Should raters be rated?

[Mike_Young]

Mike, do you mean the golfers who do junk for the magazines, or the the raters who do the official course slope and course ratings for handicap purposes?  I've known both, but the former are irrelevant, in my opinion.  That's a game to get  these guys on the courses.  My concern would be with the latter.

Carl,
I was speaking of the magazine raters.

[BCowan]

I do not think paying for all your golf is the key to having a worthwhile viewpoint.  Just look at all the people on Golf Club Atlas who let the price of the green fee (or the price of a hot dog) set the tone for their whole experience!  It's fine with me if they want to let that sort of stuff influence whether they have a good time, but I don't think it should be allowed to influence their opinion of my architectural work ... or yours.

   If one pays a green fee that is astronomical and then complains, I agree with you.  I think complaining about ridiculous green fees and boycotting playing them is another.  Someone posted the top courses green fees prior to the 70's and taking inflation into account they have gone to no bounds today.  Maybe people of older generation had more sense or principle.  How someone judges cheap is also important.  Someone who uses a service such as a caddie and doesn't pay well is cheap, but someone who lives within their means and doesn't ask for one is not.  We can't be for reducing maint. fees and water applications and except $200-500 green fees as no big deal.  When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it.  How much is it to walk it and rate it?  

[Mike_Young]

 When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it.  How much is it to walk it and rate it?  

B,
Two things here...
I have no problem with a course comping someone who actually makes his living in the golf business if he doesn't abuse it. 
Raters that are not in the golf business are a different story.  I would see zero reason for a director of golf to comp. 
Second thing...compared to a two hour dinner at a top steakhosue where dinner, drinks and tip could be more than $175 per person....is a $500 green fee that expensive for four or five hours at a top flight club?  Could be a pretty good deal..

[Tim Martin]

Mike-Do you think someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.

[BCowan]

When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it.  How much is it to walk it and rate it?  

B,
Two things here...
I have no problem with a course comping someone who actually makes his living in the golf business if he doesn't abuse it.  
Raters that are not in the golf business are a different story.  I would see zero reason for a director of golf to comp.  
Second thing...compared to a two hour dinner at a top steakhosue where dinner, drinks and tip could be more than $175 per person....is a $500 green fee that expensive for four or five hours at a top flight club?  Could be a pretty good deal..

    I understand about in the business comps.  I don't know what steakhouse you go to.  I pay $35 for a steak and two beers $12. Plus tip.  I don't know where you get $175, i eat very good grade, maybe not true Kobe.  Yes $500 is insane!  Shows how the modern generation doesn't own anything except debt!  Is this the same Mike Young that I look up to for trying to organize groups to improve courses with minimal maint budgets?  Did your keyboard get hijacked by someone else?

[BCowan]

''Mike-Do you someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.''

+1 i was thinking that earlier.

[Mike_Young]

Mike-Do you think someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.

Tim,
If he knows what he is doing then , yes, he has a better take.  If he's hitting the shots or putts with a hickory shafted club and an old ball and trying to roll it across a bunker or something then probably not...if one is playing chess on the same board where another is playing checkers the ratings could vary greatly.

[Jason Thurman]

I don't know what steakhouse you go to.  I pay $35 for a steak and two beers $12. Plus tip.  I don't know where you get $175, i eat very good grade, maybe not true Kobe.

Believe me, there are no "maybes" with Kobe beef. If you're eating it, you're aware of it.

Listen to "Levels" by Meek Mill. It'll help you understand.

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike,

I've read through the restaurant critic guidelines and I'm not sure how they apply to someone who is asked to rate a golf course. Why is anonymity important to rating a golf course? It's not important to rating other things, like Broadway shows, for example. Also, golf course raters who are on a magazine panel are not journalists. They don't directly write articles about the courses they play, they just record their opinion in the form asked by the panel management.

Theater critics are journalists. They don't pay for tickets to the performances they critique and no one considers it an issue. 

You seem to have the most trouble with panelists not being charged to play, along with panelists who abuse that system. Is it not the courses who keep that system going? Don't the courses decide who pays and who doesn't? If it is such an issue why don't the courses just stop offering to comp?

[Tim Martin]

Mike-Do you think someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.

Tim,
If he knows what he is doing then , yes, he has a better take.  If he's hitting the shots or putts with a hickory shafted club and an old ball and trying to roll it across a bunker or something then probably not...if one is playing chess on the same board where another is playing checkers the ratings could vary greatly.

