[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

I agree with you -- sort of.

There's no reason why the architectural editor can't do the task. The committee approach fails because of the lack of consistent eyes and the time delays that invariably happen.

It would not be a hardship to have someone do the task. A good editor with his ear and eyes open could discern which new candidates are hot prospects worth checking out.

If the mag said the architectural editor said such and such a course wins and then the raters follow later with their assessment it looks like the mag is operating with multiple voices which I see as unnecessary.

Frankly, if you have a category that says something is "new" -- then the max time line for its insertion can be done on a time line that Tom Doak mentioned.

I'd much rather have one pair of sharp analytical eyes that can apply a consistent and thorough review rather than the mass horde of people who really are really scattered around the country and in their own thinking if one can call it that.

[John Kavanaugh]

I far prefer the way the golf magazines do it to the Oscar guys.  I hate movies that are opened in few metropolitan theaters just to be Oscar nominated in an attempt to push sales later in the year.  I can't seem to bring myself to see a movie past opening week.

Magazines and their editors need to concentrate on whatever it takes to keep the good people in the industry employed.  I don't see raters understanding or caring enough about the demographic of readers or advertisers to any longer provide a value worth their cost.  All lists should be compiled for one reason and one reason only....Keep the presses moving.  If that means a tweak or two then so be it.

[Adam Clayman]

I agree with Matt that it's a real-time world and for a mag to call something new in early 2010 when it opened in spring of 2008 is a disservice to the reader and, frankly, a journalistic embarrassment to the editor of the magazine.

If it's a real time world what place does a magazine have?

[Joel_Stewart]

While I've written here previously that the Fazio/Marzolff "Remodel" to Saucon Valley Old is quite good, I have to wonder what the criteria are for this category.

For instance, what about courses like Plainfield, CC of Troy, Sleepy Hollow, and Essex County that have implemented master plans based on "restorations" over the past 3-5 years?

Or is this category all about a complete shutdown and re-do?

I must have misunderstood because I thought someone told me that GD that this category was eliminated?   I don't recall any course being listed for panelists to review, at least in my area.   Its possible GD has taken it in house and maybe Whitten awards the winner?

[Lester George]

Is there a link to the list?

Lester

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

I just got Ron's letter for nominations of courses for 2009 and "Best New Remodel" is a category there, too.

Unfortuntately, the Best New Affordable Public course is now gone as a category.  I'm sure there weren't many new openings in this range, but it figures it would tank just before we are ready to open one!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Unfortuntately, the Best New Affordable Public course is now gone as a category.  I'm sure there weren't many new openings in this range, but it figures it would tank just before we are ready to open one!

I see! So it's not a service for the readers, it's a service for the advertisers!

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

There's no "If it's a real time world ..."

Modern communications today, as we see everyday, operates that way now. There is no "if."

Once the Internet became mainstream the nature of how magazines and other related sources of info operated previously had to change in order to stay relevant and meaningful.

If the readers or non-readers know more than the magazine itself what's the point in subscribing to it?

Magazines do have challenges because stories they wish to pursue now need to be written with a less sensitive time oriented equation. Most, if not all top tier magazines, have companion Websites and some of them have ancillary related pubs (see Golf World) which provide a different emphasis element in their reporting.

When you try to feature a story that's very time sensitive (as "best new" articles generally are) you need to present the information so that there will not be that great a lag from the time you assemble the info to the time you actually go to print.

Digest has options that would work far better than what's being done now. Tom Doak mentioned one alternative which is quite reasonable.

The problem w having a multitude of raters is the consistency of evaluation. The architectural editor or his designee could do the task but clearly Digest and the other pubs seem to believe that having a larger group do the task works better -- although from a real time perspective so much is indeed left out as some courses are bumped to future years to compete against other courses that are really "new" in having just opened.

The issue is really not that "new" -- no pun intended.

Garland:

I'm sorry to see the affordable category go -- but clearly the issue would be how low would the rate be in order to have meaning. I believe Digest had the threshole at a max of $75.

[Rob Rigg]

There were discussoin on the web about Tetherow and Chambers more than a year before the openings.

I would encourage the magazines to get a better feel for which courses the "big name" architects are opening up so they can play them in the opening season.

No disrespect to other archies, but it seems like the same names come up again and again in the mags.

