[Frank M]

I couldn't care less if a rater gets comped or not. What I do take issue with is anyone who thinks they are doing a "public service" by rating golf courses, or, that it is some sort of volunteer work that should be respected by clubs as if it's their privilege to have them rather than the raters privilege to be able to rate it. 

[Scott Warren]

Frank,

Absolutely agree. That "respect the process" quote is something else.

A golf course rater (and I am one) is no more a "volunteer" by playing great golf courses with increased access and/or reduced cost than Justin Verlander is a "volunteer" for shagging Kate Upton!

[Frank M]

Frank,

Absolutely agree. That "respect the process" quote is something else.

A golf course rater (and I am one) is no more a "volunteer" by playing great golf courses with increased access and/or reduced cost than Justin Verlander is a "volunteer" for shagging Kate Upton!

I really hope that's not the predominant sentiment going around. If it is, I may have to change my opinion of raters, which until now is generally positive.
 

[Wayne_Freedman]

Frank, Scott,


Just to be clear about context, here are exact words. No one is pretending to be a saint, here.
Again, this comes from a panelist who often pays without identifying himself.


That they ask us to pay to be panelists is disappointing, but the golf journalism business is not doing well. Maybe we're supporting the program and paying their salaries. I regard this as a form of volunteerism.  It costs us to take time off and to travel.  It is work to put up a fair set of numbers. 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.Done right, this is not 'free golf'. Not by a long shot. Kindly refrain from knocking the panelist until you have walked a few dozen courses in his shoes. As a panelist who takes this seriously, it is an honor to have been asked and to be trusted.

Here's another:


I volunteer as a panelist, now, because they respected my opinion enough to ask.In turn, I do my best to lend credibility to the process, and do so with humility. Contrary to what many on this forum choose to think, that little white card carries with it a responsibility. Sure, it can get us onto some very nice courses.  However, for every Tom Doak course, I also go out of my way to visit an unheralded one. Those guys need the looks.

And finally:


Golf is certainly a community. Granted, the magazines posting these numbers are in business for profit, but they also provide a public service. We volunteer to help them do it, and usually enjoy the process. Neither I nor other panelists are likely to list the many other causes, whether social or professional, to which we give our considerable time and expertise. Suffice to say that they are very important to each of us...The (other) work for which we volunteer is performed with pureness of heart in the spirit of charity and betterment. For the majority of us, 'volunteering' to evaluate golf courses ranks near the bottom of our importance lists.


So wtf is your problem?
No, never mind.

[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

Courses only do it because they feel pressured to do it.  Because their competition is willing to do it.  So it's a race to the bottom. 

The better question is why raters expect/want/accept comps.   What gives a rater the belief that he's entitled to accept a feeebie?  Why not say "no thanks, I'd rather pay.  If you want to comp someone, comp a kid or a fireman or something."

Do that. And then I'll believe the do-good nonsense I read about the rater racket.  I won't hold my breath for that.  It will NEVER happen. Because raters are in it for the freebies/discounts.  The fact that they now PAY for the card proves it.

David


I never claimed I was doing some great service to humanity.  I think the rating system is really a you scratch my back and I will scratch yours arrangement.  Courses want to be rated (for whatever reasons which aren't entirely clear to me at times) and golfers want to play courses whose doors are normally closed.  I don't see the problem if we keep things in perspective, but then I am not one that believes the ratings are that important for well over 90% of courses.  I also think that courses can side step the rating process, pay for their own marketing and get the same results, maybe better results.  Of course, it would cost a lot more money than comping 25 raters every few years.  But as I say, a massive percentage of courses are not in need of that sort of marketing because they service local communities.


Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

What about the lesser known courses, the ones that need the revenue, that don't receive a green fee because the traveling rater is playing for free at a course he normally could not access.  Or worse, the private course that looses a member once the rater gets his golden ticket. Or even worser the employer or family that gets ignored because free golf, access and the power it all contains becomes a priority in the raters life.