That was my thought as well Mike. I had not considered anything other than modern equipment for purposes of my question. Direct interaction with the features would seem to produce a more desirable rating.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I've read through the restaurant critic guidelines and I'm not sure how they apply to someone who is asked to rate a golf course. Why is anonymity important to rating a golf course? It's not important to rating other things, like Broadway shows, for example. Also, golf course raters who are on a magazine panel are not journalists. They don't directly write articles about the courses they play, they just record their opinion in the form asked by the panel management.

Theater critics are journalists. They don't pay for tickets to the performances they critique and no one considers it an issue. 

You seem to have the most trouble with panelists not being charged to play, along with panelists who abuse that system. Is it not the courses who keep that system going? Don't the courses decide who pays and who doesn't? If it is such an issue why don't the courses just stop offering to comp?

I'm not sure anonymity is that critical in golf rating either.
Mike, please understand I have no argument here with legitimate raters.  I'm talking about the ones that TD describes earlier as thinking THEIR rating is the one that counts...as you say above my issue is with ABUSE and it goes for writers as well as raters.  I do think many courses have tightened their comps but the good guys such as yourself ( will I be accused of kissing up to you here? ) don't realize it because they do it in the proper way and it doesn't affect them.  The same goes for the good writers.  I'm old enough now to know I will have the business I have whether I piss a writer off or not so I can tell you there are some serious mental cases with writers in this business and the good writers know what I'm saying.  It's now easier to start a blog and join some writing group like ING (I think that is what it's called) and then email every course in Mexico or Costa Rica and tell them you are coming into town to write for a golf publication ( I've learned publication is the key word because it may be a blog or mag) and would they put you up for a night or two and take care of your golf.  The writing is now a more serious problem than the rating game because many of these types have mental issues.  BK , JS and some others know exactly what I'm talking about.   I am amazed how many "writers" contact even someone like me.   If I were a legitimate golf writer today and had paid my dues I would be pissed at how this thing has gone.  It's a much bigger joke than the rating game. 

[Mike_Young]

When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it.  How much is it to walk it and rate it?  

B,
Two things here...
I have no problem with a course comping someone who actually makes his living in the golf business if he doesn't abuse it.  
Raters that are not in the golf business are a different story.  I would see zero reason for a director of golf to comp.  
Second thing...compared to a two hour dinner at a top steakhosue where dinner, drinks and tip could be more than $175 per person....is a $500 green fee that expensive for four or five hours at a top flight club?  Could be a pretty good deal..

    I understand about in the business comps.  I don't know what steakhouse you go to.  I pay $35 for a steak and two beers $12. Plus tip.  I don't know where you get $175, i eat very good grade, maybe not true Kobe.  Yes $500 is insane!  Shows how the modern generation doesn't own anything except debt!  Is this the same Mike Young that I look up to for trying to organize groups to improve courses with minimal maint budgets?  Did your keyboard get hijacked by someone else?

BCowan,
I'm not saying your everyday steakhouse or golf course but that once a year or so place...I agree $500 is expensive but compared to bottles of wine or some steakhouses, it's easy to justify...

[Mike Sweeney]

It's now easier to start a blog and join some writing group like ING (I think that is what it's called) and then email every course in Mexico or Costa Rica and tell them you are coming into town to write for a golf publication ( I've learned publication is the key word because it may be a blog or mag) and would they put you up for a night or two and take care of your golf.  The writing is now a more serious problem than the rating game because many of these types have mental issues.  BK , JS and some others know exactly what I'm talking about.   I am amazed how many "writers" contact even someone like me.   If I were a legitimate golf writer today and had paid my dues I would be pissed at how this thing has gone.  It's a much bigger joke than the rating game.  

Mike,

I have seen online measurement tools that can measure and pay a writer for literally every keystroke that they make including on Social Media. Obviously this is being driven by forces larger than raters looking for a comp , but it does apply here. It will take some time but measurement tools that focus beyond "how many eyeballs" hit a page are coming.

By the way, where do you live? $500 steak houses ! You must hang out with Mike Whitaker and all his House of Cards buddies in Washington DC. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Never really had any interest in being a rather, but my two cents - which nobody would accept  - would be to discontinue the practice of raters actually playing the course.

To me it would make more sense to emphasize walking the course with a member who knows the course well.

Back in the early 90s I heard about this golf course in Michigan which still not many people had heard of: Crystal Downs. So, I decided to stop in on a long drive from Los Angeles to Montauk.

I was extremely fortunate to stumble upon a gentleman named Dick Ford who invited me to play. I declined, but asked if I could walk the course with him and if he wouldn't mind me asking him questions along the way.

Dick Ford couldn't have been more gracious and helpful in my efforts to learn about the course. It was a running discussion about each hole, shot and green complex. It could not have been any better.

