Responsibility and course rankings

[Matthew Mollica]

If clubs want to improve their ranking, they should seek advice from a golf course architect.

That worked well for Amstel, Kingswood and Commonwealth didn't it. 

MM

[Doug Ralston]

If clubs want to improve their ranking, they should seek advice from a golf course architect.

Yeah! 

The architect then gives some really unexpected advice ........ hire me!

Doug

[Chris Kane]

That worked well for Amstel, Kingswood and Commonwealth didn't it. 

Do you agree or disagree that, on balance, a golf course architect is the better choice for advice than a group of raters?

[James Bennett]

Matt, Chris

there is something called 'due diligence' that is involved in selecting an architect.  Amstel took a long-winded approach to it, but got it right ..... eventually.  Other clubs I know would take a different approach to selecting an architect if they had to do it again.

James B

[Matthew Mollica]

Do you agree or disagree that, on balance, a golf course architect is the better choice for advice than a group of raters?

As you likely suspect, I was making a tongue in cheek comment Chris.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I do feel however that feedback to a Club following from a rater's visit, or ranking publications, may be of some benefit. If nothing more, it may make a Club realise - "These raters have no idea", and therefore help to keep a Club from doing something silly to it's course.

MM

[Mike Sweeney]

Just how is a club that doesn't know Rater A from Rater Z supposed to consider the credentials of the raters and give their opinions based on a single visit any weight whatsoever?  If clubs are going to start making decisions based on the exit polling of raters, they're in for a lot of trouble and merit the consequences of such idiocy.  Industry professionals, determined to be experts after proper due diligence is the only way to make decisions.  Just make sure the historical research is comprehensive 

Wayne and Tom Doak,

On a serious note, you are way too focused on 1 or maybe 2% of the golf courses out there. For the other 98+% this is absolutely great information. At the end of the day, most of the raters are consumers to the Nth degree. Huge Fortune 500 consumer product companies pay big bucks to get this type of data from their consumers. Typically participants in Focus Groups get paid $100-200 for a couple of hours of works which is probably similar to what raters get comped. I think it would be a very valuable service to 98% of the courses out there to say "listen you have no chance of getting on our list, but here is how to make yourself better"...... It is cheaper than Tom Doak at this point!

Now the problem with data is you need someone to examine the data. Who wants to partner with or compete with Brad Klein? Maybe Kavanaugh?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I would add to Cos and Brad's comments, that some clubs or greens chairman etc are more receptive than others to honest opinion. I do think it is important to have the club request the informationand it is presented in a thoughful usable manner.  One of my clubs which I hold in very high esteem has modified maintenance practices in a way that if not abandoned after this year could likely impact its future rankings but 10 to 20 places. Not surprising the Greens Chair is somewhat sensitive to discusion of the subject at this point.

[wsmorrison]

Everybody has an opinion, some are more informed than others.  For some reason, some of you think that clubs expect that the opinions of raters would be beneficial in some way.  I just don't get it.  I don't see why Mike Sweeney thinks I'm thinking about 1-2% of clubs.  I feel that way about all clubs.  To give much credibility to a guy on a ranking panel that makes one visit over the expertise of an industry professional (after a proper due diligence process) and the members that play the course on a regular basis is foolish.  Go ahead, make reports and submit them.  If a club wants to consider them and base decisions on them, that is perfectly within their rights to do so.  I have little faith it will be constructive in any manner.  I would think there is a greater potential for more problems than solutions.

I can think of a number of better processes than seeking the advice of panelists.  I can't understand why the panelists themselves would think they should have direct reporting to the clubs and influence decision making.  In general, it is evidence of overestimations...in expertise by the panelists and expected results by clubs that would go along with such a process.

[Mike Sweeney]

I feel that way about all clubs.  To give much credibility to a guy on a ranking panel that makes one visit over the expertise of an industry professional (after a proper due diligence process) and the members that play the course on a regular basis is foolish.  Go ahead, make reports and submit them. 

I wouldn't hold my club in as high an esteem if they sought out the advice of a bunch of magazine panelists.  I can't understand why the panelists themselves would think they should.  In generaly, it is clearly a matter of overestimation...in expertise and expected results.

Wayne,

How many golf CLUBS are there at the Jersey Shore? How many golf COURSES are there at the Jersey Shore?

How many public/resort golf courses have you played? How many have you played more than 2 times?

Trust me they all want to be on a list but few will make it.

I really need to get back to Atlantic City CC since the Doak renovation. I love that place, and I will guess that I will love 95+% of what Tom did to it. However, I am NOT the target market for a casino, nor are you despite the Flynn connection.

These courses are focused more on Qualitative Research than architectural integrity. Listen I am one of 1500 that post here, so you know my priorities, but that does not mean it is right for every course. Most of the world wants fast smooth greens and 7000 yards.

Perhaps the raters can let the world know there is more to it than that.

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew's correct,

Of course he’s correct. He’s always correct.



