[Tim Martin]

"    " is right....

If you understood the argument, Pat, you'd realize that those two statements are not contradictory.  The first is in the eye of the rater.  The second is from the perspective of the ratee.   But more important than that, this cute little attempt to discredit the messenger is weak. Really weak.  I have Brad thanking me and you taking shots at me.  I guess he was right about it being fairly easy to know where to thin out his ranks ...



Dave-I have to rate you a big fat -0- on credibility. And believe it or not nobody extorted that rating out of me. 

I expected to take a few cheap shots like that, Tim.  So I hate to tell you that it doesn't really affect me.

So who do you rate for, Tim?   I'd like to gauge your credibility...

And by the way, you do realize that there is no inconsistency between the statement Pat cited and my current argument, don't you?   The panels consist primarily of people who have NOT received a ton of comped golf in their life.  So a statement about the minority that have is not the same as a statement about the entirety.

I love that you are going to try to make this about me now. You came in high handed and got snuffed. Show some grace and let it go.

You come on here and tell me I have no credibility, and then say I'm trying to make this about you ?  That's pretty funny...

Look in the mirror, pal.  This was never about you.  In fact, I don't know anything about you and never have.  So this is absolutely not about you.  Or at least it wasn't, until you attacked me.  This is all on you, and it's all due to your actions. So you've got some nerve to come on here and tell me to show some grace... That's some pretty high comedy....

So...now...since there was no way in the world this was about you or ever was going to be about you until your own actions made this about you, who do you rate for, anyway?     

Dave-I'm pretty confident that anybody that compares your current stance against the quotes that Pat Craig provided us with can see the inconsistencies. Are the words in bold for emphasis? As far as the other drivel thanks for the laugh. Happy Holidays bud.

[DMoriarty]

This thread is full opinions from the perspective of the courses, the raters, the anti-raters, the ex-raters, etc.  We don't have much which addresses the issue from the perspective of the golfer interested in learning about golf courses and the substantive differences between them.  From this perspective, I still don't understand what of value these lists offer the golfer.  The closest anyone has come was John Mayhugh, who suggested that the Golfweek List will tell someone visiting the Louisville, Kentucky area where to play.  But I looked at the Kentucky list and it doesn't offer anything other than bare ranking of a handful of courses for the state.  It tells me nothing at all of substance about the courses.

What is the point of all this?   What substantive information is provided to the golfer?   What does a golfer learn if one course is ranked 97th and another 127th, other than that one make the "Top 100" and the other didn't?   Is there really a discernible substantive (or even statistical) difference in quality between those two courses?  Aside from trophy hunters, raters, and courses who make a list, who benefits?

[John Kavanaugh]

David,


The people who enjoy golf writing benefit. A writer has got to eat and the rankings are an end to that means. Even if you don't like the magazines the writers need a day job to write their books.

[Sean_A]

David

Why must rankings or anything dealing with golf be about providing substantive info?  Golf is a game or a hobby which is about entertainment and perhaps a bit of light exercise.  Rankings are about selling magazines...which means they are about entertainment.  Pay attention...we have been through this already.  I get it that you aren't entertained by rankings...but a great many golfers are.  To each is own.

Ciao

[Bill Seitz]

You come on here and tell me I have no credibility, and then say I'm trying to make this about you ?  That's pretty funny...

Well, in his defense, you did once say that JC Jones had an interesting point, which is quite frankly a disqualifying opinion.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think you're necessarily wrong that there is tacit pressure on clubs to comp rounds, though I think you overstate it a bit.  When you look at the list, none of the top 10, and very few of the top 25 courses appear to allow rounds based on a magazine card.   So apparently you don't have to play the comp game to be highly rated, in fact, it probably works against a club at some point.  And outside of the top 25, it's really all a marketing thing anyway. It's just a way for clubs to market themselves at a top 50, 100, whatever club.  Of the 75 left, how many even care from a marketing standpoint?  I'm guessing your club probably isn't hurting for members, and inclusion on a list isn't very meaningful other than for someone's (not yours apparently) pride.  My club, on the other hand, may benefit from the publicity that comes from being ranked.  So let's agree that there is pressure on some clubs to participate, and we can argue over how great that pressure is and who's feeling it, but ultimately it's just worthless debate.

