[Patrick_Mucci]

Should Golf Course Raters be required to walk all 18 holes
PRIOR to playing the golf course ?

Would that exercise improve the quality of the ratings, and the quality of the rating panelists ?

[Forrest Richardson]

No, especially if the course only has nine holes.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
  Thats a good idea. Probably not very practical, but I know I notice a lot more about what is going on with a course if I walk it before playing it.

[Scott_Burroughs]

It's very impratical.  Couldn't be done on courses that don't allow walking.  Raters (heck, non-raters, too) don't necessarily have the extra time to do that.  It might mean rating far fewer courses.  (Gee, I have 3 hours of daylight to get in 18 solo, but I'd only be able to get in 9 if I walk it first.)
When I travel, 36 in a day is commonplace.  Not so if walking both courses first.  Or how could you do it if the only possible time you can play is as a dewsweeper when the sun rises.

Since walking a course solo takes much shorter time, there'd be the rudeness of walking through all the groups on the course ahead.

Based on past testimony, many raters don't (or can't) play certains courses as raters.  A number of the top venues don't welcome raters to play as raters.  Then how would one get out to walk the course?  

[Joel_Stewart]

It is impractical but a good idea.  The magazines should also consider throwing out the highest and lowest reviews.  

I still struggle that the voting is a democracy and other panelists don't see or like what I like?   There are a lot of panelists that like modern architecture and their vote counts the same as mine.  

Pat: Are you talking about quality control or stacking the deck?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel Stewart,

Culling the herd.

Scott,

Obviously, if the course didn't permit walking, the rater would ride a cart.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Great idea!

Scott:

Your reply does not make raters look very good.  To paraphrase ... "I don't have time to be thorough because I'm trying to squeeze in 36 holes a day."  Think about it.

Joel:

I've never really understood the idea of throwing out the high and low votes.  If you have more than ten votes for a course they're not going to count for too much ... and they tend to cancel each other out.  The only reason to do it would be if someone, say, in the GOLF DIGEST system was prone to giving all "10's" to courses by a particular architect, or all "2's" to another.  If that was the case, that person should just be thrown off the panel.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Before any magazine rater is allowed to rate a golf course he should be made to pass a test as stringent as the test to become a licensed doctor.

Who should make up the testing panel? Well, an equal number of representatives of the golf architecture industry and Golfclubatlas.com of course!

Who should select those representatives? Well, me of course!

[A_Clay_Man]

Naturally I disagree.

For me, there is something intrinsic about golfing a hole or a course, for the very first time. Walking it ahead of time would only reveal secrets better left for me to figure-out and experience, while on my virgin trek. Avoiding pre-conceived notions would be alot harder, too. and, if one needs to golf the course to form a valued rating, mandating walking it first, implies the rater may not need to golf the course, ever.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

I wish that were possible and practical.  Its a great idea IMHO. I wish I could walk it backwards (green to tee) and forwards.

When rating a course rather then playing a social round of golf I think its good to concentrate on looking from several angles, looking back towards the tee, possible hitting additional shots if its not holding up play and taking notes. Rushing around and/or betting is not consistent with good rating.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

I would expect no less  

But, think of it in the following context.

It would serve to seperate those serious about golf course architecture and the thorough analyzing and rating of a golf course from those who just want to get in a quick round.

Can one, while playing a golf course, effectively analyze each and every hole, each and every shot, based on the criteria provided by the magazines ?

I think not, especially when the raters view is limited to the confines of the flight of their ball, and the need to play at pace.

Ask yourself, who is going to absorb a more comprehensive understanding of the architecture, rating criteria and play of the golf course:
A fellow, first walking, then playing the golf course, or some other fellow just playing the golf course ?

I suspect that my criterion would cause some raters to have to be serious about the pursuit and require them to devote meaningful time necessary to compile a comprehensive analysis.

TEPaul,

Are you sitting down ?  
I agree with you, so maybe I am wrong ?  

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- I would say that walking it AFTER golfing it, would be better, for the objective analysis you seek.

Plus, I wasn't under the impression, that the criterior you cite, is that feature specific, and is more of a general sense of the golf course. But, I'm willing to learn.

[Steve Lang]

 

I think its a great idea, but I'd take it even further, quantity be damned.  Have course raters walk the course after their round as well before.  Make it a professional exercise to assure opinions have some proper perspective.

Of course such type of requirements are excessive, but then use it to pro-rate course ratings from differing levels of effort expended by raters..  The hit-and-run-raters' opinions just get less value than those where more time was put in..

I don't believe the "ride only" issue is real for ratings purposes type walks, whioch can be done at various times versus play.  

First walk or ride look.. first blush, initial impressions.  How would different golfers view the tee shots and approaches etc.  How good are the green to tee distances and tee protection?  What would one expect from seeing versus just looking at scorecard or other layout/yardage book aids.  What local knowledge issues are there?

One play walk or ride..  Actual versus expected play from one set of tees.  Playing options for full versus partial type shots for pin placements.  Scoring needs.  Hazard realities.

