[Mike Nuzzo]

I played at death trap courses in the slums of Newark because the muni there had an interesting architectural pedigree.

Mike,
I assume you mean Weequahic Park?
Come on, the surrounds weren't that bad.  I played there at least a dozen times.  Except for the extra $2 dollar fee I had to pay for a tee time when I was a walk up, and the sticks in the holes to replace the stolen flags....  It was always fun for me too!!
Cheers

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

NGLA/Shinnecock (one's pure fun and one's nearly perfect)

Mike,
You think Shinnecock is pure fun?

Ian,
Your suggestion that all raters ballots be made public is a great idea. When Ontario Golf News did it, it showed those who voted for courses they were involved/owned for what they are. I would be happy to stand behind and defend any vote I cast.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ian,

Fine and sound suggestions, they would resolve the problems I was trying to question with this post.

I would add that there still seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency when it comes to how many votes a course needs to be eligible, which is why I asked how Wintonbury Hills could have had so many raters in just two months of operation (while many courses in large markets have had trouble getting enough visits in the course of a year).

As for the freebies, I guess I'm naive to think that some of the excessive stuff doesn't have a place in the rating game. I know it's becoming a way of life in corporate America to bribe and schmooze and out perk one's way to higher third quarter earnings, but I had hoped that golf would remain free of such appearances of impropriety.
Geoff

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Are we assuming that we think these rankings carry enough importance to merit such public scrutiny of individuals?  Or, are they just for fun?

Are we assuming that the vast majority of raters for the various publications are "on the take" or do we think that most start in with the best of intentions, and accept free golf and the occaisional meal because, like the rest of us, this is a pretty damned expensive volunteer post?

If we are assuming former on both, then your idea has some merit, but if we assume the latter, it has a few problems.  

I suspect that very few folks would volunteer at all for the  ratings posts if their names, (which could lead any interested nut to find their addresses and phone numbers).  Public scrutiny of political candidates has increased, in a very important venue, and kept many otherwise good candidates out of the races.  And, would anyone here consider it a good idea if the panelists were only made up of those wealthy enough to not accept any payment help to do their jobs?  Hell, you and I don't (willingly) do our jobs for free, do we?

As much as the Ron Whittens and Brad Kleins of the world have to suffer through the darts thrown here for running these things, why should anyone who casts one vote of many suffer the same - and possibly worse - from golf architecture zealots?  

Are these rankings that important?

I, for one, trust human nature enough to believe that most panelists have the best of intentions when doing ratings, that the free gifts will negatively influence as many raters as they do positively, etc.  I also believe that Ron Whitten and Brad Klein try to run a tight ship.  Further, their oversight is something that keeps their voters on the straight and narrow - I'm sure that excel spreadsheet can be analyzed to see if one particular voter is so out of touch with the other hundred, say, only voting for $100 courses and up, or ones with hotels, or known to give out perks, etc.  The human touch - and hence a little value judgement by someone who sees the big picture isn't a bad thing.  And, if in the case of a lot of courses near the bottom of the list, they must make a value judgement that puts one over another, so be it.

No system is perfect.  No system in a subjective arena like ranking golf courses can be perfect.  They exist to spark such a debate as we have here, (and to sell magazines) and to that end, they have served their purpose very, very, well.

Speaking as an architect who has also been dismayed at a few of my courses not making the top 10 of the GD list, or the GW list, or for that matter, the Dallas Morning News list, can say I have heard 100 architects mutter complaints similar to Geoff - That's not fair!  But if golf ain't fair, and we like it that way, I suspect is will generally be the same with ratings, no?

And, as Forrest Gump might say, "That's all I have to say about that!"

[ian]

Jeff,

Are they that important, hell yes! They can make careers take off, and can fill a resort for years.

Are raters on the take...No, it just wouldn't make sense for a club to "waste" thier money. It just one vote of an awful lot.