Worst case, the magazines can pick up the damn phone and ask the usual suspects if they have any courses opening the next summer. Then they can give their raters the heads up and trips can be planned well in advance.

It seems pretty straightforward?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rob,

I know Golf Digest is well aware of most quality course that plan on opening.  In fact, Ron Whitten just sent out his annual email today, reminding us to submit entries by December 15, so its funny you should make that comment on this day.  And believe me, we all tell him of every contender and near contender out there.  (I used to submit only one course, figuring I couldn't have two bests, but they - and my clients - suggested that all be turned in unless really not worthy.

My take (as an obviously interested observer) is that in recent years, the GD list has featured tons of gca's, at least in the top 10, if not right at the top.  Many aren't anywhere near household names (me, for one) but there have been a couple of home made courses win the durn shootin match, like the one that beat the Rawls course a few years ago.

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

The "buzz" factor is alive and well and frankly if any person applies a modium of due diligence you can tell what key new courses are planning to open and be sure that coverage of them occurs.

When a leading mag is being beaten to the punch by this site and other sources on when courses (e.g. Rock Creek, Tetheror, to name just two) are planning opening or have already opened the credibility of any magazines is to stay ahead of the competition -- not to trail it.

Keep this in mind, Gozzer Ranch finshed 12th in the Golfweek top 50 ratings that came out on October 25. No less than seven (7) other private courses finished ahead of it -- and that doesn't count for Rock Creek which is "eligible" for "best new" in '09 when it really opened in '08.

Rob, we live in a "real time" world and pubs that are successful need to understand that reality or they cease being relevant. In years past the info train passed slowly through each station - those days are long gone.

[Andy Troeger]

The solution is pretty simple--if you don't like the product, don't read the magazine or buy that issue or whatever it happens to be. You make a fair point, but Matt especially has made the point and driven into the ground between this and many threads. If you think it will help, contact the editors.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I don't read sources that don't provide timely info -- if what I read isn't telling me what I don't know -- then frankly there's little point in them being relevant. If you don't like the fact that this point is made countless times then don't respond to the thread.

That doesn't mean just Digest alone although it's been mentioned especially in this particular case -- it can mean any pub or source.

It's not whether I "like" something Andy. I'm simply interested in the quality of the info and the process by which these "information sources" give me something that I don't get from any other source. If the source providing such info is consistently late to the dance with such "news" then it should be criticized for being so ineffectual.

The Internet has exposed very well the lack of due diligence many pubs face in today's "real time" age. The successful ones have reformed past practices because they fully understand if they can't stay ahead of the competition than they cease to be relevant. But speed alone is not the total answer.

I know I have contacted the appropriate parties and they confuse legitimate criticism with disloyalty. Nothing like turning the subject matter around and making the messenger the point of the discussion.

Tom Doak highlighted a workable solution -- so did Shivas although I prefer only half of his / architectural editor making the selections.

The elimintation of the affordable category will be missed because it provided a platform for courses many in the general public could really play. Having a "best new" award program can provide quality exposure but it needs to be timely and thorough. Miss either or both of those attributes and you have an empty suit proclaiming such "news."

[Rob Rigg]

Andy - I was not sure if the points I was raising were redundant or not. I know there has been a ton of discussion about the new course rankings, etc. etc.

So, enough is enough . . . after I finish my post  

If you subscribe to a magazine you can choose not to read an issue and write to the editors to complain and cancel your subscription if they do not get better, etc. etc. but I think what we are discussing on the site is that we want to read these magazines and learn from them so at the end of the day it is simply the magazine's job to be thinking about how they can make their publication better and more relevant to their consumer. We are trying to help! If you know the editor then forward him one of these threads. If he thinks we are all delusional idiots than so be it.

I expect that GD, as an industry leader, will provide me with accurate and inciteful new course rankings because they should have the resources to get to the courses and rate them.  As has been stated many times before, especially by Matt  , if there are ten people on this site discussing a new course that they have played then it is reasonable to expect that GD will have it in their new course pool as well.

Is rating a new course THAT complicated? I would imagine that there are many educated golfers out there who would be more than happy to rate a course for GD if their pool of raters is not big enough to provide the consumer with a complete and accurate ranking.

If the current system does not work, then recruit more raters at a regional level, get more of them out to these new courses, and get some statistically significant data.