[Mike_Young]

Take an empty bottle of a fine wine, say a 250 dollar bottle, and pour a 20 dollar wine into it and serve it to some wine dudes at a party.  Many will tell you how great it is...that's the way the rating thing works, if we could just change the archie names on half the courses the rankings would change also.   With respect to the raters trying to do it right, they don't really accept you because they respect your opinions they just need the people.  I would assume that today most of the mags expect their rating departments to be self sufficient.  Pro or con it is just a bad deal.  Some guys let the clubhouse influence them, others /all allow maintenance to influence and then upon tabulation of the various rater opinions the top dudes have to consider if the results affect the publication in any way.  Let's just suppose you have a rater who works for a golf car company and a rater who is a top dog with one of the golf club companies and both join a second home course and push for the top rater dog and all the raters to play it.  It's gonna win.  And I have no problem with that because no where at any time have we heard a mag say the ratings could not be subjective.  You have to accept it for what it is and understand it is a powertrip for many of the individual raters.  It's a glorified infomercial at best.

[PCCraig]

I hate to break up this fantastic discussion    but the official 2017-2018 rankings were posted to the Golf Digest website this morning:


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/a-change-at-the-top-pine-valley-overtakes-augusta-national

[Tom_Doak]

I hate to break up this fantastic discussion    but the official 2017-2018 rankings were posted to the Golf Digest website this morning:


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/a-change-at-the-top-pine-valley-overtakes-augusta-national

I see the article but not the lists to go with it.


It is amazing how badly presented the lists are on the magazines' web sites.  You can't find the full list anywhere, but have to go clicking through pictures of each course one at a time, until you find the course you're looking for.  Are they just trying to rack up more clicks?

[Joe Schackman]

I hate to break up this fantastic discussion    but the official 2017-2018 rankings were posted to the Golf Digest website this morning:


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/a-change-at-the-top-pine-valley-overtakes-augusta-national

I see the article but not the lists to go with it.


It is amazing how badly presented the lists are on the magazines' web sites.  You can't find the full list anywhere, but have to go clicking through pictures of each course one at a time, until you find the course you're looking for.  Are they just trying to rack up more clicks?

Ya it is odd. I was on there before and couldn't find the list. I don't think the actual list is posted yet, just that intro article.

The Golf Digest Twitter account hasn't said anything about the list so I'm guessing they still have more rolling out to do. All the Golf Digest writers/editors/accounts will be blasting that list all over social media when it is fully released.

[Tom_Doak]

They sure do try to make a big deal out of it, considering how little the list has actually changed.  [Crystal Downs went from 13th to 12th!  Wow!]

[MCirba]

I'd be curious to know what Pine Valley did to leapfrog over ANGC?   

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

For every rater that plays ANGC at least ten play Pine Valley. The numbers are crap shoot.

[Frank M]

I'd be curious to know what Pine Valley did to leapfrog over ANGC?

My bet is absolutely nothing and that the rankings were reversed just because. I feel like every single time the GD ranking comes out the headline is the exact same: "New Number 1". Is it really a new number 1 if it's been number 1 10 times before?
 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Great moments in bad journalism:

[Tom_Doak]

Also, I would bet that no one has ever played Flint Hills National or Spring Hill Golf Club and compared either to Mount Rushmore!

[PCCraig]

I hate to break up this fantastic discussion    but the official 2017-2018 rankings were posted to the Golf Digest website this morning:


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/a-change-at-the-top-pine-valley-overtakes-augusta-national

I see the article but not the lists to go with it.


It is amazing how badly presented the lists are on the magazines' web sites.  You can't find the full list anywhere, but have to go clicking through pictures of each course one at a time, until you find the course you're looking for.  Are they just trying to rack up more clicks?

Sorry. Apparently the full list, the top 200, will be posted to the website this afternoon in its entirety. They sent out the full list a couple of hours ago to panelists.

[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

Courses only do it because they feel pressured to do it.  Because their competition is willing to do it.  So it's a race to the bottom. 

The better question is why raters expect/want/accept comps.   What gives a rater the belief that he's entitled to accept a feeebie?  Why not say "no thanks, I'd rather pay.  If you want to comp someone, comp a kid or a fireman or something."

Do that. And then I'll believe the do-good nonsense I read about the rater racket.  I won't hold my breath for that.  It will NEVER happen. Because raters are in it for the freebies/discounts.  The fact that they now PAY for the card proves it.