Are Brad or Ron playing with the numbers, I really doubt they do, and couldn't figure out what they would have to gain.

The process has been questioned by more than Geoff over the years, what is wrong with clarity.

Would I let my name and my picks be public record, Yes. I'm more than happy to do that if it makes the process clean. I've collected these votes for a different publication and I can tell you that voting can be strategic, regional, and bias to afiliations. Open it up and the person is left to stand behind thier opinion. What could be wrong with that?

Jeff, I think if we did that, the results would remain largely exactly the same; but it would be nice toi know for sure.

Do I care if this is actually done? Not really, but I thought I would offer a constructive suggestion rather than complaining or supporting the current system.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I understand that the rating numbers for each golf course will be published shortly on the GolfWeek web-site, and that they were supposed to be included in this years published edition of the rankings.

It would be informative to see the differentials that seperate the various golf courses.

Hopefully, they'll be automatically included in future rankings.

[JohnV]

Jeez, I go to New Jersey for the weekend and all hell breaks loose.

I've read all of this and while I could have commented more, here are a few of my thoughts.

DMoriarty you wrote:
1) Do not let raters take freebies, whether it be green fees, free equipment, free lunch, free caddies, free hotels and trips, or free anything else.  Get rid of raters who cannot abide by this.  I am sure there are plenty of potential raters who would still be willing to rate.

Am I banned from rating a course when I get free green fees when I'm not there as a rater?  I get free green fees because:
- a friend invited me to play,
- because I work for the West Penn GA,
- because I'm on a USGA Committee and the course wants to be considered for a championship,
- because I'm on at a USGA Championship and the USGA sets up free rounds at other courses for us
- and lastly because I'm a golfweek rater.  

Which ones can't I rate?  If I can only rate the courses where I pay, I have a problem because I don't pay for a lot of my golf (I'm pretty lucky that way and I know it)  Of course, as I recall, Geoff got us comped at Rustic Canyon so perhaps that is why it didn't get enough votes in 2002.

You also wrote:
3) Make raters rate anonomously.  Why does a course have to about a rater is coming, unless it is to give the course an opportunity to provide special treatment to the rater?  Prohibit raters from using their status as raters to gain access to courses.  If raters from both GW and GD were creative enough to see Friar's Head, then I am sure they can manage to get access almost anywhere, without flashing their credentials.

Of the 65 courses I saw last year, a total of 6 knew I was a rater.  
- Two because I went on the Raters Outing to Bandon (which cost me over $1000) and I'd already seen both courses multiple times,
- 3 because I went on the GCA outing to New Mexico and someone else got raters comped so I would be stupid not to take advantage of it (oh it cost me over $1000 to go there)
 - and 1 because my friend who invited down for the weekend told his head pro just so HE wouldn't have to pay my green fees (that one only cost me about $200.)  

When I went to Pinon Hills at the end of the New Mexico trip, I paid my money and didn't mention ratings to them.  Yes, I got off a little cheaper by being a rater, but I was still out of pocket a lot.  Of those trips, I probably wouldn't have gone to Bandon last year if it wasn't for the outing so I'm out of pocket $1000 - a few green fees.

The only course that ever gave me anything besides a free round and some little knick knacks like a divot repair tool (and Golfweek magazine just gave me one for being a rater) was one that isn't on the top 100, won't ever be AND isn't even on our year-end ballot.  And I didn't tell them I was a rater, the other rules offical on the Futures Tour did when we were playing there (comped because we worked the tour.)  It was a nice glass of scotch and a nice hors d'oeuvre, but I can assure you it had not affect on the ballot I filed.

Does it matter if the course knows I'm a rater or not?  Well, in the case of private courses, it might be the only way to see them.  So, if I can't let them know I'm coming and I don't know a member, I can't get on it and therefore I can't rate it.  This gives public courses a decided advantage over private ones in the ratings.

