Raters and Freebies.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

That's a heck of a stand, makes great sense in the abstract.

Let me know when you get the magazines to reimburse us for our golf, will you?

I think I'm gonna be waiting a long time.  

TH

[George Pazin]

The problem comes when some guy thinks he just got the golden meal ticket to every course in the world.  Sorry, but you have to work for that card, and it's called a PGA Professional card.

Somehow this got overlooked.

PGA Professionals get a golden meal ticket to every course in the world? I knew all Jeff's complaining was just a smokescreen.

Now I have to decide - do I chop 20 strokes off my handicap to qualify for the Amateur at Merion or do I chop 20 strokes off & become a golf pro to get the golden mean ticket? Decisions, decisions.

Seems to me everyone just needs to lighten up a little and maybe not overgeneralize so much (even though that is what we specialize in, as a group).

P.S. If one were looking for honest ratings, Dan Kelly's method works best.

[ForkaB]

George

Go for turning pro.  You only need a 5 handicap (I think), so it's a helluyva lot easier than qualifying to get a bite at the Amateur cherry at Merion.  Also, just think of it, you would be forward intergrating into an outlet for your t-shirts!

As for this whole thread, remember the old phrase that if you take the King's shilling, you are doing his bidding.  If the magazines are paying you, you do their bidding.  If the courses pay, you are doing theirs.

AS they say, you pays yer money (or not, as the case may be) and takes yer choice.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Rich - that's one less decision I have to make.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Rich,

In the U.S., a PGA pro has to pass the P.A.T., which is within 15 strokes of two times the course rating (over two rounds).

I think golf teachers have a less strict policy.  I once heard it was simply a single digit handicap, but I wouldn't believe it.


If raters are doing a courses' bidding, then why aren't they all #1?  Why are so many that have big hype not even on some of the lists?  Briar's Creek is #57 on the GM list, yet didn't even crack the GW Modern list with lots of players?  According to many here, free fees don't change their ratings opinions one iota.

[HamiltonBHearst]

"and then I insult the hell out of many hosts, for whom money is nothing".  

Nothing like rationalization.  Pay the freight, maybe you would be invited more often.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Scott: I don't think the raters are doing the courses' bidding, rather, another system which eliminates gratis rounds, eliminates any question as to how a rating was achieved.

While they can't all be No.1 as you say, there is the possibility there is inflation in the ratings in some instances. Again, maybe everything's had been kosher (who knows), but a more business-like way of doing things can only bolster the magazine's.

I would think the courses need GD a lot more than GD needs the courses (advertising) which was discussed in another thread.

All of this is dependent on the magazine wanting to spend the dough (reimbursing raters) for something they now get for free.

[imtherealllama]

Shivas said--

>>>>There's a course in Chicago called Big Run, that has a few new holes that were added to it maybe 15 years ago.  They stick out from the older style nature of the course like a sore thumb.  But they sure add variety.


now we know you are grasping for straws!  Big Run - aka "the Big Walk" is one of the WORST courses on this planet!

that's quite a stretch to even mention that goat ranch in a thread about raters!  i doubt any rater ever visited that place as a rater!

in other words, the 'new' holes don't go with the old holes.  hell, the 'old' holes didn't even go with the old holes!!

 

bring back your discussions on Peter Jans National!  Now THERE'S a worthy golf course!!!!

 

[imtherealllama]

Dear Rater #1

before you go picking on our good friend, shivas, you should identify yourself.

[Dan Kelly]

Its the way it will always be, and it isn't going to change. Anyways writers get far more freebees than raters, and we read their travel articles continuously. Most pay nothing for golf, travel, stay, and even meals.

Well, it should change.

And those travel writers should pay. (That is: Their publications should pay.)

If they did pay, maybe we'd get something better out of them than the pabulum they usually churn out.

Maybe, once in a while, we'd get a writer telling us that such-and-such a destination isn't worth the cost! Heresy!

[Rick Shefchik]

Dan Kelly's proposal that magazines compensate the raters who work for them may not happen in our lifetime, but it should -- and until it does, threads like this one (and the presumptions that spawned it) will not go away.

What I do at my paper -- the same one that employs the food critic Dan alluded to -- is somewhat different than what a golf rating panelist does, but close enough that it's worth discussing.

I review local public courses in the Twin Cities area. I am interested in where these courses might rate in relation to other courses, but I don't see that as my job. I see my responsibility as conveying, as completely as possible, the entire experience of playing a course, for a reader who's thinking of paying his or her own way to play it.

I call up and make a tee time like any other member of the public, never identifying myself, and I pay for my round. I actually prefer to play at peak times, when practical, since that most accurately reflects the typical player's experience. Anyone can enjoy a course during off-peak play, but when it's crowded and slow, you get a better idea of whether the consumer is getting his or her money's worth.

The newspaper reimburses me for my greens fee and my mileage. I do these reviews twice a month from late spring to early fall; more often than that, and the paper would probably balk at the expense (see, Tom H.? I understand the real-world obstacles to this otherwise ideal arrangement.)