I'll tell you one thing that would do it: take away magazine-fueled access.  No card. No calling or emailing for access.  The raters either have their own access or they don't.  With that, the entire pressure problem is solved.  I don't know what the ramifications of that would be, but my sense is that you'd get a much higher quality of rater, and your access whore quotient would be nil.

This is where I think the logic doesn't necessarily follow.  I think you've solved part of the problem, as described above, but what do you think it is about someone who is wealthy and well connected that gives them a better eye for the quality of a golf course than someone who isn't?  Let's stipulate that the current vetting process for all magazine panelists is subpar (I'm not saying it is, it's just not relevant to the argument).  You're proposing a vetting process that essentially limits panelists to members at relatively renowned, high end clubs. What do you fell makes them more qualified?  What is it about being an access whore that makes one unqualified?  You can argue for a much more limited pool of raters, who undergo a more rigorous process before being becoming panelists, but I'm not sure that tracks well with what you're suggesting. 

[Jim Hoak]

It's more than recreation or entertainment.  Housing developments with golf courses need a good ranking for their course to assure higher prices for the real estate.  It's big money--since many (maybe unsophisticated) people want a house on a highly ranked course.
As they said in All the President's Men, "Follow the money."  It's true for most riddles.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm sorry that too many posters on this thread assume the worst about raters. Their assumptions about raters tells me more about the kind of person who posts on GCA than it does about the GW raters.

Brad:


To paraphrase Animal House, please don't let a few bad apples spoil it for the rest of us.


The broad brush strokes are working both ways here.


Sven

[Bill Seitz]

It's more than recreation or entertainment.  Housing developments with golf courses need a good ranking for their course to assure higher prices for the real estate.  It's big money--since many (maybe unsophisticated) people want a house on a highly ranked course.
As they said in All the President's Men, "Follow the money."  It's true for most riddles.

That may be true to some extent, Jim, but how many in the top 25 need good ranking to sell property?  Any of them?  Maybe Muirfield, but I doubt it.  How many of the top 50?  There don't even appear to be that many housing development type courses in the top 100, at least not too many that would need a magazine ranking to sell property.  I don't think the cost of a home on 17 miles drive rises or falls with Cypress Point's position on the list.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think you're overstating it, at least with regard to the top 100, and certainly with regard to the top 50. 


Edit: This is looking primarily at the Digest list.  You almost certainly have a stronger point with regard to the top 100 modern on GW by simple virtue of the fact that it's got a lot more newer courses by the nature of criteria.

[Tom_Doak]

We have covered much of this ground before [many, many times], but I would like to share my perspective on some posts that I think are off base.


Sean:  I'm not sure the rankings have anything to do with selling magazines.  I was always told that the rankings issues sold no more or less copies than any other issue of GOLF Magazine, and that pieces about golf courses and architecture were very low on the polls of what readers wanted.  I think the rankings have more to do with prestige ... positioning whichever magazine as the trusted source on such things.


Jim:  Likewise, I don't believe that rankings have much to do with selling real estate at higher prices.  Developers pay architects a lot of money based on the PRESUMPTION that anything designed by, say, Jack Nicklaus must be a fine course, regardless of whether the rankings confirm this or not.  I don't know of a single property where real estate prices went up after a course received a ranking.  If anyone knows of such an instance, I'd be happy to hear about it, here or offline.

[DMoriarty]

Kavanaugh. I realize your post was intended as just another petty swipe at Brad. Setting that aside, I wish the rankings were about supporting people who enjoy writing about golf courses. If there was actual writing involved we might learn something about golf courses.  Just listing courses doesn't tell us much of anything.
___________________________________________________

David

Why must rankings or anything dealing with golf be about providing substantive info?  Golf is a game or a hobby which is about entertainment and perhaps a bit of light exercise.  Rankings are about selling magazines...which means they are about entertainment.  Pay attention...we have been through this already.  I get it that you aren't entertained by rankings...but a great many golfers are.  To each is own.

