"GCA" fans vs. "GCAers" on ranking panels and lists

[Peter Sayegh]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

Well said Tim.
Thanks for fighting for us.
Sincerely, "the masses."

[Joe_Tucholski]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

Well said Tim.
Thanks for fighting for us.
Sincerely, "the masses."

There is a thread about best courses throughout your life, provides some insight.  Some people will only ever play 5 courses in their life.  Doesn't mean their favorite course isn't their number 1, but doubt I give much weight to their ranking of courses.


It was kind of nice when I was blissfully ignorant (I still am in some respects).

[Stewart Abramson]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

Well said Tim.
Thanks for fighting for us.
Sincerely, "the masses."

I am part of ,"the masses". I'd bet I play as many Doak 1's, 2's and 3's as anyone on this site.  It doesn't mean those types of courses belong on a "best 50 courses in the U.S." list. We criticize the GD and G Mag lists that have for their flaws. I don't see it as disrespectful or snobby to point out what you got from a list created by the masses..., which is a top 50  US courses that are nowhere near the top 50 in the US.  Which courses on that list would you have among the top 50 in the U S.?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

Well said Tim.
Thanks for fighting for us.
Sincerely, "the masses."

I am part of ,"the masses". I'd bet I play as many Doak 1's, 2's and 3's as anyone on this site.  It doesn't mean those types of courses belong on a "best 50 courses in the U.S." list. We criticize the GD and G Mag lists that have for their flaws. I don't see it as disrespectful or snobby to point out what you got from a list created by the masses..., which is a top 50  US courses that are nowhere near the top 50 in the US.  Which courses on that list would you have among the top 50 in the U S.?

There is a distinction between knowledge and taste. We have different levels of knowledge, and we all have different preferences, and likely different rating frameworks.


There is a reason why rotten tomatoes has rating from the critics and from the hoi polloi. I don’t care how many critics rave about Eraserhead, I’m always going to hate that movie. I don’t care how many regular folks loved The Imitation Game, that movie was as slanderous as it was inaccurate.


We look at others’s ratings through our own lenses. Both system can be effective ways of communicating information about golf courses.

[Chris Hughes]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

Well said Tim.
Thanks for fighting for us.
Sincerely, "the masses."

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.


IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater". 

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail... 
 


 

[MCirba]

Winter must be approaching as it's obviously time for the annual GCA "Bash the Raters" thread.


Thank God for ratings to help us get through these bleak, cold days.

[Peter Sayegh]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

Well said Tim.
Thanks for fighting for us.
Sincerely, "the masses."

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.


IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater". 

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail... 
 

If they are comped, I have no problem with that...maybe a little transparency/honesty on their access would go a long way for us all...you know..."growing the game" and "studying" its architectural cathedrals.

Winter must be approaching as it's obviously time for the annual GCA "Bash the Raters" thread.


Thank God for ratings to help us get through these bleak, cold days.

Sorry Mike.
"Winter" is just a myth to us all who left the northeast and we're too busy actually playing to "Bash the Raters."

[MCirba]

Peter,


Touche'



 

[Matt Schoolfield]

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.

IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater".

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail...

Access journalism is the natural result of limited access economies.

[Chris Hughes]

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.

IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater".

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail...

Access journalism is the natural result of limited access economies.

Nonsense.

[Will Thrasher]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

No apology necessary, Stewart. I was not really a fan of our rankings for several years because of how much they diverged from the mainstream ones.


But then again, we aren't asking golfers to assess only the architecture - as well as the conditioning and the prestige/exclusivity of courses and clubs, which always seeps into the mainstream rankings - but a number of factors. And having visited several golf courses that have been high up on both state lists and the overall U.S. Top 50 you linked to, I have gained a lot of respect from the wisdom of our particular crowd of golfers.


Our Golfers' Choice lists are an interesting counterpoint to the GOLF Mag and other lists. And there are always good examples of golf courses with strong architectural DNA being highly ranked overall.


While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

While the word "snob" may have a negative connotation, I'm definitely going to take a coffee recommendation from a coffee snob vs. a guy who gets his coffee at the gas station on the way to work.

[Matt Schoolfield]

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.

IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater".

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail...

Access journalism is the natural result of limited access economies.

Nonsense.

