Prejudiced . . . Continued.

[DMoriarty]

Sorry in advance for yet another thread on rating.   In the previous "Prejudiced? thread I invited civil conversation but didnt get a chance to respond prior to the thread becoming a RNC planning session.   So faced with rudely ignorinng those I invited into conversation, or rudely highjacking back my previous thread, I chose this route.  Part of my continued attempt to make everyone happy . . . .
_________________________

Thanks to those of you who civilly responded to my request.   I apologize for leaving you hanging but I had temporarily taken cover from the crossfire.
______________________________

Thanks Shivas for trying to answer my hypothetical.  You were the only one who bothered I think.  Let me try it again in a more straight forward manner . . .

   a.   Assuming freebies and assuming the raters are so allowed,  Raters will tend toward rating more expensive, more flashy, and more notorious courses over the alternative.
   b.    Over time, this will skew ratings toward flashy,  more expensive courses.
   c.    Requiring Raters to pay would incentivize cost conscious raters to see more affordable and less flashy courses, thus balancing out some of the skew . . .

This was one of my main premises from the beginning.  As far as I can tell no one has offered a convincing refutation yet.   Anyone?  Bueller?  Anyone?  . . . .
______________________________

Matt Ward,  I have read your post vouching for your own integrity, and unless it was written as some sort of a parody of your brethren (which I doubt),  I cannot see how it responds to my post at all.   Did you actually read my post?   If so, I'd have thought you might have noticed that "my angst" is directed not at the soldiers but at the system.  

And Matt, my other question still remains . . . what is your basis for "candidly" asserting that those of us who are complaining would gladly trade places?
______________________________

Dave,
As always, you start a thread about nothing and hide behind personal attacks.  Well, I am going on another GCA vacation.  All I care about is golf course architecture.  At least be honest enough to admit that your problem with me has nothing to do with raters and everything to so with your not liking the rating I give Rustic Canyon.

David W.  Thanks for keeping it civil David.  I knew I could count on you.   As for your allegation, you'll have to stand in line behind the rest who are sure that this whole thing is about attacking them personally.  
Why not take a look at the substance of what I am saying?  Nahh . . . not your style.
_________________________
Tiger,  you are WRONG.  I am retired.  A full time housewife.  At least until the money runs out.  Although I had more freetime when I was working, it is not a bad gig-- no billables.
____________________________
Shivas and Ed,  thanks for jumping to my defense.   Dont worry though, I am happiest when thinkers like these are angry at me.  Must mean that I am getting closer to the truth, whatever it may be.  Also, people who cannot deal in the realm of ideas will never think much of me.  I wear their scorn as a badge of honor.  But again, thanks for your concern.
______________________________

Shiv-Since the initial thread had so much response in such record time, perhaps David only took out of it what he wanted to, or missed some of the logic that you yourself (a non-rater, right?) espoused. By starting another thread only shows he didn't get anything out of the first, didn't it?
Personal attacks aside, the motivation of getting to the psychie (sp?) of why individuals do what they do, within systems that appear to be loosly based with minimal internal control, is noble, but somehow ignores human nature. If David were to look at these lists in a larger time variable, perhaps some insight as to what stays on the list (the creme) while those that sink like poop, over the years as the voting process allows a greater number of votes to validate the ten that may have been to Idaho this year, is a more paitent appropriate approach and outlook to the benefits of these lists. Just a theory

Adam, good point regarding my apparently ignoring Shivas' "logic," although he can attest that we did discuss some of it off these pages.   You are wrong though that my starting another thread was because I didnt get anything out of the first.  I started it (and this) because I wanted to get past the insults and to a civil discussion.   Are you sure that is what you are interested in?  If so, then by all means revive Shivas' arguments and I will be glad to address them.  

As for your suggestion that I am ignoring human nature I disagree.   In fact raters self interest is what is driving my posts.  Unless you will make it easy for the readers to find the "creme" that emerges over the years, I dont see the point you are trying to make.  
____________________________

Ed-
Whatever rating Wigler gave to RC I am sure that it was more than offset by the one cast by Tommy Naccrato, ASFGCA.  Word has it that he passionately hammered the bar past the bell.  

Wow Lou.  I cant quite believe you wrote this.  Is it proper rater ettiquite to accuse another rater of such a thing in a public forum?  Does the rater guideline contain a section on publicly taking other raters to task for specific ratings you apparently disagree with?  Does it provide a provision for doing so before you have even seen the course?  

If so, you guys are more of a freewheeling bunch than I expected.   One would think that this might be the kind of thing you guys might discuss in private.  

