair bleach."

What is to be gained from that? Chances are, if you took the time to come look at a golf course, there are some positive aspects to it.

How about phrasing it this way:

"You know, I really liked the overall pacing of the golf course and was particularly impressed by the short par-5's on the back nine. The only thing that confused me a bit is the forced carry into the green on the three longest uphill par-4's on the course."

#2. When writing about a golf course - particularly a CCFAD that charges lots of money to play - YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO YOUR READERSHIP TO TELL THE TRUTH.

That said, let's face reality. The average newspaper golf writer is an idiot. He does not know good from bad or eye-candy from strategy. What is worse, because he has never put his hand in his pocket to do anything but fondle his genitals, he has no concept of how aggravating it is for a public player to cough up a C-note because some golf writer said it was good, only to disappointed.

When I review a golf course - and I do two-dozen a year - I tell the reader exactly what he can expect both good and bad. That is what reviewers are supposed to do.

And if it pisses off the owners, tough shit. I would rather annoy them with the truth than lie to my readers - many of whom look to me for guidance on where to play.

If one of them has a bad experience and e-mails or writes me, I find out if there has been some change at the facility and warn everyone if appropriate.

Cost is a factor too. If the fees are 30 dollars, I tell the reader not to expect perfect conditions, but if the architecture has some strong points, I make sure to highlight them. Otherwise, how are they ever going to learn?

#3. I do not review private clubs as often. However, when a club remodels - such as the Donald Ross restoration at Peninsula CC by Ron Forse, or Lake Merced's Rees redo, I give my honest opinion.

Boulder Ridge and Mayacama have gotten a bit of space, but most of readers are not going to cough up $250,000 to join a club well over an hour away.

I did not make any friends a couple months ago with a piece on the plummetting initiation fees at the big dollar clubs in Northern California. But there is blood in the water and no point in not letting my readers know of a potential opportunity.  

[BV]

What conflict? Maybe different functions, but a conflicting one?

Some writers, present company excluded.  You don't pull any punches and I give you credit for that.

All who simultaneously write and rate are not so intellectually honest.

Enough kissing up.  

[RJ_Daley]

How about a little "devil's advocate" here?  BH asks about the comparability of golf raters and the oldest profession.  But there is another distinction between these two activities in my mind.  A rater is sampling an experience, and a prosti is providing one.  Oh yeah, we can discuss the aspects of courtesy and diplomacy with the host club's owners and officials to be rated.  And, I agree that restrained efforts to be polite and courteous is always the way to proceed, without being overly effusive, ebulliant or on the other hand, condescending.  

But the ususal activity of a rater of courses often seems to follow the model of a one-night stand as in visiting the prostitute.  That one shot at the pleasures and delights of a golf course or a woman lends itself to the whole notion of the commercial aspects of a prostitute, does it not?  It may lead to the one time experience of euphoria, ecstacy, and unusual erotic delights, or turn out to be a bum lay or play.    But, such one-time encounters never seem to reveal the nature of the enduring factors that a long term relationship can provide.  How can the golf course rater discover anything more than first impression fleeting notions of the course in a one-time play over 70-90 strokes?  I don't think you can give a fair assessment unless you have some sort of long term, multiple visit relationship with the golf course, nor can you get the essence of a woman (even if she is a prosti) in one shot.  If you try to do either, you are not going to get a proper evaluation.  

[TEPaul]

This entire subject is just unbelievable to me--every time I see this subject it becomes more and more apparent to me why I feel this entire rating process in magazines just stinks!

I look at a guys like Klein or Whitten or Matt Ward or Gib Papazian or Joe Logan and I put them in another category than nonwriting raters simply because they write about golf architecture and they have to stand behind what they write as being good at analyzing golf courses and architecture or selling out their real opinions for other reasons.

They have to get out there and do an honest and credible job of explainimg architecture and what they feel about it or get criticized for not doing much of a job of it. For that criticism of what they say and write thank God again things like Golfclubatlas has arrived on the scene!

