[Coral_Ridge]

Since it has been stated that a lot of posters here on the discussion group are GW Raters, could some tell us what it is like to be one.  A sample year on the road.  It sounds like fun of course.  All work and no play?

[Scott_Burroughs]

There are also raters for GD and GM here, but GW probably outnumbers them.

[A_Clay_Man]

Is that due to the focus on architecture and not perifrials?

[Chip Royce]

I am really surprised on this one. I first saw this post this morning (3/7/02) and although the thread has been viewed 147 times, there is a notable absence of any replies to Coral Ridge's question  (as much silence as we'd expect from ANGC on their membership policies).

[TEPaul]

OK, I'll respond!

Coral Ridge:

I was a GW rater for about a year, I guess, but I have no more idea what it's like than you do! Actually I never did any rating and resigned by the end of the year.

Nothing at all against GW though, since I feel of all the rating magazines they're the best and probably the most inline with the way I basically feel about architecture.

My friends wanted to know how I could like architecture and not want to continue to be a GW rater! I just don't like rating and ranking for some reason--but I guess it just means there's something wrong with me. Sorry not to be more help!

[Dan King]

TEPaul,

I'm sure there is something wrong with you, but not liking rankings is not it.

He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.
 --P.G. Wodehouse (The Code of Woosters)

[Paul Turner]

TEPaul

I was frankly shocked when you revealed you had become a rater; it just didn't seem to be your style: you're far too positive.

I wouldn't mind being a rater, but I'd never be a ranker

[Craig Rokke]

Being a rater sounds pretty cool until someone asks you to drive 7 hours across the state to check out the new Erie National Golf Club.

[Richard_Goodale]

TommyP

Be a rater for a year but do no rating.  This has a lovely Zen-like feel to it.  What was the best course that you did not rate during your tenure?

Rich

[JP Morgan]

"I wouln't mind being a rater, but I'd never be a ranker"...An altruistic approach but unfortunately oftentimes a naive approach.

The fact of the matter is, if you rate, you in part are directly responsible for the ranking. To claim otherwise is like saying  "I wouldn't mind throwing a rock through the storefront window, but I'd never incite a riot."

I would assume the majority of "raters" for whatever magazine take their role very seriously and choose to be very objective as opposed to letting their emotions or biases influence their rating.  It is unfortunate that if some do not rate completely objectively, their ratings indeed may have a profound influence on the "rankings".  I assume they do.

Perhaps Brad Klein can enlighten us as to what effect a rater has, who rates outside the bell curve or standard deviation per se on the ultimate course ranking.

Additionally, it seems logical to assume there are some raters who may notoriously rate quite "low" or even quite "high" in general, in relation to the remainder of the raters.  If all votes count equally, and a course has the unfortunate luck of having the usually "negative" rater show up, and he is one of few, the course obviously will not fair so well.  The opposite is true for the "generous" rater.

When sitting for a board examination in my profession, the average score an individual examiner is known to dole out time in and time out, be they lenient or punative, is taken into effect and is adjusted to simulate the "mean", whether it be higher or lower.

What system is in place to "throw out the high, throw out the low", or something like this to suppress the errant rater, and to guard against this particular rater who chooses to unduly condemn a course or for that matter unduly acclaim a course?

[Paul Turner]

J P Morgan

It was just a poor joke!  Ranker-Rhyming slang...

[C. Note]

It's expensive to be a Golfweek rater I hear.

$100 a year? I wonder what Golf magazine and Golf Digest charge their rankers/raters?

[TEPaul]

Golfweek charged me $100 dollars to be a rater? Jesus, now I really hate rating and ranking! That was at least $200 dollars too much! The swinemongers--I've got to talk to Brad about this revolting development!

And to think that I almost chartered a Gulfstream to go to the coast for my first rating experience before deciding to drop off the panel instead. Don't those people at GW have any respect for other people's money?

[Gib_Papazian]

Okay, I'll take a shot at explaining this.

Being selected by Golfweek to rate courses is certainly a gratifying honor, but it involves WAAAAY more than simply hop-scotching from one golf course to the next, conjuring up a numerical rating based on a visceral gut reaction.

Believe it or not, I find it mentally taxing.

Think about it. When playing a new course, 99.9%  of the players just blithely bat their ball down the fairway, enjoying the day, taking little notice of any features, hazards or contours not directly affecting their shot.

At the end of the round they retire to the 19th hole, have a drink or two and get in their car and leave - without giving a thought to what they have seen except as it  directly relates to their round.

Now compare that to forcing yourself to examine every single hole from a variety of angles, taking note not only of the placement of hazards and how they work aesthetically, but how they are likely to play for different levels of golfers.