If I was a rater or in charge of ratings, I'd consider this to be quite innappropriate.

. . . . I've never been a big fan of "offset" voting theories in politics, much less in a system where the voters are given specific guidelines regarding their vote.
______________________________

And on that note . . .

[Mike Hendren]

Dave,

You are a great guy.  Strong intellect.  Good fellowship.  Etc.  

Sorry to do this but I'm taking the role of Barney Fife today:  "You gotta nip it, Andy!  Nip it in the bud!"  

As someone who routinely posts  far afield, I'm trying to repent and focus on golf course architecture.  You are not helping.  

Please patronize me by posting on the GCTAOTD thread.  

Looking forward to seeing RC for the first time at KPIII.

Mike

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David, I am so impressed. You are over the wall and the law is no longer your daily bread. There is a tear in my eye anytime a friend escapes the law to a kinder gentler world.

[DMoriarty]

. . . to a kinder gentler world.

Kindger gentler world?  You havent met my daughter.

Mike H.  I have posts a few threads on gca the past few days but noone seems interested.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Moriarty-It seems you do not like the ratings and are looking for a reason.  When does a rater know they are going to be "comped"?  They make a tee-time at a overated expensive course over a less expensive alternative becuase though they should like the cheaper course,but they think they will be comped.  I do not think so.

Why are the private clubs ratings fouled up?  They rate some places lower because they have to pay?  

[Dan Grossman]

David -

I think your premise is probably correct (about the ratings trending towards more expensive flashier courses).  However, I think it has to do with a number of issues and whether raters pay for their round or not has little to do with it.  

I think most raters will likely go see the courses they think should be rated, rather than the ones that will or will not comp them.  If I had to choose between playing Lost Canyons or Ojai, and only Lost Canyons was willing to comp my greens fee, I still wouldn't go play it.  I'd rather pony up $100 and see a good golf course.  

That being said, I still think the ratings will tend towards the flashier expensive golf courses, but I think it has to do with WHY a course is expensive and flashy vs. reasonable and minimalist.  Most of expensive golf courses are being built near populated areas and have big budget advertising (expensive land prices and advertising to support high greens fees) whereas the affordable golf courses tend to be in rural locations (for the opposite reasons).  Looking at GD's list of best new affordable I think proves this out.  More people are going to see courses in metropolitian areas, rather than traveling to Nebraska.  I think the economics of building golf courses skews the ratings rather than the raters themselves.  

(Rustic Canyon is the exception that proves the rule, I think)

[Tommy Williamsen]

David,
Your argument seems to be logically sound.  To a degree what you say is probably true.  As a GD panelist, knowing about a dozen or so other panelists, I can categorically say that we choose to play the "best" courses we can.  The criterion for the vast majority of us would not be money.  That said pace of play is a major criterion.  And pace of play can have a direct correlation to price.  But not always.  I live in the Metro D.C. area.  There are some high end private and public courses that take five hours to play.  Bulle Rock is a prime example.  It is a nice Pete Dye course, tough and interesting and sloooooow.  I will only go back if GD calls and asks me to.  Why should I, I belong to two clubs that are in the top fifteen in MD.  I can get around each of them in three hours, even on Saturday morning.

Panelists are given a list of courses to play for the top 100.  We choose which ones we want to play.  There are very few low end courses because they just can't compete with courses that can constantly tweek the course.  When I travel I do, however, tend to play the courses that seem to be the best.  When I visited my kids in Minneapolis that meant Interlochen and Somerset.  But I also played Willingers in Northfield which is a very nice public course that was inexpensive.

I thinnk the better argument stems from the number of panelists each magazine has.  GD has something over 600 on the ratings panel.  I haven't actually counted but GOLF has under 100.  Of those 100 many are touring pros who will never play Willingers.  While I have some major disagreements about the GD system, at least the number of panelists allows for more distribution of play.  I know the courses worth playng in MD and the surounding states and play them.

In the best new courses we are assigned course to play.  Periodically a course, usually in the affordable category, has not had enough panelists.  Topsy or someone may call and asks me to please play the course.  This happened two years ago with a course outside Richmond.  I went with another panelist and played it.  It still, didn't have enough ratings so it was held over for a year.  It consequently, finished in the top ten in that category.  In some ways this does give your argument some credence.  At the same time GD's system tries to prevent a lopsided sampling of courses.  

I have two concerns about GD's system, actually three.  The first is the "history" category.  The second has to do with panelists understanding of the history of architecture.  Many don't know anything.  The main criteria for appointment to the panel is handicap and the courses we have played.  I know many quality players who have played many places that don't know a redan from a biarritz.  The third has to do with the criteria for ranking the courses.  I tend to like GOLF WEEK's better.  

