[Mike_Young]

VK,

What you say is correct but we know the mags will not let it go that way...the bigger deal now than the "top100" is a course can make a "best new" list and not be good at all....just a sign of the times...

[Steve Lapper]

VK,


  Golf Magazine, with it's Top 100 World & US lists, while far from perfect, does only poll and print it's list every two years. Such a biennial period does allow for more balance between and amongst the freshly debuted courses.

[Wayne_Freedman]

John Kavanaugh: Regarding anonymity...the last three courses for which I posted numbers had no inkling that I was a panelist. In those cases I just paid my money and teed off. It is impossible to remain anonymous , however, when trying to evaluate courses with restricted access.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't understand why these kind of nasty threads pop up over and over again on GCA.com.


The reason this stuff exists isn't rocket science...


1)  The magazine gets free information to publish and sell fish wraps, and in some cases it sounds like they make a little money charging raters to have cards.
2)  The raters get access to high end courses and in most cases free rounds.
3)  The golf course gets its course rated at minimal to no expense, assuming they were going to be open that day anyway without a full tee sheet.  And don't say its foregone visitor revenue, they would never have allowed the rater to step foot on course if they weren't a rater, so that revenue was never going to happen anyway.


Everyone gets what they what...where are the victims/losers here?

[John Kavanaugh]

John Kavanaugh: Regarding anonymity...the last three courses for which I posted numbers had no inkling that I was panelist. In those cases I just paid my money and teed off. It is impossible to remain anonymous , however, when trying to evaluate courses with restricted access.

Any course that allows raters access also allows access to any golfer qualified to rate it.

[Wayne_Freedman]

John,


I was saying that there are many exclusive courses to which panelists would not have access...not unless those courses sought evaluations.


And, no matter how educated, experienced or opinionated... until a person becomes familiar with the already debated (ad nauseum) criteria, they have no business representing a publication.


Panelists get 'indoctrinated' and at the end of every year, they get scored by none other than Dean Knuth. They look at how many courses we visited and the quality of them, as well. But quality by who's standard? Many of us do not appreciate seeing how many of our scores qualify as 'outliers', as they call them. A good panelist should  conform only to his or her standards within the established criteria.



This is not a 1% vs 99% kind of issue, even though it is beginning to feel that way.


We do the best we can where we can when we can.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Well, okay then. I am a television news reporter for ABC in San Francisco.


Whatever emails you're receiving, Wayno, please send only the good ones.


As a journalist, we get too much hate mail, already, from the 46 percent who did not vote and blame us for the election.

Nice to meet you.
Whether free or freed, there are only a few of us around!

Just chiming in here to set the record straight after getting a couple of personal emails...


        There are 2 of us GCAers with similar names.  You have been reading posts from
  Wayne Freedman...........   well,  I'm close to that but have no "D" in my name.
  I'm Wayne Freeman, an ophthalmologist living in SoCal.  I am a member of Old Ranch CC in
  Seal Beach, Calif., and The Olympic Club in San Francisco, and am NOT a rater.

Just to make things more interesting/complicated. I'm also named Wayne and live in San Francisco and a member of The Olympic Club.

[Mike_Young]

John Kavanaugh: Regarding anonymity...the last three courses for which I posted numbers had no inkling that I was a panelist. In those cases I just paid my money and teed off. It is impossible to remain anonymous , however, when trying to evaluate courses with restricted access.

Wayne,
You are exception since you have paid to play a course you rated. 
The word you use in a later post "indoctrination" is a good word to describe the rating process.  And I'm sure the guy doing the indoctrinating is something else.   If I were to make a list of things that were bad for the growth of golf the top 5 would include the USGA and Magazine ratings.  They have had a direct affect on increased cost.
Cheers

[Howard Riefs]

GD has been teasing the release by putting out Top 10 over past couple of days. In reverse order:


Winged Foot
Sand Hills
NGLA
PB
Merion
Oakmont
Shinnecock
Cypress


Which leaves Augusta and PV as the OP introduced.


GD does include some panelist comments for each--a sizable number of which relate to ambience, quality of the clubhouse, history, etc. versus quality of course itself.

2.  Augusta
1.  PV

[Wayne_Freedman]

David,


The term would be 'regional celebrity' (ahem). After 35 years on SF TV, it provides both pros and cons. Among the pros, people know me on site and trust me. Among the cons....one can never pick his nose in public.