Wait . . . does the average person reading GD care if RCCC or Tetherow is in the rankings in 2008 or 2009?

If not, then once again, we are discussing what is of interest to a small percentage of the golfing population and the magazines are carrying on as they should to satisfy their key consumer.

ramble on  

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I think you make some legitimate points, but making them 15 times dilutes your message. I gave you an excuse to make it a 16th time by responding, you should be happy with that 

PS: Lighten up a bit--I can write two sentences that will enact a 3 paragraph rant out of you. Its a magazine article--we act like its an issue of national security or something. In the grand scheme of a major magazine--its just not that critical. I'll be honest, the 100 Greatest and Best-In-State lists are much more helpful to me from a reader's perspective than the Best New stuff. Happy Thanksgiving!

Rob,
I didn't mean to involve you in this--Matt raises this point often, including earlier this month. To a point, I wish we had the opportunity to rate courses in a more timely fashion. That said, its the editors call. You answered your own question at the end I believe--the average person reading it doesn't even KNOW of these courses until reading the article. And then, unless the course is in their immediate vicinity, they probably look at the pretty pictures and move on with life. We had a couple courses open this year in New Mexico that opened late summer that weren't eligible this year either--one at least has a chance of doing pretty well next year. Personally, I don't think you can bump some courses to this year because you think they might win without also including those others that might end up lower on the list. You have to set a deadline somewhere.

Believe me--the editors are well aware of this issue. They have this system based on their experience. I don't understand fully why it takes 3-4 months to get from the deadline for rating to the actual issue, but if they say it does then its not for me to argue with them. Its an issue of us wanting priority for something that is a few page article in a hundred page magazine once a year--there's lots of other priorities that evidently get more readers.

[Joel_Stewart]

I spoke with someone at Golf Digest today and they deny that this list is either true or not true.  They also said the list is not out and has not been published or disclosed to anyone.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Plenty of people repeat points time after time after time on this site. I see that as being refreshing even if it is my 17th time.

If you view it as a "rant" that's your opinion - I respect yours even if you made yours more than once.

Andy, try to keep this mind -- when you pick up a copy of Digest they make it a point to say on each cover ...

"The #1 Golf Publication"

Really?

The issue with the "best new" situation has been laboring on Digest's desk for a number of years. What's the problem in finally doing something about it? Andy, stop being an apologist for the magazine since you serve as a rater for them and might be just a tad blinded by that conflict of interest.

Tom Doak made a very fair comment on what could be done and it should be fairly easy for the publication to do it. Digest makes it a point in nearly all aspects of what they do -- to highlight time after time after time -- that they are the definitive voice on golf.

The "best new" is at best a hodge podge of inconsistency on how various courses are treated because it throws certain courses ahead when they should have been rated in a more timely fashion. You also have people who are ahead of the magazine itself on just what is happening and for "The #1 Golf Publication" to be always coming up the rear with day late info rather than leading the pack makes me and countless others wonder just how relevant the magazine is since we are in a "real time" world now.

Andy, another correction -- you reference info from Digest on how the "average person" reacts. Digest is the magazine that speaks to the core golfer -- that's the impression I was always under since it received its genesis from the late and well respected William Davis.

The easiet solution would be to have a March issue that announces its findings. That way courses that opened in late July or even August or September could be included. Yes, there have to be deadlines but Digest in its rush to have a story decides the best alternative is to bump certain courses to the following year when they then must compete with courses that have legitimately opened that year. 

Andy, there are people in this world who instead of seeing the light and making easy corrections -- simply hunker down and defend the status quo from a "we know best" rationale.

You then poo-poo the whole essence of the "best new" feature because of
"there's lots of other priorities" -- that's rubbish as an excuse. Anything inside a quality pub -- whether it's NY Times, Field & Stream, or any other needs to create and follow a rigorous vetting of what it puts on its pages and shares with its dedicated readers.

I'll repeat what I said before ... Having a "best new" award program can provide quality exposure but it needs to be timely and thorough. Miss either or both of those attributes and you have an empty suit proclaiming such "news."