Optional 2nd play.. different tees, same issues.

Second walk or ride look.. final course impressions.  How were expectations and experience impacted by gca versus rater's play.  LIkes and dislikes real or imagined.  Final evaluation of course conditioning and long term playability issues.

How else do you balance quality versus quantity of ratings?
 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I completely agree with Adam Clayman above that the far more benefical thing to do with a course is to walk it AFTER you play it not before. At least it certainly is for me. But I'd go with your recommendation anyway to make all raters walk the course BEFORE they're allowed to play it because if you asked them to walk it AFTER they played it the incompetent little Know-nothings would make some pathetic excuse and try to escape immediately after playing the course. But I'd still try to make them walk it AFTER they played it and if they refused or tried to escape I'd automatically revoke their rating status!

[Jeff Goldman]

How do raters rate?  I've only played once with someone who was "rating" the course we played (for golfweek), and he was meticulous, taking notes between holes while the rest of us teed off, taking pictures of greensites, angles of approach etc.  I understand he keeps notebooks of stuff about courses he's played.  It's obvious that raters who post here are similarly motivated, and I've occasionally made somewhat negative comments about raters in general (how the prestige-o-meter of a course holding a US Open may affect the rating), but is he an anomaly?

Jeff Goldman

[HamiltonBHearst]

Just because he is taking notes and pictures does not mean they know what they are doing.  Reviews like Brad Klein and Matt Ward write are useful because they provide explanations of their mind-set.  A plain number rating from a rater does no good.  Why not give each rater space on an internet site to write comprehensive reviews of the course characteristics that go into their specific ratings?  

I hope it is not an access issue?

[Joel_Stewart]

Why not give each rater space on an internet site to write comprehensive reviews of the course characteristics that go into their specific ratings?  

Somebody is going to apply a value to such writings in order to rank it?   GD allows ample room to write down thoughts and opionions but I don't know what they are used for.

The more I think about this issue is how many times do you have to play NGLA or Pine Valley to get it?   What type of course needs to be walked without playing it to understand it?
Should you walk the course backwards, from green to tee to have a better look?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & A Clayman,

You're sooooo naive.

Do you really think that raters are going to stick around and walk a golf course after they've played it.

But, if they had to walk it first, as a pre-requirement to playing it, you'd get a more thorough analysis.

Theory is nice, but it must pass application standards in the field.

Steve Lang,

I'd agree, but again, I don't see them sticking around.

[A_Clay_Man]

But, if they had to walk it first, as a pre-requirement to playing it, you'd get a more thorough analysis.

Pat is that some sort of slip of the tounge? Cause it sounds greek to me.

Pat, I am sure we are naive. I know I am naive to the awareness abilities of all the other raters. If I toured a course first,and I didn't care for what I saw, I wouldn't bother golfing it and not rating it. If, however, I golf a course and find it inspirational or an overload for my senses, I will go back out and look and see it for myself, again.

Whether you realize it or not your comment smacks of little respect for raters. and, if that's true why should they listen to you about how they should go about their individual ratings.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

It's called common sense.

And, it shouldn't be up to the rater to make the decision.
The magazine should set the modus operandi.

I know raters who used their position to gain access to play a new golf course first, and rate it as a secondary consideration, when just the opposite should be the case.

I've also played with raters who were so consumed with their round that they saw little else of their surroundings.

You can't seriously think that playing a golf course will provide an analyst with as thorough a data base compared to walking it first, and then playiing it.

If you equate the two exercises, you've told me all I need to know.

[A_Clay_Man]

I didn't equate the two. From my perspective, you are the one who is making the statement that Not golfing the course first, will tell you more about it's relative position to the other 16,999 courses, than golfing it, first. Poppycock. Only after golfing the course can the rater evaluate whether he/she should see some aspects, or the entirety, again. Unrealistic as your postulate is, especially if one tries to see more than one course per day, the magazine doesn't treat their raters like they need nursemaids. Do they?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

How do you assess shot value on each and every hole as you play your ball, rushing to get in two rounds on one day ?

It's a cursory analysis at best.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- I guess that depends on the individual raters awareness level, comprehension and retention. Everything is right there in front of you to see. Maybe you mean those people who go around half asleep? And who said anything about rushing?
Plus, great gca is memorable.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, I like your idea, and it's very practical, too. We outfit each rater with a GPS beanie and a dog collar, all of it connected via radio-controlled communications to a large, wall-sized monitoring device in my living room that tracks the whereabout of all 300 raters. The GPS beanie is hooked up to a pedometer, and if the requisite 3-4 mile course walk is not racked up before the appointed tee time (which, of course, I also track) then I activate the dog collar and the rater is momentarily incapacitated, thereby WDing and forgoing their tee time.

Makes sense to me.

The alternative, which is to pick thoughtful raters, encourage them to learn, and then trust their judgment, would be asking too much, I assume.

[Mashie1]

Who gives a rat's patootie about rankings.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()