The golf course shouldn't know I'm there, shouldn't attempt to present a better face to me than to any other member of the paying public, and shouldn't pay for my round. If my newspaper continues to find value in these reviews, they're the ones who should pay -- just as the golf magazines should pay the raters who provide the data for their rating issues. And -- again, ideally -- the golf courses should never know when they're being rated.

[Dan Kelly]

The idea of measuring the aesthetics of a Cypress Point or any other of our shrines by sheer numbers, is anathema to me.

Hear, hear!

[THuckaby2]

Sound must take a long time to travel to Minnesota.  That was a long pause after the post for the "hear, hear."  

Of course Mr. Huntley is right on - he rarely isn't... but that's beside the point if one is really trying to be a smartass, as I am.  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Sound must take a long time to travel to Minnesota.  That was a long pause after the post for the "hear, hear."  

Of course Mr. Huntley is right on - he rarely isn't... but that's beside the point if one is really trying to be a smartass, as I am.  

TH

I'm one of those weirdos who, when they say they haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, are telling the truth!

Even weirder: I'm going back to read the whole thread now.

But you've got it wrong: Sound takes a long time leaving Minnesota. I said "Hear, hear!" before Mr. Huntley even made that post.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

I see my responsibility as conveying, as completely as possible, the entire experience of playing a course, for a reader who's thinking of paying his or her own way to play it.

Rick, that sentence perfectly sums it up.

Like it or not, if golf mags are not reimbursing raters, they are part of an ongoing ethics problem in journalism. Again, it's the publications' problem; not the raters--they, for the most part, are not trained journalists.

[Dan Kelly]

I would like it much better if someone such as Brad at Golfweek would just have a list of courses that they feel the golfer would enjoy and no numbers beside the name.

Exactly. This is the Michelin-type system that Prof. Goodale has advocated.

Ratings: Good.

Rankings: Bad.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

whoa... the physics of that has my head spinning....

But well said.  

BTW, I've constantly been against the Goodale Michelin-type system, and I ain't changin' now.  Not unless he broadens it to at least five stars.  Three stars means not enough info, for those who wish to rely on such things as ratings systems for the travel/course decisions.  That's the weakness Mr. Goodale has never been able to answer.

But broaden it to five stars, and them I'm with you.

TH

ps - do you ever disagree with Rich?    It's ok, we all have our faves.. the only thing I ever disagreed with shivas on was some misguided idea he once had about a victory for NW over ND being the greatest upset of all time.  We all have our faves with whom we think alike.  I just want you to come clean.

[Dan Kelly]

The fact that magazines do this to "sell magazines" is bandied about here. Does anyone here have concrete numbers to support this? If rankings are such money makers, why do GOLF and Golf Digest (the two goliaths of advertising dollars) not feature the number one course on the cover? Why is this cash cow reduced to either the header space, or a mere sentence beside the slice cures?. . . Why GOLF and Golf Digest are doing this bi-annually (imagine any other business only wheeling out the cash cow one month every two years) and the space is VERY limited to really draw it out since it is so capturing...

I find this an extremely interesting and provocative observation.

[THuckaby2]

Someone once was said to be too eager to concur, too eager to please, for posts exactly like that, Dan.  Watch it - there's room down here in the gutter for another....

 

[Dan Kelly]

ps - do you ever disagree with Rich?

Yes.

Rich said he'd travel all the way from Scotland to the King's Putter to see you and Mr. Shivas hitting however many thousands of shots it might take for you to (a) bloody your hands to the point where you couldn't grip the club, or (b) make a "hole-in-one."

I wouldn't.  

I might leave Minnesota for that, especially in the middle of the winter -- but not Scotland.

(I hardly ever disagree with my colleague Mr. Shefchik, either -- or with TEPaul, when I can understand what he's saying! On the other hand: I agree with Patrick_Mucci 3.125% of the time.)

[Dan Kelly]

Someone once was said to be too eager to concur, too eager to please, for posts exactly like that, Dan.  Watch it - there's room down here in the gutter for another....

You misunderstand, Tom IV.

My post was not intended to please. It was intended to retrieve and revive Mr. Dewar's most interesting observation -- and to provoke some discussion of this question: If these leviathan ranking schemes DON'T sell a lot of magazines (I don't know -- but it seems a fair guess, given the infrequency of rankings issues), what do you think they might be intended for? Hmmmmmm?

[Robert Thompson]

Hey gents:

Having participated (and continuing to...) in rating and rankings, I have a couple of observations. I've done a dozen or so evaluations of local Toronto coures for a magazine that paid all my expenses -- I simply booked a time and played the course. It meant I saw a range of courses (though most of them were poorly kept and uninspiring). I've also participated - and continue to do so - on one US panel and two in Canada.
The reality is that rankings and rating are different. For rankings, like GD's best new list, paying is often not an option and arriving unannounced is nearly impossible. Private coures, for example,  require an introduction, a letter, or a call, often weeks in advance. Generally these esteemed private courses don't appear in "ratings," only ranking lists.
Does it make a difference whether one pays a greens fee? I don't see where paying has a large impact. For example, I recently paid to play Carnoustie, but received an invite to play St. George's (in Toronto) for free. Did I evaluate the courses (admittedly great ones) differently because I paid for one and didn't pay for the other? I don't think so. And if a ranker is showing up to a "best new"  in order to conduct an evaluation, do you think the club can make any changes to the course regardless of whether the gree fee is comped or not? It is the same course -- regardless of whether someone pays or not. Good or bad -- paid or free.
The reality is that GD says, in its code of conduct, that rankers should expect to pay a green fee. There is even a list of things they can and cannot receive for free -- ie. green fee, OK, golf hat, not OK. I've been asked to pay on at least a couple of occasions.
As for travel writing, that is a different matter. The economic reality of travel writing for the last two decades, at the very least, has meant that travel writers almost never pay for anything. None of the publications that print their material could afford to exist if they paid for trips. There are some exceptions -- but they are usually news letters that have high subscription fees.
What I've found, as a writer, is that you can be critical in travel writing. First, say what you liked and didn't like -- I tend to and still get offered more "fam" trips than I can take. Secondly, when reading stories, often courses are left out -- it is the way travel writers often indicate what they didn't like.

Anyway, that's enough of me.... I tried to avoid wading into this one...

Robert

[ForkaB]

Tom H

If you had ever taken the time to read any of my posts on "ratings" vs. "rankings" you would know that the "Michelin" system, for both restaurants and golf courses has the 5 categories that you hanker for.  It's just that two of them do not involve stars.......

........and, BTW, I stole the idea not only from M. Michelin, but also from the great Scottish golf writer, Sam McKinlay, who used to give out 1-3 Thistles to the Scottish courses he thought were the best.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike B:

Your original point was that you could assess a golf course simply by looking at it -- that is rubbish IMHO and really laughable. You can only rate a course by playing it.

Mike, when you assess a restaurant you must have uncanny ability to simply stare at a prepared food item and then be able to determine if it tastes good simply by looking at it. That's some skill.

Gentlemen:

The broader issue deals with raters and whether they might be influenced to taylor a rating based on the fact that they were either comped or paid for the round. I never have and believe a good deal of the dedicated ones who are panelists for whatever publication they assist will do likewise.

I can tell you candidly that if the folks who are bitching the loudest here were invited on to a particular panel they would leap in a heartbeat in many instances. I also think people who do serve for quite a period of time are dedicated in trying to provide the best analysis of any facility. Clearly, the magazines could structure the process tobe totally in-house if they desired and there would be some benefits in doing that provided you could get the coverage needed to make it work as well -- if not better than what's used now.

Let me also mention that I'm interested in the golf and only the golf. I also think I'm smart enough to realize that despite all the attempt by the folks at a club to "influence" me such things usually don't work. Comping a green fee is a nice courtesy from the club but if I need to pay I've got my bucks ready to give them. I'm of the credo that says let the product speak for itself and everyone else get out of the way. The more people talk about a facility the more inclined to think that they believe they must "sell" me on the merits of the facility.

There are plenty of panelists who have the passion for the game and are fully capable in rendering fair and independent reviews. Those who don't are certainly identified in some sort or fashion and likely removed.

When I make visits to any course I often tell the people at the club they should send in their "ratings" of the people who come to their course in no less the same fashion as the rater who is assessing the course.

What goes around should come around as well.

[Michael Whitaker]

I've been down with the flu, so I'm jumping in here late in the game, but...

Kygolfer said, "75% of the raters that play our course are looking for a free round of golf for them and their buddy. The system is full of freebies and politcs, and a new way of rating needs to be developed."

IMO raters should never be allowed to "cold call" a course... in other words they should not be allowed to contact a course that has not extended an invitation through the magazine for which they work. If a magazine is interested in having a course rated the magazine should contact the course and ask if its raters might have the opportunity to play, and under what conditions or restrictions. The magazine should then control the contact with the course and schedule all rater play.

Raters should be assigned courses one-on-one by their magazine or given the opportunity to participate in group outings organized by the magazine. The magazine should make all the arrangements for raters to play in their name. A rater should never have the authority to contact a course on his own without the knowledge of the magazine. This would obviously create a great deal more work for the magazine, but if they don't value the benefit they are deriving from the ratings enough to regulate their own system then they should get out of the business of rating and ranking courses.

This business of amateur raters spending hugh sums of money to travel all over the country in order to rate a course for a magazine is silly. If this process is so important to the magazine perhaps they should have a staff of professional raters who visit two or three hundred courses every couple of years. They could then supplement the "professional" ratings with input from local amatuer raters who are able to provide regional flavor.

I had the extreme pleasure to attend the GCA Summer Outing in New Mexico. When we played Black Mesa I couldn't help but chuckle as the "raters" all gathered to the far side of the pro shop and waited for all the non-raters to pay their fee and clear out of the way. The raters then shuffled up and presented their ID cards. It was kind of funny to watch.

When someone shows up at a golf course with his magazine logoed shirt, magazine logoed golf bag, magazine logoed bag tag, magazine logoed head covers, magazine logoed towel, then walks into the proshop displaying his magazine logoed ID card and announces, "I'm a ______ magazine course rater..." - don't tell me he isn't on some kind of ego trip.