I'm honestly curious as to why you would think this is nonsense. In an environment where negative reviews could harm an institution, and that institution is not courting customers, what incentive does the institution have in allowing access with full journalistic freedom? We see this constantly limitations placed on journalism whenever these conditions are met, be it about celebrities, royals, and even business and politicians.

I do think that there are folks with enough clout who can get away with honest assessments. I think this is why The Confidential Guide gained such prominence, but journalistic firms (unlike individuals), have more of an incentive to maintain relationships. I do not find it surprising that most course rating systems merely celebrate courses, without seriously criticizing them (unless they're Pebble Beach Company courses). The implicit threat of blacklisting within the limited access environment should have a fairly serious chilling effect on most journalism, even if it's explicitly denied. That effect is magnified when access is required to continue doing the job.

If you have a real argument as to why we shouldn't expect this to be the natural result, I'm happy to hear it.

[mike_malone]

Winter must be approaching as it's obviously time for the annual GCA "Bash the Raters" thread.


Thank God for ratings to help us get through these bleak, cold days.

Golfweek raters are the goofiest geeks around

[Ira Fishman]

Frank,

The idea of opening rankings to the masses might be a "fun" (relatively speaking here) endeavour to see what it produces but it would produce awful results.

Exhibit A: [size=78%]https://golftalkcanada.com/bushnell-top-50-golf-courses-in-canada/[/size]

+1
With apologies to Tim Gavrich, the list linked below is Exhibit B of what you get when you open up rankings to the masses. I've played 15 courses that are on this top 50 list and maybe 1 or 2 would possibly even sniff a top 100 list, let alone a top 50. 

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/best-of/best-public-golf-courses-golfers-choice-2024  "Top 50 U.S. Public Golf Courses - Golfers' Choice 2024"

No apology necessary, Stewart. I was not really a fan of our rankings for several years because of how much they diverged from the mainstream ones.


But then again, we aren't asking golfers to assess only the architecture - as well as the conditioning and the prestige/exclusivity of courses and clubs, which always seeps into the mainstream rankings - but a number of factors. And having visited several golf courses that have been high up on both state lists and the overall U.S. Top 50 you linked to, I have gained a lot of respect from the wisdom of our particular crowd of golfers.


Our Golfers' Choice lists are an interesting counterpoint to the GOLF Mag and other lists. And there are always good examples of golf courses with strong architectural DNA being highly ranked overall.


While I wouldn't say our lists (or any others) are definitive, I would say that assuming a ranking that uses the thoughts of a lot of golfers would produce "awful" results is a bit disrespectful, and doesn't do much to disabuse people of the perception of architecture enthusiasts as snobs.

While the word "snob" may have a negative connotation, I'm definitely going to take a coffee recommendation from a coffee snob vs. a guy who gets his coffee at the gas station on the way to work.

For me, that depends on whether I think that the recommender shares my tastes. If the guy at the gas station says he stops there because the coffee reminds him of McDonald’s or Dunkin, I am going with him. Just as on here, I have a good idea of whose recommendation is probably going to work because we have similar views on courses both of us have played.

[Chris Hughes]

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.

IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater".

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail...

Access journalism is the natural result of limited access economies.

Nonsense.

I'm honestly curious as to why you would think this is nonsense. In an environment where negative reviews could harm an institution, and that institution is not courting customers, what incentive does the institution have in allowing access with full journalistic freedom? We see this constantly limitations placed on journalism whenever these conditions are met, be it about celebrities, royals, and even business and politicians.

I do think that there are folks with enough clout who can get away with honest assessments. I think this is why The Confidential Guide gained such prominence, but journalistic firms (unlike individuals), have more of an incentive to maintain relationships. I do not find it surprising that most course rating systems merely celebrate courses, without seriously criticizing them (unless they're Pebble Beach Company courses). The implicit threat of blacklisting within the limited access environment should have a fairly serious chilling effect on most journalism, even if it's explicitly denied. That effect is magnified when access is required to continue doing the job.

If you have a real argument as to why we shouldn't expect this to be the natural result, I'm happy to hear it.

Journalism? 


LOL...

[Matt Schoolfield]

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.

IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater".

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail...

Access journalism is the natural result of limited access economies.

Nonsense.

I'm honestly curious as to why you would think this is nonsense. In an environment where negative reviews could harm an institution, and that institution is not courting customers, what incentive does the institution have in allowing access with full journalistic freedom? We see this constantly limitations placed on journalism whenever these conditions are met, be it about celebrities, royals, and even business and politicians.