I am a newsman who prides himself on being an equal
Opportunity  antagonist (not saint). And snarky, not snippy (see your earlier post). But, always fair, with no personal opinions or judgements between 9 and 7.


It would not be ethical or feel
comfortable  to use such journalistic privilege or 'celebrity'  for free entrance to a course. Ever.
Not a course, a play, a restaurant, or a concert.


I do have the benefit of a writers card from the GWAA, which opens doors to media events in advance of major tournaments, and which provides a means of getting credentialed.


Lastly, a few courses have hired me to photograph them. Most are not on any list, but I do look forward to doing the photography as a paying hobby in retirement.


@WayneFreedman

[Ruediger Meyer]

The evaluation of the raters is an interesting point. What would happen if a rater goes too far off the average rating. Let's say he would rank courses like Hazeltine regularly above Cypress Point, Pine Valley and Augusta. Would he be forced to hand in his resignation by the auditor?

[Wayne_Freedman]

Ruediger,


No.
They do it for comparisons sake.
Now, if a panelist were way off for a long time, it might be a different story.


I know panelists who take umbrage at being compared with others.
To my knowledge, however, there is no grand secret conspiracy.

The evaluation of the raters is an interesting point. What would happen if a rater goes too far off the average rating. Let's say he would rank courses like Hazeltine regularly above Cypress Point, Pine Valley and Augusta. Would he be forced to hand in his resignation by the auditor?

[Wayne_Freedman]

      David,
 
Please don’t waste our time or embarrass yourself by trying to bait people.
 
This is not a trial.
There is no defendant, nor a judge nor jury to impress.
 
My point:


Try being an anonymous, unconnected  panelist in a strange city  hoping for access to Pine Valley, Cypress Point, or oh, I dunno…say,  The Olympic Club?
 
How are you going to get on?
 
Catch my drift?
 

David,


The term would be 'regional celebrity' (ahem). After 35 years on SF TV, it provides both pros and cons. Among the pros, people know me on site and trust me. Among the cons....one can never pick his nose in public.


I am a newsman who prides himself on being an equal
Opportunity  antagonist (not saint). And snarky, not snippy (see your earlier post). But, always fair, with no personal opinions or judgements between 9 and 7.


It would not be ethical or feel
comfortable  to use such journalistic privilege or 'celebrity'  for free entrance to a course. Ever.
Not a course, a play, a restaurant, or a concert.


I do have the benefit of a writers card from the GWAA, which opens doors to media events in advance of major tournaments, and which provides a means of getting credentialed.


Lastly, a few courses have hired me to photograph them. Most are not on any list, but I do look forward to doing the photography as a paying hobby in retirement.


@WayneFreedman

You sound like you hang out with the  politicians you must cover. 


The issue is not what you decided to write about but rather whether it is impossible to access private clubs, as you said previously. 


I presume that a celebrity such as yourself should have no problem with access.  So the question remains begged.

Plus, who said anything about FREE access?  That's the whole point.  It's not about free access.  It's about access, period.  And as I recall, journalistic ethics apply to people who you cover or might cover.  You're allowed to let your neighbor buy you a beer are you not (so long as he isn't a potential conflict of interest relating to a story)?  And you're allowed to be a guest of somebody who isn't trying to sway you or twist your ethics. 

So that doesn't refute the notion that acccess to private clubs is impossible. 

Please explain how access to private clubs is impossible generally and specifically for a regional celebrity with ethical limitations. 

And as long as we're on the subject, if as you say the GWAA card provides you access to play golf at the clubs that host tournaments that you cover, how does that comport with the journalistic ethics that you said prevent you from playing at private clubs?   How does that work, exactly?  How do guys who cover the XYZ event take free golf from the XYZ club?  Or are you saying that yuh take the free round from the club where you aren't at all covering the event?  And what do you do if there is subsequently a story (like a murder or an allegation of employment discrimination or whatever) at a course you rated for free?  How does that work?

[Mike_Young]

The evaluation of the raters is an interesting point. What would happen if a rater goes too far off the average rating. Let's say he would rank courses like Hazeltine regularly above Cypress Point, Pine Valley and Augusta. Would he be forced to hand in his resignation by the auditor?