When they just rate (anonymously or otherwise) and don't write though I think if they're not willing to be totally honest about their feelings (as other raters who never write should be) the process stinks if they can't find the integrity to be blunt and honest about exactly what they feel either at the courses with those who own and run them or later in some report they file for the magazine, they should get the hell out of the rating process. If they don't they're doing nobody any good at all except maybe themselves.

This hackneyed cliche about telling someone honestly about their course and the architecture of their course is no different than telling them honestly about their wife is complete BS although, it sounds good. It sounds to me as if those who get the raters to their courses and the raters themselves both know, at this point, that no one even expects honest analysis anymore!

Who the hell is going to ask anyone to critique their wife? Who's going to ask someone to rate their wife compared to the wife sitting at the next table? Who cares about that unless the husband is planning on marketing his wife for some reason!

Many of you raters I have no doubt are very passionate about architecture and rating it and at the least you owe it to yourselves to be honest about your opinions and your knowledge--you owe it to architecture too. You have a great opportunity to be benefical to architecture and its future but if you can't be completely honest you lose that opportunity to be benefical and all your getting is the opportunity to play courses that you would not be able to otherwise play. At this point, that's exactly what more and more people are beginning to think of you anyway.

You can be honest about architecture of courses to the faces fo those that have a stake in it--being honest does not mean you're also impolite although so many of you have rationalized that to be the case! That's total BS and I for one know you know that.

Get out there and be honest with everyone who is interested and if you have some kind of problem with that while rating do what I did (for other reasons) and give it up!

Rating everything out there isn't even necessary. People want you to do it so they can sell magazines, tee times, memberships, lots, whatever!

My suggestion at this point is depend upon the local and national writers to rate golf courses, if rating is really that important, which I can scarcely see why it is. At least rating so many of them isn't.

Architectural analysis of courses and architecture is the important thing anyway, not the rating of courses against each other! What those writers should be doing anyway is writing in depth articles about the architecture of a particular golf course not even how it might compare to another one down the street or in the next state. To do that it's not necessary to see every golf course. Just as in the past it doesn't take that long to figure out what's really worthy of architectural analysis and maybe deserving of an article.

That's the way it used to be done and done well and that's how really quality architecture was helped in getting  identified and why.

All this entire rating process is good for is selling magazines--always has been and always will be the reason for rating.

These magazines are ranking these courses in numerical order and scarely even explaining why. How does that help the public understand architecture or what quality is?

Let these writers get out there and do less rating and more in depth writing about the architecture of the golf courses that deserve to be written about.

Oh, I forgot, that won't sell magazines will it? So just give the public a list that they can try to get on to play although they aren't real sure why they would want to do that!

[jeffwarne]

Here's an interesting bump for the past.with some classic GCA participants

edited for sanity..

[JMEvensky]

Well, contact person is nicer than "the guy who might let me schnorrer a free round".

[jeffwarne]

Well, contact person is nicer than "the guy who might let me schnorrer a free round".

contact person sounds icky in these turbulant times..
but better than "Wayne" (as my first name, after getting it right initially...)

[Steve Lapper]

Jeff,


   You are far from alone. It seems with the sizable and financially-motivated expansion of the GD and GW panels, this style (or lack thereof) of outreach is becoming noticeably more frequent.


   One prestigious club in my area finally taken to limiting the # of raters from GD and GW every season. As predicated years back, on the heels of Jerry Tarde's "Golden Ticket" note, club pros are inundated with requests....and so many of them tactless and almost borderline crass.


   The notion that "reporting" the offenders back to the publication and expecting them to self-police is ridiculous. If they throw one rater out for this behavior, they simply see it as one more chance to rapaciously sell another seat at the table...all with little eye towards longer-term reputation.


  Anyone want to take the over/under line on this type of situation finding it's way onto these pages again real soon?

[Mike Hendren]

Perhaps it's time for Bogey to post his own thread titled "The Life and Times of a Redneck Rater."

After a dozen years on the Golfweek panel I was appropriately dismissed for a lack of activity.  During that time I was only denied access once, primarily because I had the sense to know which club/course not to call.  I tended to focus on the so-called second tier clubs - the second or third hundred if you will, and those on the ballot that needed visits.  I found them to be more accommodating and appreciative and I felt more at home there than at many of the bigs (often due to my insecurities, not the club's lack of hospitality). 