Top100Guru,
While Apache is not on the top 100, it is the #1 Public course in Arizona.  Turn the page, oh I'm sorry, you probably read the FREE list that someone posted on the website.  Perhaps you should buy the magazine.

Geoff,
You seem to have a problem with the outings.  Since anyone who attends the outing pays a fee (or has expenses for the one day quickies), frequently to go somewhere where we wouldn't have gone otherwise, I can't see where it is a problem.  Do we get more than we paid for?  Well, yes if you add up each thing, but we bought a package, just like if you buy a package of options on a car, you get a better deal.  Is this package available to the general public?  Well, as a rule it is because any spots that aren't filled by raters can be purchased by others.  All we have here is a travel agency that puts together a package and offers it to people.  It cost me a lot more to go to Bandon on the rater's outing last year than it ever has cost me before because I was required to stay in the lodge.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

JohnV,

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, inquiring minds could question the debut of Southern Highlands in the 2004 ranking immediately after hosting a rater outing where attendees were treated much better than had they simply shown up to rate the course. I was not referring to free green fees, but the glutton-fest that took place off the course, led by the person who makes the rules and who stood by as the rules in place to promote fairness were violated. Dr. Klein has not refuted concerns that the event crossed the line of good taste and violated panel code of conduct expectations.

Anyway, the course in question made the ranking this year. Another course, where Dr. Klein also serves as the Golf Commissioner and as a non-contributing design consultant, landed at #1 in CT public access after 8 weeks of play before ballots were due, and is primed to appear next year in the top 100 as other courses struggle to get the required number of panelists to see their designs. Perhaps the courses in question here made impressions on panelists based on their architectural merits. I hope so. But if that is so, then it's really a shame because I think some will feel that the inclusion of those courses will be tainted by the apperance of circumstances having little to do with architectural merit.

So far, the consensus seems to be that it's expensive to be a panelist (I would agree if Golfweek outings are required to maintain status), so it seems to most here to be okay to throw in a free putter, or a hat, or a $50 box of balls or your pick of the best wine we have. No harm no foul. My question is, if that's okay, what's not okay? Free hotel rooms, massages, $1000 lines of credit, etc?  

I think you are confusing your experiences, which sound like good ones at events well conducted, with the one I've been very surprised to hear about and hope won't be repeated.
 
And John, believe me, if I had asked the ownership to comp that group at Rustic Canyon, your green fee would have been doubled. Somehow I doubt our Baja Fresh/Togo's lunch in the dusty lemon grove right next to where the 6 foot rattler lives, (paid for by the attendees), really was comparable to the shenanigans I'm questioning here. And please understand, I'm questioning these events because I respect 95% of the Golfweek panel, their efforts and the concept behind the ranking Dr. Klein established, and am simply sorry to see the noble folks involved tainted by unnecessary actions.
Geoff

[Tom_Doak]

All I can say is that it's nice not to be in the middle of this stuff any more!

[Jonathan Cummings]

Geoff - I've been to every GW rater event, save one, since its inception.  Your free hotels, massages, $1000 lines of credit is just silly.

I know most all of the panel.  Most of the these guys and gals have such a bug-eye passion for this rating game that you couldn't buy their votes if you gave them Fort Knox!

We'll chat at Rustic.

JC

[JohnV]

Geoff, since Bradley announced the following in an open session at yesterday's GCA outing I'm assuming he doesn't mind me putting this out.  If he does, I probably won't have to worry about being a rater anymore.

Rustic Canyon was #108 this year.  If just two people had given it a 7 instead of a 5 it would have been in the top 100.  Wintonbury Hills, while the #1 course in CT was below 200 in the overall rankings, but doesn't have much competition in CT.  It has some work to do to get to 100.