I have been interuppted five times during this post with work so I hope this all is coherent.

[David Wigler]

You are wrong though that my starting another thread was because I didnt get anything out of the first.  I started it (and this) because I wanted to get past the insults and to a civil discussion.  

Dave,

Tommy thinks the world of you and I had a quite pleasant time golfing with you so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  If what you wrote about above is sincere, than take a word of advice: If you want to get past insults and to a civil discussion why do you again start the thread by taking shots.  Don't meantion names, don't call people out, just announce your premise.  Otherwise your statement above cannot happen.  From my end, this is a discussion about nothing.  You do not like ratings or apparently raters and I do.

[RJ_Daley]

David M., I have one small request.  

First off, I am pretty much in your camp about the ratings and rankings yearly debacle.  I have consistently made my opinions known every year we get to this silly season.  I can't challenge myself to have anything more to say about it.  But, you and Shivas and company are doing a fine job, keep up the good work fellows

But, my request is this.  I am feeling very "guilty" for being sucked in as a participant to have completely highjacked the other thread which has now devolved into a debate on national health care and a point counterpoint of conservative liberal and libertarian ideologies.  So my friend, would you go in and modify the actual title of the thread WE have so rudely highjacked to something like, Crime and Punishment, or War and Peace or some erudite title I'm sure your scholarly mind will come up with.

I can no longer live with the guilt, but can't resist the passion of that non GCA debate over on that thread.  Actually I am tired of GCA for a while...

Mea culpa Ran...  I am weak and without self discipline.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

A very easy answer to your question. If people are extended the invitation to serve on my a panel -- any panel -- it doesn't have to be a national one -- I'm sure most would accept for no other reason than to throw forward their two cents on what they believe is right and wrong with golf course architecture. We have a panel for Jersey Golfer and many people when asked to provide their sense of what's good and bad in golf architecture are happy to assist. Let's not forget there are plenty of passionate people who aren't sooooooooooo easily corrupted as you seem to imply.

That's my opinion Dave ...

P.S. Forward your angst to the editors of the key publications. Like I said before -- they are the ones who set up the unique systems they employ. The soldiers (raters) are merely following the structure that's in place. You'll also have to realize that when I served for GD for 17 years I wrote plenty of letters and comments regarding how the system they use can be strengthened and improved. I would go into detail but it would take way too long and may be too boring for some. Hope this helps your understanding ...

[Lou_Duran]

Ouch, David!  Here I am, just returning in my 1991 Acura, ah, ah, I mean 2004 Lexus, feeling pretty good after an hour at the spa and what is waiting for me- more hate speech from my lefty friend.

Tell me David, what is inappropriate about my message to Ed?

"Ed-
Whatever rating Wigler gave to RC I am sure that it was more than offset by the one cast by Tommy Naccrato, ASFGCA.  Word has it that he passionately hammered the bar past the bell."

Tommy has been crystal clear about his opinion of RC.  We all know that Tommy is a very passionate guy.  Now, I haven't talked to Tommy since Barona (or Wigler for that matter), but I think that it is reasonable to conclude that he would rate his beloved RC quite highly (kind of like me with Scarlet and CPC).  I have no idea how Wigler rated RC, but assume from the discussion that it was something under a 10.  So, my comment regarding the offseting ballots is just an observation based on readily available public information.

Now, if you are trying to get me fired from the GW panel, I believe that that has already happened (see earlier message from Brad Klein on gca.com).  But if you wish to sink the knife deeper, I am sure that you can get his telephone number and make your feelings about this and ratings in general known directly.

Unlike Tiger, I strongly recommend that you get back into the litigation business.  At least there you will have healthier, profitable, and more challenging means to vent your hostilities and frustrations.  David Wigler may be willing to overlook your boorish behavior.  I am having a more difficult time.

And so as not to give you something more to cut and paste, I am signing off; it is about time for Rush to come on.

Happy holidays!

[ed_getka]

Dan G brings up some very good points. Another point I would add is perhaps having raters pay for their rounds would winnow the rater pool to those who are more passionate and concerned about what is going on with gca. On the downside paying for all rounds will limit the number of courses a rater will be able to see. So one needs to decide what is more important.

[ed_getka]

Dave,
  Relative value is the most important issue to me for the most part. I find that info in this site from you guys. The mag ratings are good, simply because they pop up names of courses I haven't heard of, and then I come here and ask about it for a realistic perspective of the aspects of gca that I find important.