One final item Andy -- you didn't comment on why Digest has dropped the best new affordable category - at least that's what's been mentioned but I cannot confirm. If true -- I always liked that element because it gave readers who don't have deep pockets or major connections the opportunity to play such worthy layouts. It will be missed.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Matt, why are you so angry?  Magazines have the right to do things as they see fit.  GD seems to be doing all right. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy W:

You're right Digest can do anything they want and if readers want info that's late or incomplete they should simply be grateful for whatever comes their way.

Who cares if a course opened in a given year (say August or September) and is not actually rated as "best new" until roughly a full 1 1/2 years after it opened. And, of course, it's not unfair that courses that legitimately opened in a given year -- should then be placed against others courses that have been bumped and have had the benefit of extra time in order to present themselves. Nothing like a level playing field.

Tommy, with all due respect, open your eyes and mind please.

How is it that you confuse a logical argument against incomplete info as being "so angry?" It's a neat trick to turn things around and make the person suggesting possible helpful changes the real problem.

Top publications cannot rest on their laurels -- if items are pointed out that can be fixed to make them stronger and to give its valued readers crucial info that is both timely and thorough then why the delay in dealing with the situation?

Too many publications value being "first" above all else. Being thorough and complete in a real time world is what's needed.

[Rob Rigg]

I think the comments that Matt and I have made (repeatedly  ) are on more of an idealistic, versus realistic, level.

Wouldn't we all like to see some sort of ranking consistency of new courses across magazines that can be used as some sort of benchmark of information (and possibly indexed)?

ie) a course that is in the running for Links is also in the running for GD or GM.

It might be a pipedream, but I still feel like it would better serve the public (if they cared) which is what these magazines should be striving for (in theory).

Most people only care about the equipment segments anyways, yippee for marketing power (if only it could be directed towards what is really important - IMO)  

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I look forward to reading #18 shortly. I'll set an over/under on how many we get to before you're done and let you know later if you make it    In terms of me repeating myself, I'm still down 17-3, I have some serious catching up to do!

I think the affordable category is worthwhile. We haven't been notified of its demise, although I don't doubt Tom knows what he's talking about. I would have gotten rid of the remodel category long before the affordable category.

In case you didn't notice, I've already said you had legitimate points and you provide some reasonable alternatives. I've tried to give some of the rationale from what I know of why GD uses its current system if you care to understand that viewpoint. If GD chooses to change its policy, it won't bother me. The current state doesn't bother me. That this issue is troublesome to Matt Ward doesn't bother me either  

And I think that's about all I really have to say about this.  

[Andy Troeger]

Jeez Matt, you got #18 out before I could even finish my response to #17...my over/under isn't looking too hot! 

[Rob Rigg]

Seriously - who dreamt up the renovation category BS? Sah-nore.

Give me the best courses, in a timely fashion . . . or else I'll just look at the GCA site and get better info anyways.

Oh snap!

 

[Andy Troeger]

Rob,

I know Golf Digest is well aware of most quality course that plan on opening.  In fact, Ron Whitten just sent out his annual email today, reminding us to submit entries by December 15, so its funny you should make that comment on this day.  And believe me, we all tell him of every contender and near contender out there.  (I used to submit only one course, figuring I couldn't have two bests, but they - and my clients - suggested that all be turned in unless really not worthy.

My take (as an obviously interested observer) is that in recent years, the GD list has featured tons of gca's, at least in the top 10, if not right at the top.  Many aren't anywhere near household names (me, for one) but there have been a couple of home made courses win the durn shootin match, like the one that beat the Rawls course a few years ago.

Jeff,
Ok I changed my mind and am going to repeat myself one more time!

I think the point you make is an important one--this list is about more than just who/what wins the private category (or even the upscale public category). There's a reason each list includes 10 courses--its about recognizing a number of good new courses each year. Given that the number of new courses is dwindling, perhaps we shouldn't recognize quite as many now as we did five years ago, but that's a different issue. Matt and others want us to just bump the cream of the crop up on a time scale, but some years there are a lot of courses that open in July/August/September. If you can't get to all of the ones that want to be considered, I don't think you should get to any of them. Pick a deadline and stick with it. That's what being thorough and complete means to me.

Maybe it would be better if the deadline was pushed back three months and the best new came out a couple of months later in the year--but somebody would find some reason to complain about that too.

[Adam Clayman]

Here's one for you..
What do GD's Best New list issue and The At&t National pro-am have in common?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()