Many good points have been raised already regarding the pros & cons of such reporting. Lists are never going to be scientific or perfect, but they sell magazines, so they are here to stay.

In the end, clubs need to be more responsible with their courses. They need to seek out the best information & advice, & preferably from more than one source, & the committees need to educate themselves. If a club is looking to undertake major work, the committee in charge should be reading, traveling & meeting.
Reading – as many books on golf course architecture as they are able.
Traveling – To play or view other courses, especially those worked on by architects they are considering.
Meeting – With architects, supers & mangers to garner helpful information.

On top of all this, golf clubs & committees need to know what they have & how precious it is, & should be educating their members about this as well. In this way, ranking list & passing fads will not inspire committees to desecrate their great & historic courses.

[Sean_A]

If courses want to appeal to raters in general (which in turn gives them a better chance to be ranked which in turn gives them a better chance to make money), then it couldn't really hurt to seek out reports of raters.  Its not as if all comments/suggestions have to be taken on board.  Two things must be remembered.  First, rankings exist to sell magazines (or adds if you prefer).  Second, architecture is only one piece of a complicated puzzle which is used to entice customers. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

An interesting subject but I believe totally futile. It may help to sell magazines, but it is misleading to the average golfer. Just what use are they in their current form? Perhaps only as a basic topic for a debate?

Put together 10 groups of 10, 100, 1000 golfers, with identical check lists
then compare their final listings. My belief is that the end result is a complete compromise, as with all proportional representation systems which produce the winner from the basis of the lowest common dominator. The final list is generally always flawed.

My tastes are not mirrored by all at GCA, perhaps a few may have a similar views but certainly not the majority. Therefore, what would be the interest of a ranking list that I believed was flawed and not worth the paper it was written on in the first place.

Yet, I suppose, I would look to see if I agreed – thanks to basic human nature – then wonder how this, or that, course managed to get onto the list in the first place – before dismissing the list as not representing my choice. But would I buy a magazine for a list of rankings? – no, probably not, as I believe they are totally futile.

Well, that’s my opinion, but I will leave it to you guys to debate the issue further.     

[Ray Richard]

Matt-

In my case one of the raters suggested that a different routing be used on several holes, but he didn't know the back story and consequent permitting issues. A few supers have been fired because of a 5-8 point drop in the GD ratings, and many a green committee fracas has been started over these ratings. If you exposed these reports it would hurt everybody in the club, and make everybody mad.

It should be like the baseball Hall of Fame, have a select group of golf writers, architects, supers, etc. evaluate each course and vote accordingly, and keep out the wanna-be's, moochers, and hacks connected to the GD editorial team.  

[Doug Ralston]

I cannot see much how it even matters what the results are.

For upscale publics, these lists are win-win. A lot of players who merely play what is cheap and convenient, thinking golf is simply a contest, read about 'Best' courses, see pix, realize one is near enough, and try them 'just once' to see the difference. Bingo! A lot of convertees to quality golfing.

I do not know what these lists do for privates, not being there. But I imagine those on the list tempt someone to join in order to feel like they have 'the best'.

I think lists like this only hurt the 'daily fee mill' type courses. And even with those, attracting more people to golf may compensate.

Critical, IMHO, for magazines with these lists, is to publish quality pictures! If you do not understand this, you must be asleep. In this, a picture is worth thousands of $!

Doug

[Kevin Pallier]

Matthew

After all my visits I try to send to the secretary / general manager a note conveying my appreciation of access to the club along with a brief "balanced" note of things that I particularly enjoyed or found a triffle "intruiging". Often that's extended to an exchange of a phone call or a few emails and it can be taken for what they think it is worth.

[Brian Cenci]

No course or superintendent should gain valuable information from individual items of the rankings.  The can get a perspective about their course from the overall ranking but that's it.
     I think a rater giving a comment to courses would be a jumbled mess from one to another.  I think it's fine if a course wants to see the scores if they think they can get anything out of it.  The problem is the scores (Golfweek at least) are comparisons relative to other courses.  So they could get an individuals ranking of conditioning for example but that would mean nothing because it's all relative to other courses and their conditioning. 
    Like I said individual comments would be a jumbled mess IMO.

-Brian

[Tom_Doak]

The real question is who at the club would RECEIVE and EVALUATE the comments from raters.

If it was the golf professional, or any particular member, they might tend to cherry-pick the ones that agreed with their own position on how the 18th at National needs a new back tee -- even if they threw away 75 other comments that that hole was perfect.

If you mailed them to the golf course superintendent, though, he'd know exactly what to do with most of the evaluations.  Today's superintendents are always looking for good sources of compost.

[Adam Clayman]

Melvyn, How are they mis-leading to the average golfer?
 If an average golfer were to play any one of the top 100 they would not be disappointed in the least.

I will reiterate that courses that do not report rater abuses are doing more harm than good to the whole process. Rate the rater.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adam

The results are based upon the lowest common dominator
and therefore misleading. It’s all about averages and statistics
and we know how these can be open to interpretation. So
misleading to the average golfer