Seriously?!, what about 1,700 courses don't you understand? Of the Golfweek top 100 modern 98 comp raters, of the top 100 classic only 94 comp raters. Is it worth $250 yet? Sign up bud, it's an utopian metaphor that can't last. It's the best deal going.
John,
I realize you enjoy getting people wound up, but I'm amazed at how many are willing to believe "facts" like this.
I've been a Golfweek rater since 2010. Since that time, I've remained a member of my local club, remained a member of one national club, and dropped another national club membership. I don't have a rater bag, bag tag, or wear Golfweek rater gear. I've submitted ratings for 119 courses since I have been a rater. I've paid green fees at 103 of them (86%) and that includes all of the public courses. I have never gone into a golf shop and flashed my rater card and asked (or hinted) for free golf. I have no problem paying green fees at private clubs as well, so by your standards I must be the biggest sucker in the program!
The biggest value, quite honestly, of being a rater is that you
sometimes can arrange play at a private club without knowing a member or having your pro call. (I have also been turned down a number of times, and not necessarily in peak season.) If it means paying unaccompanied rate, that's fine. I would not contact any course to play without being willing to pay. But that also means that there are some courses that I won't see because I don't think they are going to be worth my time/money. Does that help or hurt their ranking?
I realize that there are some raters who behave poorly. Like Jim Franklin (post 42), I wish courses would report this too. Hopefully people will keep in mind that there is a percentage of jerks/morons/etc in the general population, and they appear everywhere. Vetting doesn't keep them off golf architecture discussion groups, doesn't keep them out of your golf club, and doesn't keep them out of the ranks of raters - whatever the publication.
For all of the supposed poor quality of raters, I think that Golfweek's list does a nice job of promoting the kind of courses that I like to play. Is it perfect? Of course not, and sometimes ratings by state don't make a lot of sense, but that's the case with all of the publications. It's why a lot of raters are needed, and even then there are courses that not enough people have seen.
The Confidential Guide is great, but it would be impossible for a handful of people to see enough courses to tell someone visiting the Louisville Kentucky area where to play. (An aside - Doak gave Del Monte in CA a 2 - which is too low - and it would be top 5 in KY!)