Now, instead of  worrying about how much your putt breaks on the green, you have to evaluate the contours from a variety of fairway approach angles, how the whole arrangement ties together and how much and what kind of short game interest surrounds the putting surface.

How does the routing work?  Is it walkable and are the natural features utilized well? Does it give you the feeling of a soothing wander through the property, or a forced and confusing slog?  

Here is one where everyone looks at me like I am nuts:

Does the golf course as a whole have good Feng Shui? By that I mean, does the entire flow, movement and synthesis between nature and golf course have a positive energy flow?  Does it play like Mozart or a punk rock concert?  

Regardless of how I played, at the end of the round, do I feel spiritually refreshed?  Is every hole clear in my mind or does it all run  together? Will going from the 18th green directly back to the first tee put a spring in my step, or will it be an exhausted trudge?

The  point is,  you  have to REALLY LOOK at the golf course and not just play it - and then defend your criticisms and praise with specifics when called upon.

That takes some work and paying attention -  and it can be a little stressful because although it is recreation, in reality it demands quite a bit of concentration and  post-round reflection.

In addition, I also write 1000 word articles on courses I have played for ANG, which means that it is  necessary to articulate exactly what I think - and why - in a way that makes sense to the average golfer. I find that the lessons learned comparing notes with fellow GolfWeek raters (and people like Neal, Shooter etc) have been enormously helpful in shaping and coming to grips with what I think about a  given course.

That is what it is like for me. Hope it helps.    

[redanman]

For me it means playing everything in sight new, good, bad, worse, and being really really honest about it.  Playing the old stuff and trying not to cry at tree overgrowth and not to mark the course down because of the poor flora management!

It doesn't get you on Pine Valley, Augusta (Witness Mark Fine!), Shinnecock, Merion, Seminole, etc unless you can get on yourself anyway.  It is not a ticket to free golf.

To do it right you need to pay attention to the course and not how you play.  Betting, hitting only the ball you put in play, putting only the putts you have to only today's pin placement doesn't get it done right.

I like to play off times, sometimes in the rain and wind  and cold and "bad weather" so I am by myself if I can be.

Interestingly, I often play very well because there is absolutely no pressure on me to play well, unless I play with someone who insists on playing for "$xyz", then i get distracted.

Some of my most fun times

-Playing Royce Brook West in the rain, by myself, walking.

-Playing a brand spankin'NEW NEW course not yet open even before media day with a person known to all here.   Pr 3 tee boxes with one or two divots ONLY!  Too bad the course wasn't as good as the day!

-Playing each of the two nines at Hollywood with two of their pros who can play and really really really play, respectively, elevating my own game and seeing everything I wanted to see on a really really good course with a really good restoration.

All in all, I really love the architectural aspect of the game and I take it seriously.  Maybe too seriously, but once I got the bug about 20 years ago, the architecture is the thing for me.  I always liked playing different places, have been lucky enough to be a member at 2 really good clubs and one shitty one.  But..... I still like to pack the bag in the trunk and head out someplace new.  Anytime, anyplace , I always learn something.

To do it right, it's not for very many.

[Richard_Goodale]

Gib and redanman

I feel your pain!

Let me tell you what it is like to play a golf course with a ranker, when you are just a lowly player.......

1.  You are the only one on the tee without one of those flashy "***" Ranker" bag tags.
2.  Nobody will let you pay, ANYTHING, because you are the guest of a "Ranker."  Can you imagine the humiliation?
3.  While you are watching your 4-iron sail gracefully and magnificently towards the pin, the ranker is down on his hands and knees looking for poa annua infestation.
4.  Any hole that you happen to like will be immediately dismised by the ranker because "the bunkering is faux Raynor, and the tee box is 1 degree out of kilter (some of them carry spirit levels, you know!).
5.  Any hole that you hate will turn out to have been designed by Tillinghast's whisky supplier's third cousin, and will demonstrate that "je ne sais quois" that you cannot "quois" at all.

It's a hard life.......

PS--Is it only Paul T and I who really know the Cockney rhyming slang implication of "ranker?"  If so, I won't tell!

[JohnV]

Gee Rich, was I that bad at Pasatiempo?

The hardest part of being a rater to me is calling the course and feeling like I'm begging to be allowed to play it.

Some of the things that Bill mentions about not worrying about your own game etc can be difficult, but since I did USGA Course Rating for a number of years, I think it helped me avoid that trap (or should I say bunker) .

Don't worry Tom, the $100 only started this year and is to help diffuse the cost for an online entry system which will make our job easier and save on mailing costs.

[Richard_Goodale]

John

You were exemplary, as usual,....except for that birdie putt on the 13th that nipped our comeback in he bud!