[Brad Klein]

John, the basic sense of what you convey is close, but I said Rustic Canyon was "around" 108, and I gave those numbers of "if only" a few raters had voted differently as pretty close hypotheticals. I also did not say a word about Wintonbury "has some work to do to get to 100." That might be your characterization, but it's not mine. I did say that Rustic Canyon was rated way higher than WH. The really important point I emphasized was the incredibly close compression of votes in the group of courses clustered around no. 50-150. It would be wrong, moreover, to reduce the whole discussion to that. The discussion following the presentation was about the entire rating process, not the relative merits of two courses.

[JohnV]

Bradley, I apologize for my confusion over some of the remarks from yesterday.  In general I would like to say that the discussion regarding this was very interesting and open and I felt that everyone learned a lot about how close the numbers that you are dealing with are between the the various courses.  I also think that some of the questions from the audience about issues that were either factual or perceived along with your answers was excellent.

[brad_miller]

If Rustic Canyon recieved many 5's maybe BK needs to take a closer look at his raters (do their ratings past the overall smell test), don't think there are more than 20-30 modern courses I would rather play (and that may be way high), this being said with Gil, Jim and Geoff not being able to make a few tweaks that would happen at many private projects. With actual results posted or published it will show everyone just how tight it is between 50-150 in both lists I suspect. In the classic world, there are the top 20ish and then a pretty good fall of as I see it. Having played Wild Horse and Kingsley I consider RC to be in the same zip code, with much better par 3's than WH as an example. So how did those 5 voters group these 3? How many played these 3? How did they compare the par 3's a WH to those at RC? as examples. What other modern courses fit this category, Black Mesa? the new one up in South Dakoda?

[Nick_Ficorelli]

Someone remind me to pull this thread back up in March 2005,so we don't have to go thru this junk again next year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Miller,

If Rustic Canyon recieved many 5's maybe BK needs to take a closer look at his raters

Does this mean that every rating that differs from yours should require an inquiry into the quality of the rater ?

Should I request that Brad Klein re-evaluate all of the raters who gave YALE a lower rating ?

If 15, or 20, or 25 raters see a golf course, should their assessments be required to agree with yours ?

(do their ratings past the overall smell test), don't think there are more than 20-30 modern courses I would rather play (and that may be way high),

That's your opinion.
If I play Rustic Canyon, I might share that view, but, the ratings aren't based solely on your opinion, or my opinion, they're based on a numerical consensus.

this being said with Gil, Jim and Geoff not being able to make a few tweaks that would happen at many private projects.

Why can't they make tweaks ?
Aren't other clubs in the same position ?

With actual results posted or published it will show everyone just how tight it is between 50-150 in both lists I suspect.

This will be published on the GolfWeek web site

In the classic world, there are the top 20ish and then a pretty good fall of as I see it.

That's not true

Having played Wild Horse and Kingsley I consider RC to be in the same zip code, with much better par 3's than WH as an example. So how did those 5 voters group these 3? How many played these 3? How did they compare the par 3's a WH to those at RC? as examples.

Raters don't compare golf courses to golf courses or holes to holes.  They make a numerical assessment based on the categories or criteria established by the magazine for EACH golf course.
That number determines the relativity of one course to another in the form of rankings

What other modern courses fit this category, Black Mesa? the new one up in South Dakoda?

Fit what category ?

[brad_miller]

Pat

1. No, but I might take a closer look.
2. Don't have problem with Yale, might be best thing for the course, still do believe it to be top 25 classic with proper restoration.
3. No, but if 5 differ significantly from the other 15 or 20 I might take a closer look.

I  believe there is a fall off after MY top 15-20 classic and top 10 or so modern. The difference between Great and very good.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff Fortson:

Your approach to broad brush people is what started this insanity in the first place. Jeff -- instead of doing the adult thing which is to be precise and to the point -- you simply fan the fans and say 99.99% of raters are in it simply for the perks. Jeff -- if you can't names then how bout just shutting your gums. Ah, but that wold be toooo e-z -- it's far better to stoop to the lowest level and say everyone is on the take. Very convenient indeed!

