Who is qualified to rate golf courses?

[Carl Rogers]

The more I read on this subject, the more I am getting very lost and confused.

Is there any real background needed?  How many courses do you need to play within what time period over what geographical area?

If I had life to start over again and decided to become a course rater, I think I would have to play all over the world for at least 10 years before I could get my head around it all.  How many people can do all that?

[Mac Plumart]

Everyone is qualified to rate golf courses. 

Did you like it?  What did you like about it?  What didn't you like about it?  How did it make you feel?  Why did it make you feel that way? 

There are people on this site that have played a gazillion golf courses, but their personal biases (preferences) always bleed over into their ratings.  That is human nature...it won't change.  So, the newer players need to simply observe, study, and chronicle their feelings, biases (preferences), and the courses.  Do this with enough passion and over time you'll get your arms around it.  Do this and include enough travel to go along with the passion and you will have the context and frame of reference to be a good rater/critic.  But, aside from enjoying yourself and the travel, I am not sure what that really gets you.   

[Carl Rogers]

Mr. Plumart,

I would be highly reluctant to voice a public opinion on the subject without doing a whole lot of work on it.  (Stress the word "public")

When one persons opinion is as good as anothers then that kind of free for all gives us Bristol Palin pretending to be a good dancer.  There should be more to it than that.

[Phil_the_Author]

Carl,

I don't know which scares me more. That you called Mac "Mr." or that you watched Bristol Palin skipping around the stage... 

[Jeff Doerr]

Carl,

You are! Do you love GCA? Do you study it? Can you reason well why course A is better than course B? Can you make a ranked list of the best courses in your region? Are you willing to travel? Finally (and most important from a statistics standpoint), are you part of a larger sample size?

If you are going to do a one man confidential guide, you'd better be well traveled, etc. But, most of the magazine groups have multiple hundreds involved. I think Golf is the exception as they have a smaller group, but well traveled. The key I think is having a responsible group that is large enough to see almost all the significant courses and proved a sample size at each of those courses to generate a valid number.

You'll see 4 of the best soon!

Cheers, Jeff

[Adam Clayman]

Carl,
 I doubt there's a specific answer to your question, as Mr. Mac has illustrated.

Each panel is different and each rater is different.

I know in my case, I was fortunate enough to have lived in quite a few regions and played a lot of golf, at different courses, in all of them. That didn't give me the confidence to think I could be a rater, but, apparently it gave me the exposure to be one. One of the confusing things at first, was what was I suppose to do. Voice my own opinion or try to figure out what others would like. I was told to vote my opinion. So, my preferences play a major role in how I vote.

As has been proven on this site, there's no consensus when it comes to golf courses. That diversity of opinion is a good thing for the lists and a good thing for GCA's.

I hope that answered a few questions, if not, ask and I'll see what I came make up...uhhh ...I mean answer.

[Jim Eder]

I think I am a bit more in Carl's camp on this. I have played most of the top 150 or so courses, am well travelled, am a low handicapper, read all the books, read this site, love the game and the design aspects and feel like though I am more qualified today to rate courses I am not yet qualified. Before I joined this site my ego would have said I was absolutely qualified but now that I am less ignorant than I was (after reading many of these excellent threads) I can say I am not there yet.  I know what I like but I realize I have biases now. Do I (unfairly) prefer links over parkland? Ocean vs inland? Classic/historic vs new? Sure Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are in my personal top 15 becasue they are amazing but what about others? Do I overrate NGLA and Shinnecock over some inland courses? These are the things I am questioning and trying to learn and I realize that I have a ways to go. I will never be as sharp as Doak but I am learning from him as well as others. So though I feel I am more qualified than I was I feel I am not yet qualified but hope to be someday (in another 5-10 years maybe). I realize I have a lot to learn still but I also have an amazing university (GCAers) to learn from.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

[Carl Rogers]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

Exactly my point about all of this.  You need to be single, immune from jet lag, able to process large amounts of input and be of independent means.

[JR Potts]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

I just hope they activate the scorecard section of that link so we can see what these guys shot.

[Tom Jefferson]

Whenever I hear this ratings talk, I see it simply as our rational minds getting in the way of our play (and I am using that word in it's larger, almost spiritual sense).

I am always reminded of Tom Watson's words, paraphrased as............'Courses are meant to be played, not rated.'

Not trying to be a curmudgeon here..........lookin for the truth, and the fun, of the matter.


BEST TO ALL THIS NEW YEARS!!!!
GO DUCKS!

Tom

[George Pazin]

I think I am a bit more in Carl's camp on this. I have played most of the top 150 or so courses, am well travelled, am a low handicapper, read all the books, read this site, love the game and the design aspects and feel like though I am more qualified today to rate courses I am not yet qualified. Before I joined this site my ego would have said I was absolutely qualified but now that I am less ignorant than I was (after reading many of these excellent threads) I can say I am not there yet.  I know what I like but I realize I have biases now. Do I (unfairly) prefer links over parkland? Ocean vs inland? Classic/historic vs new? Sure Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are in my personal top 15 becasue they are amazing but what about others? Do I overrate NGLA and Shinnecock over some inland courses? These are the things I am questioning and trying to learn and I realize that I have a ways to go. I will never be as sharp as Doak but I am learning from him as well as others. So though I feel I am more qualified than I was I feel I am not yet qualified but hope to be someday (in another 5-10 years maybe). I realize I have a lot to learn still but I also have an amazing university (GCAers) to learn from.

A humble approach - be nice if everyone followed it, ratings or otherwise. Nice job, Jim.