[redanman]

Gib and redanman

I feel your pain!

Let me tell you what it is like to play a golf course with a ranker, when you are just a lowly player.......

1.  You are the only one on the tee without one of those flashy "***" Ranker" bag tags.


Do I score points for never having put mine on the bag?



2.  Nobody will let you pay, ANYTHING, because you are the guest of a "Ranker."  Can you imagine the humiliation?

I'll have to play with my brother more often.  I forgot, It's due to his USGA status, not GW

3.  While you are watching your 4-iron sail gracefully and magnificently towards the pin, the ranker is down on his hands and knees looking for poa annua infestation.

At PAsaT, the bent grass is the infestation!


4.  Any hole that you happen to like will be immediately dismised by the ranker because "the bunkering is faux Raynor, and the tee box is 1 degree out of kilter (some of them carry spirit levels, you know!).


That's why we get "Official Ranker" hankies


5.  Any hole that you hate will turn out to have been designed by Tillinghast's whisky supplier's third cousin, and will demonstrate that "je ne sais quois" that you cannot "quois" at all.

Drink more whisky!

You should see what we do when we are by ourselves!

I look forward to the day we play, Rich.  I really admire your cynicism.  Sorry I missed you out here when Huckster came to play with me, but you refused!

[Richard_Goodale]

redanman

I look forward to that day too.  I'm sure the statute of limitations is up now and you can revisit California with impunity.

You know, I am sure, that I "refused" nothing back in October.  I already had a date on that day with a charming little track on Ardmore Avenue.

Cheers

Rich

[redanman]

redanman


You know, I am sure, that I "refused" nothing back in October.  I already had a date on that day with a charming little track on Ardmore Avenue.

Cheers

Rich

It is a two-ended needle, you know

[Lou Duran]

Having played with Redanman, I can attest to the comments he and Gib make regarding their study of a course while playing.  As Redanman was wandering off to view a feature of the course early on in the round, one of our playing partners asked me "Is he okay?".  When this continued for much of the day, another one asked if he was pissed-off at something.  I assured them that it had nothing to do with him being a Yankee or with our southern hospitality; that he was a rater and a serious student of golf architecture.  I am not sure that they bought my story.

Seriously, I suspect that the senior raters have developed an analytical approach that would serve us all well when we play.  Redanman quickly assessed my home course, and concluded that it had interesting green complexes, but was a little repetitive (I agree).  He doesn't spend much time on the greens reading the line, doing much of that from the fairway while walking up to his ball.  I have tried this approach and it works well for me on chips, though perhaps because of habit, I haven't been able to wean myself from looking at the putt from both ends of the line on the green.

[Robert_Walker]

While I have never been a course rater myself, I have known a few, and I can tell you that all course raters live in constant fear. You never know when the Shop Staff are going to ask the dreaded question....

How will you be paying for your golf today?

[Warren Lehr]

Kudos to Gib and Redanman.   With only these two direct replies, I'll take a quick shot at the question: "What's it like to be a rater?"  Gib and Redan are indicative of the true answer which is that it's different for every single rater.  I'm a golf professional who got into this with GW several years ago because of my interest in architecture and playing new and old courses.  I have been fortunate enough to play many great courses both as a competitor and as a guest.  I can get on about anywhere with my PGA card so I didn't need to become a rater to get on free as, we have to admit, some have done.  I'll defer to Gib and Redan's comments on the actual experience of rating, but I can tell you that most golf professionals will welcome with open arms any rater or writer who wants to come to his course.  This doesn't always hold true for the Pine Valley, Augusta National, Cypress Point caliber courses as they are worn out with calls from raters and writers for the most part.  I would guess that it's hard to get their attention unless your name is Klein, McAllen, or Whitten.  I haven't tried.  
     Let me just say that a rater should be a student of golf course architecture whose reputation as an objective and fair judge is above reproach.  After all, the rater is giving his or her judgements and opinions which can affect the success of the business venture side of a given course immensely.  He or she must be completely objective and be able to rate the merits of a course with no partiality as to region, architect, friends and acquaintances with a vested interest, what it cost, how he played that day, the weather, the pace of play, and on and on.
    A rater, I believe, should also have an excellent frame of reference as to what a fair, good, or great course looks and plays like.  He or she needs to have played, in my opinion, a minimum of 20 of the top 300 courses in the world to have that frame of reference.
     These are just a few random thoughts on a very expansive topic.  It's a tough question to answer briefly.
    

[redanman]

While I have never been a course rater myself, I have known a few, and I can tell you that all course raters live in constant fear. You never know when the Shop Staff are going to ask the dreaded question....

How will you be paying for your golf today?

American Express if they accept it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()