I rate courses because I love the game -- Jonathan said it best -- many raters are trying to do what has been asked of them to the best of their ability. If you think otherwise -- that's your opinion. Hate to bust your bubble but when you insult me by syaing my "populist" approach is out there in la-la land then it's clear you don't know me and what makes me love the game.

I had plenty of respect for pleny of things you have posted Jeff -- but clearly you lost me here. Adios partner ...

[W.H. Cosgrove]

DOES ANYONE UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS?  This whole issue over Rustic and Wintonberry and what hole in wall I don't give damn golf course is the single number from one rater doesn't matter as long as the numbers he/she gives are consistant within the raters own group of ratings.  Then when those numbers are added to the other raters number you get an average.  A certain number of minimum numbers for a given course give its relative strength to the other nominees.  

When a course gets a enough ratings it will stabilize in its appropriate place.  That is why the GW Classic list remains so stable.  

Courses like Rustic and Wintonberry will receive local votes first.  My guess is that, by our nature, we like to promote  our local area and tend to give higher numbers to "the latest and greatest."  As raters come in from further away a more legitimate level is achieved.  That is why a course like VN dropped lower.  The large number of Connecticutt Raters gave WH nice numbers.  The same is true of Southern California. In time, Rustic will tend to seek its reasonable place on the lists.

KIAWAH AND FREE PUTTERS:  I paid like $1000 for my FREE stuff at Kiawah.  It was a lovely golf outing,the presentations were fabulous, the Ocean Course was clearly not ready for play, The River Couse is a great members course and....  Where did this free thing start?  I am going to Monterrey in May and that will cost as well.  Yes as  GW Rater I get some free rounds and have been fed lunch.  I don't think it ever got someone a rating they didn't deserve.  

I was comped at RC and had a lovely round in the wind.  By the way the number quoted around 100 is about where my numbers would place it.  Under the GW system the driving range is a distraction under the overall land plan section.  I found the shaping on some of the greens spectacular and found some of the tee shots non descript.  I did like the number of availble options.  Really nice public golf course!  

No matter what any of the idealists say in this web site, this entire discussion would not be taking place unless magazines were willing to support the publication of the lists.  The magazines make their money from Ad sales.  There will always be an opportunity for an implied conflict of interest.  

No one has asked Mr. Shackleford what he ws paid for his time at RC.  His credibility should be drawn into question as well.  Isn't he in the business of selling his books.  Wouldn't "Grounds for Golf" sell better if RC was higher on the list?

These lists will continue to grow and change.  It won't matter how much hand wringing we do.  Until someone creates a non profit foundation endowed to pay people to do this work these discussions will continue.  

I just ask that the personal attacks on good people be left out of the equation.

[JakaB]

DOES ANYONE UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS?  


Courses like Rustic, Wintonberry or Victoria National will receive local votes first.  My guess is that, by our nature, we like to promote  our local area and tend to give higher numbers to "the latest and greatest."  As raters come in from further away a more legitimate level is achieved.  That is why a course like VN dropped lower.  

Cos,

Maybe local raters...and I'm sure Southern Indiana is loaded with em....don't play a course one time under one set of conditions.   You come to a course I am a member of...basically as my guest under my equity status...and spend the next few years saying how the maintenance of the course does not fit the design.  You play one day after two weeks of rain and find the course soft...I sorry it rained and I'm sorry the super didn't treat your visit and the visit of the raters cup any different than any other day of the week.  I have not played enough of the courses ranked above or below Victoria to know exactly where it should stand....but I do know your statement about local raters is more of an insult to Brad Klein, other raters and yourself than it is to me.  Holding a raters cup is a crap shoot if all the raters can not see beyond varying climatic conditions and how they relate to maintenance for the one time visitor.   You have seemed to have gotten past the conditions at Kiawah...is that because of what you see on TV...does that count too.