Ciao

Sean, perhaps it is you who needs to "pay attention." You don't need to convince me that rankings are about selling magazines or magazine prestige.  But most of the posters (and especially the pro-rankings posters) seem to think that there is more being accomplished than just this.  I am questioning what else is being accomplished? And who benefits? And is there a better way to accomplish as much or more?
You obviously don't care about these questions, but I do.  "To each his own."
____________________________

Jim:  Likewise, I don't believe that rankings have much to do with selling real estate at higher prices.  Developers pay architects a lot of money based on the PRESUMPTION that anything designed by, say, Jack Nicklaus must be a fine course, regardless of whether the rankings confirm this or not.  I don't know of a single property where real estate prices went up after a course received a ranking.  If anyone knows of such an instance, I'd be happy to hear about it, here or offline.

Tom ,  I think it would be tough to prove one way or another because so many variables impact increasing real estate prices, but I think this was certainly the perception amongst some developers (and other land owners within the development) during the last real estate boom. For example, the GD "Best New" was marketed as quite a big deal by some developments.  Black Rock in Coeur d'Alene comes to mind as one example.

[Mike_Young]

I read Brad Klein's post and DS reply.  I am sure we would have much more accurate rankings if Brad, Whitten and Joe Passov( I think he is Golf Mag) all went out and did it themselves.  They would have more to justify their logic than the average guy who self-appoints his expertise in an area.  Brad says there are around 2600 courses on the list for GW so I assume the same for GD and GM.  After all of Brad's explaining I see good friends go to a prominent courses that are not looking for raters and ask the pro to honor their card.  In most cases these are private clubs and the pro takes the simple route and says yes but it just isn't right.  So maybe that isn't about the magazines and is more about how the transaction is handled by the pro and the rater. 

[Mike Hendren]

Mike Young, when approaching the golf shop front desk, I usually introduce myself then take one step back, two steps back and then a stutter step.
 
After the round I revisit with the professional and typically offer the following:  "I don't think old Bogey can do you any good."
 
Do you agree with this approach?
 
Bogey

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young, when approaching the golf shop front desk, I usually introduce myself then take one step back, two steps back and then a stutter step.
 
After the round I revisit with the professional and typically offer the following:  "I don't think old Bogey can do you any good."
 
Do you agree with this approach?
 
Bogey

"And you were still pulling card"

[Peter Pallotta]

A question:

in this particular 'system' (that includes the magazines and the advertisers and the raters and the golf courses/owners and the editors/administrators and the critics and the readers and the architects), who is the "little guy"?

My heart tells me that if your desire is to stand up for and serve the little guy, you'll know the best way to design a system and (on top of that) you'll come out feeling good and successful in the end -- and will have added something of genuine value to the world (or at least your small part of it)

Peter

As George Bailey famously said to the Mr Potter: "This rabble you're talking about does most of the living and dying and working in this community -- is it too much for them to ask to live and die and work in two clean rooms and a bath? My father didn't think so -- but to you a warp, frustrated old man they're only cattle." 

And we all know that Bedford Falls turned out to be a lovelier and better and more life-enhancing town than Pottersville.   

[Tom_Doak]

For example, the GD "Best New" was marketed as quite a big deal by some developments.  Black Rock in Coeur d'Alene comes to mind as one example.

Perhaps it helped them sell a little real estate at higher prices ... but then didn't they go through bankruptcy?


I do agree with you, though, that it would be far better if the magazines wrote something of substance ABOUT these courses, instead of just ranking them.  GOLF and GOLF DIGEST now have very short reviews of each course up on their web sites along with the rankings ... in fact, it's almost impossible to look at their lists, you have to click through 100 courses.  The write-ups don't tell me too much though:  for example, Ron Whitten's write-up of Pacific Dunes was that I'd moved a lot of earth to make it look like I moved very little, which is just plain wrong. 