I'm not sure it would matter.  I'm sure at the end of the day the dude in charge has full discretion to report what is needed.  I don't think the mags could risk not having total control of the outcome...AND I'm not saying that is wrong...we have to realize what it is in the first place...If it were my mag I would do the same...

[Mike_Young]

      David,
 
Please don’t waste our time or embarrass yourself by trying to bait people.
 
This is not a trial.
There is no defendant, nor a judge nor jury to impress.
 
My point:


Try being an anonymous, unconnected  panelist in a strange city  hoping for access to Pine Valley, Cypress Point, or oh, I dunno…say,  The Olympic Club?
 
How are you going to get on?
 
Catch my drift?
 

Wayne,
From the sound I believe you and many others on here are sincere and take the rating seriously.  My bitching of the rating system is not about the guys that fit in your category.  It's the overall stench in the system that agitates me.  I don't think a rater card gets anyone on PV or CPC etc.  That is usually where the guy playing as a guest just happens to be a rater and odds are he knows better than to advertise it. 
A year doesn't go by that I don't see some goofed up rater scenario.  I have a friend who would come to UGA football games and would usually say he was going to join our group to play on friday afternoons.  He brought a friend the first time and he was also a rater.  they presented the card at the pro shop with no previous warning and were allowed to play at ZERO cost while all of us who were members were paying carts and dues.  OK, I give them one time.  This happened three weekends and the pro was worried about saying no.  I called BS on the guy and told him no more....that winter they took a two week excursion thru Florida playing with buddies and showing the rater card.  And  they rated nothing....        And I have another friend who photographs and writes more detail than is needed at the end of each days round so that he can send in a proper report....
I just see the entire thing as a way to try and present credibility to the rankings. 

Not an attack on you....

[Wayne_Freedman]

Mike,


Sorry you dealt with that.
I would be pissed, as well.
Good that you said something about it so, at least, they knew that you knew.
At GD, such behavior, if reported, would result in their being dropped from the panel.


Did they write a thank-you note?


Take care.


w.

      David,
 
Please don’t waste our time or embarrass yourself by trying to bait people.
 
This is not a trial.
There is no defendant, nor a judge nor jury to impress.
 
My point:


Try being an anonymous, unconnected  panelist in a strange city  hoping for access to Pine Valley, Cypress Point, or oh, I dunno…say,  The Olympic Club?
 
How are you going to get on?
 
Catch my drift?
 

Wayne,
From the sound I believe you and many others on here are sincere and take the rating seriously.  My bitching of the rating system is not about the guys that fit in your category.  It's the overall stench in the system that agitates me.  I don't think a rater card gets anyone on PV or CPC etc.  That is usually where the guy playing as a guest just happens to be a rater and odds are he knows better than to advertise it. 
A year doesn't go by that I don't see some goofed up rater scenario.  I have a friend who would come to UGA football games and would usually say he was going to join our group to play on friday afternoons.  He brought a friend the first time and he was also a rater.  they presented the card at the pro shop with no previous warning and were allowed to play at ZERO cost while all of us who were members were paying carts and dues.  OK, I give them one time.  This happened three weekends and the pro was worried about saying no.  I called BS on the guy and told him no more....that winter they took a two week excursion thru Florida playing with buddies and showing the rater card.  And  they rated nothing....        And I have another friend who photographs and writes more detail than is needed at the end of each days round so that he can send in a proper report....
I just see the entire thing as a way to try and present credibility to the rankings. 

Not an attack on you....

[Matthew Sander]

VK,


  Golf Magazine, with it's Top 100 World & US lists, while far from perfect, does only poll and print it's list every two years. Such a biennial period does allow for more balance between and amongst the freshly debuted courses.

Steve Lapper,


Golf Digest's Top 100 list is also printed every two years. The upcoming list will be labeled "2017-2018".


Best,
Matt Sander

[Sean_A]

David


I guess my question is why do you care how or why folks get on courses and if they pay or not?  Other than at your own club...is it any of your business or concern?  I get it, the Michelin Guide approach is obviously superior in every way compared to golf rating. Obviously, restaurants are open to all and its easy to slip in as rater and see the place in all its glory or not. That simply isn't possible for many of the courses which many consider to be list worthy.  For one, I wouldn't rate a private course if I turned up with a member unless he said it was okay.  And I wouldn't use a social/charity function as an opportunity to rate a private course because my attention should be elsewhere. And I wouldn't ask to play a private course with the intention to rate it and conceal that I am rater.