[JakaB]

My problem with your comment was with what you said about local raters....I don't buy your take.  What about Kingsley Club in Michigan....It didn't do well until this site promoted more non-locals to visit.   I think it is an insult to Brad Klein, other raters and yourself to say that the ratings of raters in theit own region.....and based on my rural setting...that could be seen as east, north, south, midwest, southwest, west and northwest are scewed towards where they live...I think it might be quite the opposite.   I find people to be more impressed by things they don't see everyday...or why else would the Ocean be so popular when it hardly ever comes into play.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Jaka B.
The point of the law of large numbers being that: should you care enough about my maybe 12 posts about VN out of tens of thousands on GCA to make personal attacks on me?  I don't think so!

Questioning my integrity and disallowing my opinion?  That is disappointing.  I am not sorry that I don't think VN belongs in the Top 10 courses in America. It is a #45 course and you should be proud of that.  

The comments on local raters are about human nature not their value as humans.  Think about it for about one second.

I appreciate your comments on Kingsley.  The issue of marketing may be more complicated.  Maybe we should pursue that line of thinking.  

[Mike Hendren]

IF in fact Rustic Canyon "ranked" around 108 +/- it should not be lost on us all that this is quite an accomplishment for a two year old public course with minimalist features and ostensibly a minimalist budget to match.  That seems uncontroverted whether it is ranked 99th or 110th.  Congratulations and kudos to Messrs. Hanse and Shackleford et al.  I cannot wait to see/play it at this month's end.

Can we all agree on that?  

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

"Hospitality is a moral responsibility." - J. Howard Olds, February 29, 2004

If anyone wishes to incur the expense of traveling to Nashville for the sole purpose of playing either course at the club to which I belong, I'll pick up the tab, lunch included.  (I'll order water but you can feel free to have a beer).  Just don't all come at once.  I don't like spending money, but the fellowship enjoyed and acquaintance made will be priceless based upon my universal experience with members of the treehouse.  I have no idea whether we comp raters.  I would hope we would comp as many people as possible.  

Two years ago I made a decision to dedicate a small percentage of my resources and time to explore the fascinating world of golf course architecture.   I fund this out of teaching honorariums that require time away from family and eight hours on my feet telling a bunch of young bankers all the real estate lending mistakes I've made throughout a twenty years career.  Otherwise, I simply could not afford to indulge this passion which no doubt began as a four year old playing in the sandtrap beside the putting green of the Okeena Muni in Dyersburg, TN while my mom sunbathed in the adjacent public swimming pool.  I will continue this foray which will likely remain unaffected by whether or not I am or become a rater.  The most significant criterion will remain the availability of Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards Tickets.  

As a Southerner, I have forced myself to be a more gracious recipient of hospitality.   Accordingly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a rater being comped.  However, it would seem a more appropriate policy would be for the rater to pay the the lesser of actual greens fees or $50.00.  This would limit the "damage" to $100 daily if two courses were rated, a strong likelihood, I'm guessing, where travel is involved.  It would also induce raters to see all courses, even the expense ones.  Throw in a free lunch, SLEEVE of balls and a yardage book - but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE!  This would eliminate the need for staff to feel they need to grease the palm of the rater, and would place all courses on an equal value footing.  This would also be a deterent to the alligator-armed rater who stares at his shoes while failing to reach all the way into his pocket.  The rater would be required to make the staff aware of the policy in advance.  I see no reason for the rater remaining anonymous - golf and golf architecture are about the people as well as the game and its venues.  

I have no doubt that there is someone out there who can be influenced by a few freebies.  I cannot fathom that such a person is among those I have met through this web-site, however.  If he or she is, they likely remain a damned fined human being if that's the worse thing they ever do.

It's mid-sixties out and time to take the boy to the range and a ball hawking expedition.  I need the ProV's.  

Mike

[Lloyd_Cole]

Geoff et al

That was fun to read!!

I suggest wer all watch the Oscars tonight to feel a little better about ratings and influence.

Cheers

Lloyd

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()