No way I could possibly have learned as much about the course if I played. Not even close. I would have been far too preoccupied with the score I shot.

Dick Ford did invite me to come back on another occasion and fortunately I was later able to come and play the golf course a few times. Wish I could visit on a regular basis, but that day with Dick Ford will always stand out.

I know it won't be popular here for me to say it, but rosters playing courses is BS. Real students of golf architecture would never insist on such a thing.

Come back and play the course if you really like it.

[Jerry Kluger]

I am not a rater but my experience has been that if I play a course with a really good caddy I find out far more about its quality and character than I could any other way.  I get to understand how the course plays as well as the strategy designed into the course.  I was fortunate to have a very good caddy at Streamsong who has been a caddy on Long Island for a long time and his insight and knowledge allowed me to understand the courses far better than if I just ventured out on my own. (It also was probably the real reason why I was able to kick Richard Choi's butt.) 

[jeffwarne]

Never really had any interest in being a rather, but my two cents - which nobody would accept  - would be to discontinue the practice of raters actually playing the course.

To me it would make more sense to emphasize walking the course with a member who knows the course well.

Back in the early 90s I heard about this golf course in Michigan which still not many people had heard of: Crystal Downs. So, I decided to stop in on a long drive from Los Angeles to Montauk.

I was extremely fortunate to stumble upon a gentleman named Dick Ford who invited me to play. I declined, but asked if I could walk the course with him and if he wouldn't mind me asking him questions along the way.

Dick Ford couldn't have been more gracious and helpful in my efforts to learn about the course. It was a running discussion about each hole, shot and green complex. It could not have been any better.

No way I could possibly have learned as much about the course if I played. Not even close. I would have been far too preoccupied with the score I shot.

Dick Ford did invite me to come back on another occasion and fortunately I was later able to come and play the golf course a few times. Wish I could visit on a regular basis, but that day with Dick Ford will always stand out.

I know it won't be popular here for me to say it, but rosters playing courses is BS. Real students of golf architecture would never insist on such a thing.

Come back and play the course if you really like it.

Tim,
That's a very interesting take.
Clearly you would be a good rater, whether you played or walked.

I would definitely not be a rater under that criteria (nor am I one now)
but then I don't really consider myself a real student of architecture-just a fan of playing golf who has courses and cultures he likes more than others
 (that "student" word creates those forgot my homework or go to school naked dreams )

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike,

I have two friends who are writers, both women. One writes for a well known travel magazine, the other for a small golf publication that no one has ever heard of.  Both visit amazing resorts at the invitation of the properties' marketing departments and never pay a dime for anything. The travel writer's visits make sense to me as the resorts receive excellent exposure for their "investment." I still can't figure out why anyone would host the golf writer as her articles will never be seen by enough people to offset the value she receives. But, you know what? The resorts and courses keep inviting her and she keeps going and no one, to my knowledge, ever checks afterward to see if her article is actually published or how many people might see it.

As you know, the PR or indirect marketing business has worked this way for eons in the hospitality industry. It is part of their DNA. The fact that it has carried over to golf is no surprise given that so many courses are pure entertainment business driven. None of this troubles me one iota. What does trouble me are all the resorts and courses that comp writers in exchange for exposure without doing their due diligence on what they will receive in return. I guess many just feel the more PR they sling out there the greater the chance some of it will stick. So be it... it's their inventory to do with as they please.

As for magazine rating panel members playing for free... if this is a problem it is the courses that have created the problem. The courses control their inventory. They decide who pays and who doesn't. If they didn't think they were getting some value in return for letting the panelist play for free they wouldn't do it. And, just as I would want a customer to let me know if someone representing my company was exhibiting rude behavior, I can assure you the magazines would want to know if someone representing them was not completely professional in their actions. To stay silent is doing everyone a disservice. Unfortunately rude and boorish behavior is becoming more and more commonplace in every facet of our lives... just consider some of the knucklehead crap that gets published on this website.

If I owned a course and a panelist representing a magazine pulled some of the stunts you described I would contact the magazine and ban their panel from future visits. I'm confident it would get the reaction you would want.

And, if I thought charging panelists full guest fee was the proper thing to do I would just do it . The only repercussion would be fewer panelist visits from the guys who are just looking for a free round... which is what you want anyway.

[Sean_A]

Whitty

I disagree.  Sure, clubs control their inventory, but anonymity would eliminate the practice for comping because

1. clubs wouldn't allow a lot of these raters on the property

2. for the most part clubs wouldn't know who was visiting and in what capacity

Both of the above greatly reduce the opportunity for club schmoozing and targeted schmoozing (which free green fees are part of) is a way of buying a vote - otherwise clubs wouldn't do it.  Remember, clubs comp raters because they want to be rated, for most, it is in their interest or at least members really love the idea of their club being rated even when it doesn't make any difference to the bottom line - ain't vanity great?