[Jim Hoak]

Tom Doak, I can't cite any real estate project where the property values went up due to an increased course rating, but I am aware of a few developments where they work very hard to improve the ranking because they believe that it will improve the real estate market.  I don't want to name names, but I know of committees being set up to entertain raters in order to curry favor.  This, of course, leads to some of the excesses toward raters being lambasted in this topic.

[Carl Nichols]

This thread is full opinions from the perspective of the courses, the raters, the anti-raters, the ex-raters, etc.  We don't have much which addresses the issue from the perspective of the golfer interested in learning about golf courses and the substantive differences between them.  From this perspective, I still don't understand what of value these lists offer the golfer.  The closest anyone has come was John Mayhugh, who suggested that the Golfweek List will tell someone visiting the Louisville, Kentucky area where to play.  But I looked at the Kentucky list and it doesn't offer anything other than bare ranking of a handful of courses for the state.  It tells me nothing at all of substance about the courses.

What is the point of all this?   What substantive information is provided to the golfer?   What does a golfer learn if one course is ranked 97th and another 127th, other than that one make the "Top 100" and the other didn't?   Is there really a discernible substantive (or even statistical) difference in quality between those two courses?  Aside from trophy hunters, raters, and courses who make a list, who benefits?

David--
I'll take a crack at answering this question, since I've never been a rater and the only job I've ever had at a golf course was in the bag room at our local club from approximately 1986-1988.  So what do I get from the rankings?  I get a fast and free snapshot of what three different groups of golfers have rated as the best courses in specific locations, which for me is relevant information in deciding which among various courses I might want to play, particularly when I travel.  I certainly don't stop there and I certainly don't assume that the rankings are "correct"--I look at other sources of information, try to gather the views of specific people whose views I trust, etc.--but it's relevant information to me, as a consumer, in deciding where I'm going to spend my time and money on golf. 
Carl

[Matthew Sander]

David--
I'll take a crack at answering this question, since I've never been a rater and the only job I've ever had at a golf course was in the bag room at our local club from approximately 1986-1988.  So what do I get from the rankings?  I get a fast and free snapshot of what three different groups of golfers have rated as the best courses in specific locations, which for me is relevant information in deciding which among various courses I might want to play, particularly when I travel.  I certainly don't stop there and I certainly don't assume that the rankings are "correct"--I look at other sources of information, try to gather the views of specific people whose views I trust, etc.--but it's relevant information to me, as a consumer, in deciding where I'm going to spend my time and money on golf. 
Carl

Seems to be a pretty reasonable point of view, Carl. I'm not sure why so many see a need to affix such malicious motives to something that is basically a discussion starter for hobbyists. I may be a bit pollyannish with that outlook, but oh well...

[JC Jones]

The raters and the content they provide to the magazines have long been profit centers for the architects and the golf courses.  Golfweek realized a few years ago that raters could be a profit center for the magazine beyond generating that no-cost content and so now does Conde Nast. 

[DMoriarty]

Tom
I believe Black Rock did go bankrupt, but I don't think that was a direct result of their Golf Digest awards.  It might have had something to do with focusing on hype over value, or perhaps it was just a victim of the economic downturn.
_______________________________________________________

Carl, Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I agree somewhat, but to my mind this same thing could be accomplished more efficiently and effectively without all the spinning wheels, churning, hand wringing, and hurt feelings.

Do these lists give you an insight into the substantive differences between golf courses? Does it directly benefit you that there is a brand new classics list ever couple of years? Is it meaningful to you or anyone if a course is No. 75 on a list, rather than No. 96?  If so, how so?

[John_Conley]

Do these lists give you an insight into the substantive differences between golf courses? Does it directly benefit you that there is a brand new classics list ever couple of years? Is it meaningful to you or anyone if a course is No. 75 on a list, rather than No. 96?  If so, how so?