I understand that you are disillusioned with golf rating and for good reason(s), but jeepers, give it a rest.


Ciao   

[V. Kmetz]

Yes, two years is also way too frequent...as I said in my post, I accept GD retaining any brand item as best they can...it's just another reason the list hardly serves a meaningful function...5 years, 7 years, 10 years...it might get back its fullest buzz and novelty...


In 1985, I didn't know 2/3rds of the courses, only a handful with any play or intimacy...the world has changed, now I have as full of coverage as I want for America's Best 500, a click away and I've probably played or visited 25-30 on the current list, maybe as many as 45-50 of everything that's been on the list at one time (and fallen off).


I needed Golf Digest (and this list) if I wanted to know anything about an near-equivalent decades-young course in 1985...Nowadays, I have full coverage of Sand Hills, Bandon and Seboneck, even though I unlikely to ever get to them, just as I never visited Oak Tree or PGA West or Kiawah Ocean.


In the pre-digital era, it was one of my only links to old championship courses too...like Canterbury or The Country Club or Inverness...it was an excellent launch point.


However without recalling specifically, I'll bet a healthy portion of today's Top 20 were in the Top 20 in 1985...PV, ANGC, Cypress, Pebble, WFW, Merion,


cheers
vk

[Sean_A]

I see rating for what it is, not what Raters come on here every year and purport it to be.


It is a P&L that relies on a COGS line of zero.  They give away somebody else's product for their own profit so that people that should be out of jobs retain those jobs.


Once raters started paying to be raters, any pretense of volunteerism or do-gooding went right down the toilet.  The shine came off the apple with that. It's all about coerced free rounds from courses and, in effect, volume greens fee discounts pre-paid by rater.  It's sad how pathetic the attempts to defend this practice are.  Put the squeeze on small businesses in any other industry with a "buy our ads/comp the rater or face the consequences" tacit ultimatum, and you get a RICO conspiracy indictment.

So, no rest for the wicked?


Ciao

[BCowan]

And now, more courses are asking us to pay in order to play and post an evaluation. The latter is particularly irksome. They asked to be looked at.  Respect the process. Respect our effort to get there

It's this entitlement outlook that pisses off some of us.  I see many parallels to GolfNow with clubs/courses pressured to let raters on.  I've let the above quote sink in for a day, and it still bothers me.  I believe a rater should pay the same as a member pays for an accompanied guest.  I doubt that will ever happen, until then I'll view a rater as the below photo

[Sean_A]

Loved that photo.  Speaks a thousand words.  It resonates because it's the truth.

I ask again...why do you care how a person accesses a course and how much he pays? I am happy for people when they get to do things which make them happy...which is why your reaction is so puzzling to me. So what if people are on a "golden ticket"? Its no skin off your nose so live and let live.


Ciao

[hhuffines]

So, back to the list... did I miss Old Town? 

[Sean_A]

Sounds like you are making mountains out of molehills to me. If you don't care, act like you don't care. 

Course owners can say no to raters and some do.  There is no need to feel squeezed...the ultimate power lies with the clubs, not the raters.  I am continually surprised that private clubs allow rater visits...especially comped rater visits from established clubs. They must find some value in doing so.  Maybe its part and parcel of membership recruitment...which usually involves free rounds of golf anyway.  I can understand some public courses feeling the pinch, but the decision still lies with owners.  In the big scheme of things, there is absolutely no reason to have rater visits for at least 90% of courses. 

Yes, at your club free rounds cost you something.  So get on the board and stop free rounds for raters.  I doubt it would make you feel any better, but its worth a try. 

I would be very surprised if rater visits somehow deprive more deserving people...that is a serious reach my man...good try though. 

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

So, back to the list... did I miss Old Town?

Apparently, not enough guys were actually willing to actually pay to play to get the needed number of new votes.  So no ranking for Old Town - and its members pay the price.  Gotta offer the freebie to get the raters out.

And so OT got the best rating one can get      The " no raters" is going to become the new cool....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()