I have long campaigned for mags to operate rating like the Michelin Guide - which is recognized as the most reputable rating system in the world.  Of course it would mean mags having to stump up more cash, but it would also mean mags woould be far more discerning about who there raters are and how many there are - both good things in my book.  So yes, raters should be rated by whoever hires them, but under the present system it doesn't really matter.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

This forum is a hotbed for those who want to rate the raters.  I think that those of us who do not care to do that should focus on rating the raters who rate the raters.  Etc. ad infinitum.....

[John Kavanaugh]

When Golfweek started charging raters for their spots on the panel everything changed. Now they are are just premium subscribers.

[Jud_T]

Raters should certainly be scrutinized with regard to ethical behavior and being good ambassadors for the rag they represent.  Here's the problem with rating the raters- A rater friend of mine was just recently chastised for having too many outlier ratings;  i.e. too many ratings that were statistically too high or too low relative to the rest of the pack.  No wonder making a dent in the status quo is like trying to turn the Queen Mary on a dime.  Combine that with the lack of anonymity, freebies, schmoozing, the dubious criteria and pseudo mathematical rigor and these large panel ratings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, even the ones I agree with.  

[jeffwarne]

When Golfweek started charging raters for their spots on the panel everything changed. Now they are are just premium subscribers.

or part of the world's largest pay for access market.
No wonder a Golfweek rater feels gypped if he's asked to pay green fees

[Michael Whitaker]

Sean,

Again with the comping! It's the clubs that control that, not the magazines or their panelists. If a club wants to attract more attention to itself by offering to let panelists play at no charge, so what? It doesn't change the quality of their course. It might get them a few extra points here or there from a few raters, but with a large number of panelist votes required to determine a course's score it could never be enough to move the needle too far.

Anyway, if all the courses are comping, as you guys propose, where is the influence? You can't stand out by comping if everyone is doing it!

Kavanaugh doesn't like Golfweek charging panelists a membership fee. So what? Companies, like individuals, always do what is in their best interest. It's a function of supply and demand and I would imagine Kavanaugh is a good enough businessman that he would have thought of the same thing had he been in charge. Want to eliminate the ability for Golfweek to charge a fee, then reduce the demand for a panel position by convincing courses not to host panelists... which seems to be a big part of the draw for a number of people. The clubs created this dynamic... not the magazines or the panelists... and, it's only the clubs that can change it. But, they don't seem too motivated to do so, from what I can tell.

All this comping, if it really exists, doesn't always get the course the positive exposure they desire. As Tom Doak says, you might bring a panelist in and have him focus on your $12 hot dog instead of your fine course! Because, as we all know, a panelist can't separate the value of a hot dog from the quality of a golf course. I guess to make things equal the course should have comped the dog! 

[Carl Johnson]

From my perspective, it would be a waste of time.  Before I got involved with this site about five years ago I had no idea how the magazine ratings were done.  I still don't know the details, but I do know more than I did before, and I've actually met, spoken with and played with raters.  Although I am sure there are raters who take their work seriously, the ones I've met seem primarily interested in using their rater status "to get to play courses" otherwise pretty much closed off to them.  So, what I've really learned is that the ratings game is just a gimmic, and therefore that ratings aren't worth much and are mostly to be ignored.  My sense is that rating the raters would just play into the gimmic, there would be work-arounds, and add another layer of B.S. to the already existing B.S.  I admit that for some it would be fun to rate raters, but in the end I wouldn't expect it to improve what is already a flawed process.

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm naïve and idealistic, I guess, but I really can't wrap my head around the notion that some raters act in anything but a completely deferential way towards the club that is choosing to host them for a given round. If a club perceived rude behavior from any guest, whether the guest paid or was comped, I would encourage them to report the behavior to that panel's administrator's attention.

As for the notion of comping vs. requiring a guest fee be paid by raters, I would wonder to what extent the hypothetical complete elimination of the comp would change the makeup of the ratings panel. Say a rater rates 20 courses in a given year and gets comped vs. pays, say, $125 each round. That $2,500 is probably of little consequence to most raters, but I would say that to others, it could be a deal-breaker or at least a deal-changer. The courses might miss out on a high rating and only people of at least a certain level of means would even be eligible to participate in a meaningful way on the panel. In an era where many people would hope to see golf become less expensive and more diverse, perhaps the established practice of comping course raters is a small part of such an effort. Just throwing that out there.