I viewed the whole rating thing as being pretty harmless in the scheme of things - a first world issue if there ever was one.  Bob Segar sang it best:  I used her she used me but neither one cared.  We were getting our share.

When it was all said and done, I got a great education on golf architecture and closet full of hats and shirts that don't fit.

Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

I'd imagine that Bogey's approach, coupled with a letter/access request that focused on a desire to play the golf course instead of a promise to review it, would do wonders for all involved. It would get the process back to its roots (or what I'd like to think of as its roots), i.e. for the rater, the joy of experiencing a quality golf course for the first time; for the club owner/pro/member, the pleasure of generously sharing their little gem with an outsider who will appreciate the opportunity. The email that Wayne Jeff received might as well have said: "I value the chance to play your specific golf course not at all, I just need your help to fill my quota as a rater."
If I meet a man with the sole intention of picking his pocket, it's not likely I'll be able to see his many fine qualities as a person.
     

[jeffwarne]

Perhaps it's time for Bogey to post his own thread titled "The Life and Times of a Redneck Rater."

After a dozen years on the Golfweek panel I was appropriately dismissed for a lack of activity.  During that time I was only denied access once, primarily because I had the sense to know which club/course not to call.  I tended to focus on the so-called second tier clubs - the second or third hundred if you will, and those on the ballot that needed visits.  I found them to be more accommodating and appreciative and I felt more at home there than at many of the bigs (often due to my insecurities, not the club's lack of hospitality). 

I viewed the whole rating thing as being pretty harmless in the scheme of things - a first world issue if there ever was one.  Bob Segar sang it best:  I used her she used me but neither one cared.  We were getting our share.

When it was all said and done, I got a great education on golf architecture and closet full of hats and shirts that don't fit.

Bogey

It would seem to me that any publication worth its salt would welcome someone willing to experience , enjoy and rate the "second tier" clubs, providing a reliable analysis of lower demand courses while not streesing the system by requesting access at "in demand" courses.Besides if one ONLY plays Top 100's how does he know what a Top 100 is?

[SL_Solow]

My experience was not dissimilar to my friend Bogey's.  I came on the panel at Ran's request.  I never considered it to be a "big deal".  On all but two occasions I paid for my round ( I was a guest).  I thought that accepting a round for free would create the appearance that I lacked objectivity.  I found most of the raters I met to be well meaning and reasonably expert although there were a few "belt-notchers".  More recently, the panel appeared to be veering in the direction of a profit center and I decided to exit.  The ratings are fun from my perspective but many clubs/course owners take them quite seriously.  It can lead to abuses.

[Marty Bonnar]

Well, contact person is nicer than "the guy who might let me schnorrer a free round".

contact person sounds icky in these turbulant times..
but better than "Wayne" (as my first name, after getting it right initially...)

I’d particularly like to thank you for ‘War of the Worlds’. “The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, they said”..deedle deedle deedle dee dee, dee dee dee....
 
F.

[Lou_Duran]

I think I know from experience it is easier to give an honest course evaluation than a wife evaluation.

Many years ago at work a collegue(who was not very attractive himself) was always bragging about how attractive his wife was.  me being the only person who had met her always had to answer the inevetiable questions.  I was always polite and said "yes she is attractive" of course nothing could be further from the truth.

One day the guy voluntered that his wife was the former "miss New Jersey" and once again guys were asking me if this was true and i said the first thing that popped into my head "It must have been a war year"

I was never asked to offer an opinion again.

That must be an old saying as I heard it regarding a golfer who was borderline top 10 at his club, but prevailed over stronger competition in the club championship.  As I recall, this was what some said about Byron Nelson's record.


Great bunch of folks on this thread who no longer post here.  Our loss.


Jeff- from the other side's perspective, your club probably welcomes raters.  If it does, you may wish to cut them some slack.  A simple yes or no should suffice.  Better yet, if rating and raters bother you so much, why not relegate the process to someone else who may not mind?