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

You are so right -- doing homework before posting comments is helpful.

Why?

Far too many people only skim the surface and then make broad generalizations. No doubt playing a variety of golf courses -- or at minimum actually seeing them makes a huge difference. One of the reasons Doak's CG book is still solid is that Tom took the time to play / visit the mentioned courses. Not every person can do that on a global or national level.

I enjoy the viewpoints of people who really know their neck of the woods. Why? They get to play such courses at all different times of the year and it allows me to understand the totality of what is present.

Carl, there are few people who can really compare / contrast when things move to a national level -- let alone the international front.

I do prefer reading the comments of individuals because group think results are nothing more than consensus driven forumulas and therefore have less of an impact for me. Just like any person who aspires to know a given topic -- shoe leather along with insightful comments gleaned from such exposure goes a long way.

[Wade Schueneman]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

John,

Are you saying that the time commitment associated with being a rater is too taxing?  How much time/travel is involved would you say?

Personal Note - Like Jim, I used to think I was a rare golf course architecture expert . . . until I started following this discussion group.  Now I know that that is certainly not the case.  In fact, I am very hesitant to voice my opinion on this site given the collective insight and experience of, well, all of you.  My point being that I can see the argument for having Ran rate courses instead of a guy like me.  On the flip side, if the ratings are for the benefit of the masses then perhaps Golfweek's approach is more likely to identify the courses that the average golfer might prefer to experience.

[JESII]

I've always assumed that the ranking lists primary goal was the same as the swimsuit issue but this thread opens up an additional perspective.

Why is an aggregated list better than an individual list? Why shouldn't one of the magazines appoint regional raters and have them tell us their personal preferences in their area? I think then you can get specifics worth thinking about and discussing.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Well said -- consensus driven formulas do next to nothing save for numbers crunching.

I'd much rather have a few people provide their own assessments -- you can then see what styles / flavors they favor. I know that was helpful for me when looking at Tom's 31 special layouts mentioned in CG.

[JESII]

And you could do it every month.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Ratings of courses should be spaced out in my mind. This would allow for more careful reviews -- instead of the flavor of the month club approach to what too often happens now. A bit of reflection can do that. Especially when newer courses enter the scene.

GD used to have a waiting period for new courses and I thought that idea worked well. Gave a bit of time to let the dust settle.

[George Pazin]

I suspect Jim meant you could feature different people each month, with each listing his own favorites.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I don't find the Gallup poll approach helpful -- it would be far better if a listing of key people could be put together. Those who have demonstrated a bit more heavy lifting -- especially if national or international considerations are assessed. More people could certainly do a state or regional area -- but again I appreciate if a discerning eye has been brought into the picture. Just random comments from random people serve little purpose for me. If that floats your boat so be it.

[Mac Plumart]

Mr. Plumart,

I would be highly reluctant to voice a public opinion on the subject without doing a whole lot of work on it.  (Stress the word "public")

When one persons opinion is as good as anothers then that kind of free for all gives us Bristol Palin pretending to be a good dancer.  There should be more to it than that.

Carl...

You are correct.  When I said "everyone is qualifed" that was a mistake.  But I feel that every reasonably qualifed golfer offering their insights into a course they've played has its value, if the person listening has his ears open.  

Again, if he states why he liked it...listen to the reasons.  And if he didn't like it.  Listen to why.

I find this valuable.

I REALLY like it when people clearly outline their likes and dislikes to golf courses in general when they are offering their opinion of a course.

And, please call me Max.  

 

[Mac Plumart]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

The last part of this makes no sense to me.  Why would it put my current friendships at risk?   

[George Pazin]

George:

I don't find the Gallup poll approach helpful -- it would be far better if a listing of key people could be put together. Those who have demonstrated a bit more heavy lifting -- especially if national or international considerations are assessed. More people could certainly do a state or regional area -- but again I appreciate if a discerning eye has been brought into the picture. Just random comments from random people serve little purpose for me. If that floats your boat so be it.

Can't say most any ratings/rankings float my boat, I was simply offering up an interpretation of what I think Jim meant.

I don't think he meant monthly revisions of a panel, I think he meant there could be a monthly feature with a few folks and their lists. If you like 'em, great, if not, ignore 'em. I wouldn't expect you to favor my list, nor should I be expected to favor yours. It would offer more transparency than amalgamated lists, however.

This is of course my read of Jim's posts, I could be totally wrong in that.

Happy New Year!

[JESII]

Nope, George, you've got it.

I think aggregated lists leave little to the imagination whereas if Matt were asked to provide his top 20 or 50  or whatever we could dig in and try to figure out why he prefers his #18 to #26. When the list just averages every ranking out you lose the strength of the opinion.

Then in February we could do somebody else's list. They could be regional or national, doesn't matter to me.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim / George:

Without some sort of constancy the nature in having a separate rater with each month is not worth much at all. I'd prefer frankly if Whitten did Digest alone -- or have a much smaller grouping of people who have really played the key contenders.

I did make an exception to those who are truly regional or state-wide reviewers. These areas would be easier for many to do and it's been a real plus to see such contributions on GCA when that has been done. The big problem for many is assessing across a much wider plane -- such as the USA.

When you have just one person listing their courses -- you don't know how many of the key contenders they have played -- they would just list those they have played. The incomplete nature of what is presented would be a big time hole and one that any reader should not have to guess.

Frankly, if someone were to be posted -- if they have not played at minimum 50 of the current GD listing or 50 of the GW listing then they really are lacking to provide something of meaning in my mind.

Jim, you are spot on -- aggregated lists to nothing save for number crunching of courses.