David


I never claimed I was doing some great service to humanity.  I think the rating system is really a you scratch my back and I will scratch yours arrangement.  Courses want to be rated (for whatever reasons which aren't entirely clear to me at times) and golfers want to play courses whose doors are normally closed.  I don't see the problem if we keep things in perspective, but then I am not one that believes the ratings are that important for well over 90% of courses.  I also think that courses can side step the rating process, pay for their own marketing and get the same results, maybe better results.  Of course, it would cost a lot more money than comping 25 raters every few years.  But as I say, a massive percentage of courses are not in need of that sort of marketing because they service local communities.


Ciao

Sean:  I never said you claimed to be doing some great service for humanity.  I said Wayne did. Because he did.


So that being settled, are you going to refuse comps and tell them to donate the comp to someone more in need or not?

I give enough money to charity, but if I hit the lottery after you bought my ticket, I will let you know. 

Funny thing though, I did try to donate money at a few US clubs to no avail.  Its quite common at UK clubs for there to be a Captain's charity (each club captain picks a worthy charity for the year which will receive most of the donations from the club) or a junior section which will take donations.  That doesn't seem to be the case in the US...very short sighted.

Ciao

[BCowan]

Funny thing though, I did try to donate money at a few US clubs to no avail.  Its quite common at UK clubs for there to be a Captain's charity (each club captain picks a worthy carity for the year which will receive most of the donations from the club) or a junior section which will take donations.  That doesn't seem to be the case in the US...very short sighted.


Ciao

Sean,

   I think the Evans Scholarship organization and many others would be offended by those statements.  The US is a very charitable country as a whole.

[John Kavanaugh]

I hate to break up this fantastic discussion    but the official 2017-2018 rankings were posted to the Golf Digest website this morning:


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/a-change-at-the-top-pine-valley-overtakes-augusta-national

I see the article but not the lists to go with it.


It is amazing how badly presented the lists are on the magazines' web sites.  You can't find the full list anywhere, but have to go clicking through pictures of each course one at a time, until you find the course you're looking for.  Are they just trying to rack up more clicks?

Sorry. Apparently the full list, the top 200, will be posted to the website this afternoon in its entirety. They sent out the full list a couple of hours ago to panelists.

You're a Digest Rater. I almost forgot since you have already mentioned it this year. Only 360 more days to go...Give or take.

Funny how you managed to break 80 every round for 20 straight to get down to a 2 to impress Whitten. He should make you play one round to keep your card. I'll put $1,000 against it. Anytime, any course. Par 70, 6000 yds to be specific.

[David Davis]

I hate to break up this fantastic discussion    but the official 2017-2018 rankings were posted to the Golf Digest website this morning:


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/a-change-at-the-top-pine-valley-overtakes-augusta-national

I see the article but not the lists to go with it.


It is amazing how badly presented the lists are on the magazines' web sites.  You can't find the full list anywhere, but have to go clicking through pictures of each course one at a time, until you find the course you're looking for.  Are they just trying to rack up more clicks?

Spreading it out like that creates more page impressions. More page impressions allow more ads to be shown in the hopes that indeed more clicks happen to the ads.


Most of the digital ads are based on CPM rates so cost per mille (cost per 1000) page impressions. If all the Top 100 list creates is 1 page impression per viewer then there is no way to make it pay off, unless courses are allowed to purchase their positions or raters are charged to be raters etc etc. Combine all three and you might even be able to help subsidize that issue.

[Jason Topp]

You're a Digest Rater. I almost forgot since you have already mentioned it this year. Only 360 more days to go...Give or take.

Funny how you managed to break 80 every round for 20 straight to get down to a 2 to impress Whitten. He should make you play one round to keep your card. I'll put $1,000 against it. Anytime, any course. Par 70, 6000 yds to be specific.

John:  I have no idea what the criteria is for being a GD rater but I invite you to check the list of club champions at Town & Country 2012 and 2014:

https://www.mngolf.org/ClubChamps

[John Kavanaugh]

My offer stands. I've seen Pat over the ball. Half his scores that year were combinations. Two nines put together.

[BHoover]

My offer stands. I've seen Pat over the ball. Half his scores that year were combinations. Two nines put together.

John, you really are a miserable SOB, aren't you? Are you drinking early this afternoon? Or does being a dbag just come naturally for you?


Why do you care about this? Wait, I don't want to know. I really don't care what makes you tick.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sorry Hoovey, it's already evening in Paris.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()