BTW, I've yet to have a guest who wasn't pleased not to foot the bill.

[jeffwarne]

I think I know from experience it is easier to give an honest course evaluation than a wife evaluation.

Many years ago at work a collegue(who was not very attractive himself) was always bragging about how attractive his wife was.  me being the only person who had met her always had to answer the inevetiable questions.  I was always polite and said "yes she is attractive" of course nothing could be further from the truth.

One day the guy voluntered that his wife was the former "miss New Jersey" and once again guys were asking me if this was true and i said the first thing that popped into my head "It must have been a war year"

I was never asked to offer an opinion again.

Great bunch of folks on this thread who no longer post here.  Our loss.


Jeff- from the other side's perspective, your club probably welcomes raters.  If it does, you may wish to cut them some slack.  A simple yes or no should suffice.  Better yet, if rating and raters bother you so much, why not relegate the process to someone else who may not mind?

Lou,
Our club welcomes all players.
Surely you read my note to him. I went a lot farther than a "simple yes or no", in fact I explained why those dates were no good and gave him quite a large window to come another time.In my note I  actually eliminated 4 days out of a 210 day season.

I am quite curious to know why you would state that "your club probably welcomes raters"


and that I may "wish to cut them some slack"


As I stated we welcome all players.
We try to take care of all comp requests (raters charity, PGA, Superintendants, police, fireman, High School and College players, local juniors, veterans,military,caddies , employees) at appropriate times.
As they say, some of my best friends are raters, and as a PGA member, I've certainly asked for my share of access.
There's a protocol that nearly all raters, or anyone else asking for access to a private club, to follow,and I don't want to paint all raters with the same brush because of what is an increasing number of raters who exercise poor protocol.
Pawning that duty off would not be the right thing to do just because of a few persistent raters who have chosen to push the envelope a bit farther than their respective magazines might suggest.

[Lou_Duran]

Did you not read my initial reply?


I am quite curious to know why you would state that "your club probably welcomes raters"
and that I may "wish to cut them some slack"


Pawning that duty off would not be the right thing to do just because of a few persistent raters who have chosen to push the envelope a bit farther than their respective magazines might suggest.

I did read your reply, though it was not easy to follow with your edits and the site's frustrating auto-formatting.  Since I don't know you, perhaps the sarcasm and condescension that I perceived was incorrect.  If so, I apologize.


As to my comment about your club probably welcoming raters, the operative word is "probably".  I don't know much about your club.  Obviously, I don't know the chap who wrote you that note, but it is my understanding that raters have lists of clubs which want to be evaluated and PERHAPS he was under the impression that he would be welcomed.


If he is not from the area and this is the only shot to see your course, PERHAPS he thought that the window he gave you MIGHT contain a single time when he could be allowed on the course without costing a member or a paying guest an opportunity to play.  And also, maybe this guy is an over-eager Newbie; unlikely that he represents the universe of raters, don't you think?


That you revived a nearly 18 year-old thread which is hardly complimentary of raters and ratings suggests to me that you view neither in a particularly positive light.  So, if your club does wish to be rated and you have "issues" with these folks, handing it off to someone who might approach it more positively seems like a win-win to me.


By the way, I received an email form a World top 10 club where I am going to play in three weeks.  The gentleman, a high-level club official, addressed me as Mr. Grande.  Rather than taking offense or making fun of this fine man I sympathized with him.  He is extremely busy and was trying to communicate a change in my tee time.  While multi-tasking, he probably zoned in on my email address (@myGrande.net).  Me, I am of the mind that I don't much care what you call me as long as you call me.  He who has not made mistakes in writing does not do much writing.  That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to be perfect in our communications, but don't we all merit a little bit of grace?


 

[John Kavanaugh]

A rater playing as a single during the busy season is a hindrance to everyone on the course. The other day I was interrupted by a disturbance caused by some low level USGA officials who showed up looking to get a tee time. Instead of focusing on friendships and frivolity I was brought into their gimme mine world. It’s like having a cousin sleeping in an unused bedroom. Every moment they are in your home is not as precious as when they are not.