Nicklaus on "the raters"

[JWL]

DW

I am confused.  You seem to be implying that I have made "blanket criticisms of raters" and that I have taken "pot shots at SC, raters, and GD."
This couldn't be any further from the truth.  Please go back and read my post on this subject.  
I have no intention of criticising any course, designer, writer, magazing or rater on this board, and I don't think I have done so in any way.
I was speaking very broadly about design looks/styles and their acceptability.
Maybe you were referencing someone else in your post when you spoke of 'hookers, favors, etc.  Unless my computer is on the blink/ demon possessed, whatever, I didn't partake in that discussion about raters.  I will leave that to those that are really in the know.
Raters do a good job, in an impossible task, imho.

[DF-SDGA]

One of the interesting things about the Bear's Club is that not only did Jack design it, but he plays there, hangs out there, and has final say in what goes on there.  The course since it's inception has been a work in progress, and much like Norman's Medalist will continually be changed.  Perhaps if Jack ever gets to the point where he feels he has the best layout the property can provide, he will allow it to be judged.

[Paul Richards]

DF:

Good point.  But, IMHO, the Bear's Club is pretty-damn good already.  We all know Donald Ross continually changed and updated Pinehurst #2, so there's no problem with Jack updating his Bear's Club, but that is NOT a real reason to keep raters out at this stage.

[ForkaB]

As much as my honest respect for Jack N. is grudging at best (once a member of Arnie's Army, always a member....), I must say I give him full marks for his stance vis a vis the Bear's Club.

"Raters" have no particular right to get access to a club just because they want to, if the owner doesn't want them to.  I can't help but imagine Jack standing there at the gates, with a sombrero and bandolero on, a la "Viva Zapata," saying:

"Ratings!  Ratings!!!!  We don't need no stinking ratings!!!!!!!!

[David Wigler]

All they can get is a rating that could make the members feel less about their course.  And let's face it, raters that feel they are slighted in any way, will have a tendency to give the course a lower rating.  There is jealousy in this endeavor, because it is human nature.
The Bear's Club is not the first club to take this position.

As for the rating game being political, it is pretty hard to deny it is part of the scenario.  How do you explain Shadow Creek's initial ranking.  

JWL,

This is the hard part about the written word.  I aattributed your first sentence to mean that you believe that once a course turns down a request, raters will be harder on it.  I hear different versions of this if they ask for a greens fee, etc.  Believe me, it is not true for the raters I know.  LACC turned me down several times as a rater.  Eventually I got on through a friend and absolutely loved the course (In fact, loved it more than Riveara or Bel Aire).  Turning me down did not hurt them.

I interpreted your second paragraph to mean that Shadow somehow bribed these raters and the course was not good enough to get that rating on its own (Which I believe it is).

If I interpreted wrong, then the error is mine and I am sorry.