No.
No.
No.
Dave, Carl beat me to it.  I recently moved and am traveling to new areas and wondered where I should possibly play.  Where did I go to seek an answer?  Best You Can Play and Top in State lists.    I don't see golf course rankings as a bad thing.
You raise a good point about the static nature of greatness.  Shinnecock Hills is great today, great yesterday, and will probably be great tomorrow.  In my mind I've seen the terrific explosion of great courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, and others and figure that Top 150 today is probably equal to Top 100 in 1980 or 1990.  In other words, there have been 50 courses in the US that opened in the last 25-35 years that are "Top 100"?  So how to keep up with that?  Agree or not, but the industry has decided lists and more lists.
Golfweek actually added a bunch of different flavors as a line extension, and I think that's a good thing.  College courses, Residential, Casino, Municipal...what's the harm?  The only problem - in my eyes - arises if people take these too serious. 

[Brad Klein]

Agreed on avoiding broad brush strokes, thanks, Sven Nilsen (above, this page).

It is too bad that the focus is all on the rankings and not on the writings that accompany the rankings. I've been writing detailed Raters Notebooks for 14 years now - well over 125 course reviews, 1,000 - 1,200 words each. Plus detailed profiles of architects - Hanse, Coore, Rees Jones, Pete Dye, Mile Strantz, Jim Engh, among others. They get little commentary here, mainly because few of the posters who complain about rankings actually bother to read anything - books included. Luckily, I write for folks who take their time - and Doak is correct, it's a minority of readers of the magazines, but thankfully a very loyal following. One without an axe to grind and simply who seem to revel in serious discussion without animus.

[Sean_A]

We have covered much of this ground before [many, many times], but I would like to share my perspective on some posts that I think are off base.


Sean:  I'm not sure the rankings have anything to do with selling magazines.  I was always told that the rankings issues sold no more or less copies than any other issue of GOLF Magazine, and that pieces about golf courses and architecture were very low on the polls of what readers wanted.  I think the rankings have more to do with prestige ... positioning whichever magazine as the trusted source on such things.

Tom

I was under the impression that everything in a magazine (except for ads) is meant to be about enticing people to buy the magazine.  What other purpose would a rankings article serve other than to entice people to buy the magazine?

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Brad,
While I don't always agree with everything in them, I find your reviews to be very informative, much more so than the rankings. I have a sense of your perspective, and can consider the reviews in the context of your opinions about other courses. Just as I would any other critic. The reviews make as good a case as any for a more substantive approach. Perhaps the written reviews would garner more attention if they were somehow better incorporated into GolfWeek's rankings. For example, when I look at the lists online there are no links to the reviews, just the numbers. While others might, I don't get too much out of those. I'd much rather have your opinions and descriptions, and the opinions and descriptions of certain of your raters.

Agreed on avoiding broad brush strokes, thanks, Sven Nilsen (above, this page).
. . . They get little commentary here, mainly because few of the posters who complain about rankings actually bother to read anything - books included. Luckily, I write for folks who take their time - and Doak is correct, it's a minority of readers of the magazines, but thankfully a very loyal following. One without an axe to grind and simply who seem to revel in serious discussion without animus.

Good thing you are aren't painting with a broad brush. 

[Rick Emerson]

I've been writing detailed Raters Notebooks for 14 years now - well over 125 course reviews, 1,000 - 1,200 words each. Plus detailed profiles of architects - Hanse, Coore, Rees Jones, Pete Dye, Mile Strantz, Jim Engh, among others.

How does one get their hands on one of these raters note books? This sounds like some excellent reading. Do you have a pdf copy or a digital version you could hook a brother up with? By the way this sounds like exactly what many of the posters in this thread want: more detailed course reviews to help them make informed decisions about where they would most enjoy playing golf based on their personal, subjective tastes on what makes a course "great". I must say, having listened to some of Mr. Klein's talks online about architecture, he certainly seems to value many of the things others here think are important in good architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()