I do think that there are folks with enough clout who can get away with honest assessments. I think this is why The Confidential Guide gained such prominence, but journalistic firms (unlike individuals), have more of an incentive to maintain relationships. I do not find it surprising that most course rating systems merely celebrate courses, without seriously criticizing them (unless they're Pebble Beach Company courses). The implicit threat of blacklisting within the limited access environment should have a fairly serious chilling effect on most journalism, even if it's explicitly denied. That effect is magnified when access is required to continue doing the job.

If you have a real argument as to why we shouldn't expect this to be the natural result, I'm happy to hear it.

Journalism? 

LOL...

Do you even want to discuss things on this forum? This type of flippant response is unhelpful.

[Sean_A]

Well, some panels charge a fee for the privilege and bang other profit revenue costs on raters. So it can be excused if folks see this as quid pro quo and that raters expect a certain level of access.


Let’s be realistic, big time ratings are quid pro quo. Clubs allow panelists to play in the hopes of garnering excellent free marketing and magazines get to sell copies which hopefully drives ad revenue. Panelists get access and maybe some free golf.


All that said, none of the above precludes a panel from creating a good list, whatever that is. BUT, it does have a smell of something possibly being dodgy. However, I will say that most of the panelist’s I have met seem to be in it for good reasons…and I don’t think that access is necessarily a bad reason. Like most things in life, balance and restraint can be a happy and fruitful middle ground.


Ciao

[Jonathan Cummings]

Wise as always Sean....  Now can you help me with access to Painswick? :-)

[MCirba]

Matt S.,


Don't feed the trolls.   You stated your point quite well and some have indiscriminate axes to grind, clearly.


Mayday,


Geek guilty as charged! 

[Sean_A]

Wise as always Sean....  Now can you help me with access to Painswick? :-)

 

Ciao

[Chris Hughes]

"Raters" shouldn't be given "access" -- anywhere.

IMO "raters" should be forced to arrange member-accompanied "access" on their own, and they/the member/media-outlet should be required to pay the standing green-fee, with NO exceptions. 

Nothing, should ever, be comped for a "rater".

In fact, if raters wanted to be truly unconflicted they should adopt the "secret shopper" model, without fail...

Access journalism is the natural result of limited access economies.

Nonsense.

I'm honestly curious as to why you would think this is nonsense. In an environment where negative reviews could harm an institution, and that institution is not courting customers, what incentive does the institution have in allowing access with full journalistic freedom? We see this constantly limitations placed on journalism whenever these conditions are met, be it about celebrities, royals, and even business and politicians.

I do think that there are folks with enough clout who can get away with honest assessments. I think this is why The Confidential Guide gained such prominence, but journalistic firms (unlike individuals), have more of an incentive to maintain relationships. I do not find it surprising that most course rating systems merely celebrate courses, without seriously criticizing them (unless they're Pebble Beach Company courses). The implicit threat of blacklisting within the limited access environment should have a fairly serious chilling effect on most journalism, even if it's explicitly denied. That effect is magnified when access is required to continue doing the job.

If you have a real argument as to why we shouldn't expect this to be the natural result, I'm happy to hear it.

Journalism? 

LOL...

Do you even want to discuss things on this forum? This type of flippant response is unhelpful.

If you believe the "ratings" beauty pageant constitutes "journalism", not so sure there's anything to discuss. 😉

That said, "ratings" are nice and provide fodder for discussion but the idea that established/legitimate private clubs in any way need, or even want them (in most cases they don't), is laughable. Point being, the "access environment" is completely irrelevant and a non-issue.

Now the big public/for-profit operators like Pebble/Kohler/Bandon etc., and even some of the private newbies like Ohoopee/Tree Farm/Old Barnwell/Broomsedge etc. -- surely they love the attention but if they are granting "access" in the way of freebies to raters, well, the entire system is called into question.

Reminds me of the whole pay-to-play stock ratings BS on Wall St. in the '90's and '00's...  (Spitzer tried, to no avail)

NOTE: nod to Ran and the guys who constitute the "core" of the institutional GCA knowledge base -- but the broader "ratings" landscape is a complete joke.  🤦‍♂️😂

Real life example here;

https://www.ncgolfpanel.com/top-100-course-rankings/

[Chris Hughes]

.

[Simon Barrington]

.

What's the point?
 

[Chris Hughes]

.

What's the point?
 

 


Operator error...