[W.H. Cosgrove]

If Wintonberry is so questionable on the GW list, why did it also appear in the GOLF Mag. 10 best new you can play?  

Geoff and Jim Michaels have quite a hard one on over this.  Sounds a little like kids not getting their own way!

[Jim_Michaels]

Dr. Klein, regarding your raters' meetings...does the magazine require attendance by its' panelists? Does the magazine accept advertising from the resorts that host those meetings? Are you not leveraging your panel to make money from those resorts?

[Mike Hendren]

Why am I inclined to believe that I am the only person to have integrity?  Why are you?

I assume Rustic Canyon will have a tremendous opportunity late next month to be scrutinized and effectively rated given the list of participants in KPIII and their multiple rounds there.  It will be given ample opportunity to eventually succeed or fail (in its nearly heretofor unanimous acclaimation being somehow "legitimized" by a magazine) on its own merits.  

I thought nobody cared about ratings?  I know we don't at the "children's table."

Go play golf.

Mike

[Mike Worth]

I have a question, though I'll preface it by saying that I am biased toward one side of the arguement, but I'm not saying which side.

Here's the question.

Geoff has challenged the integrity of the rating process by claiming conflict of interest re: Wintonbury Hills.  So can one logically deduce that if Wintonbury Hills did not make the list, that Rustic Canyon would have?  I obviously don't have Brad Klein's excel spreadsheet in front of me, but I would guess that Rustic Canyon is not #101 on the list.  In other words I don't think one can conclude that Wintonbury kept Rustic Canyon off the list.

Perhaps the better question to ask (also taking the high road) is how is it possible that Rustic is not on the list?  I can't believe that confilcts, and potential conflicts alone kept Rustic off the list, though it appears Geoff disagrees with this premise.

Perhaps one can question the judgement of the raters.  Or maybe it didn't have enough ratings (can't believe that)

[DMoriarty]

I deal in conflict of interest issues almost every day, and the key to them, inevitably, boils down to disclosure.  As I understand it, the clear GW policy is that raters can't vote on courses that they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in.  Obviously, if Brad consulted at XYZ Hills, he can't vote for it.  But that does not mean that if everybody else on the panel who doesn't have a pecuniary interest in the course loves it, that it should be banned from the list.  

Shivas, thanks for your unconflicted opinion.  It is nice to hear from someone with no connection to the matter.  By the way, how do you like being a rater?  

The problem with your interpretation is that Brad is not a rater, he is the editor of the magazine.  To put it in your terms, he is not a small shareholder, he is the CEO and and heads the Bd. of Directers as well.   And he doles out the 'shares' at issue.   The potential conflict doesnt just stop at him, but spreads to all who are responsible to him for their coveted raters positions.  

And as with most conflict situations (like with you rating for brad and defending him), it is the appearance of impropriety that matters, not whether there is actual wrongdoing.

[DMoriarty]

Perhaps the better question to ask (also taking the high road) is how is it possible that Rustic is not on the list?  I can't believe that confilcts, and potential conflicts alone kept Rustic off the list, though it appears Geoff disagrees with this premise.

Perhaps one can question the judgement of the raters.  Or maybe it didn't have enough ratings (can't believe that)

Good questions.  I'd also like to know how many raters saw rustic before the last round of ratings, and if any of the spreadsheet scores were different than the scores which were originally determined by the raters.   In other words, were any raters encouraged by anyone at golf week to change their scores, or to balance out a perceived balance in one direction or another?

It would also be interesting to know just how many total votes this Conn. course received.

If this is an unbiased, see through process, I am sure that golf week wont mind providing this information for these or any other courses.  

[Tim Liddy]

Geoff,

Thanks for your kind words about Wintonbury Hills golf course.

To question Brad Klein’s integrity is not appropriate.  He volunteered his time for over 8 years to make Wintonbury Hills a reality.  He did not get paid for any of his time. He was not a consultant on this job.  Also, for the record, I do not remember ever seeing Brad on a bulldozer or drawing/assisting on a routing plan for the Wintonbury project.

I would also suggest that rating Rustic Canyon #6 in California is better than #1 in Connecticut.

[Mike Worth]

Dan, you left out a category:

6) Friends with someone in the golf industry (LOL)

[A_Clay_Man]

DavidM- You might want to check your facts. Unless I forgot to congratulate Brad on his rise to editor. That's twice you called it Brads mag.

What I miss?

[DMoriarty]

DavidM- You might want to check your facts. Unless I forgot to congratulate Brad on his rise to editor. That's twice you called it Brads mag.

What I miss?

Adam,  Perhaps I do have my facts wrong and you can set me straight. . .  

Is Brad just another rater at Golfweek?  If so, I stand corrected.  

Or is he the person from Golfweek who is in charge of the ratings?  If so, then the substance of my comments is entirely accurate.  
__________________

Dan,

Definitely interests exist within all of us, but only some of us are in charge of the ratings at golf publications, thus only some of us have conflicts which might have significant consequence in the golf community.  

Also, I might suggest that there are substantial differences between being a rater,  belonging to a private club, and choosing to play your golf at a particular public course.  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tim,
Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know Brad had nothing whatsoever to do with the design or construction of Wittonbury! I can't imagine where I would gotten the idea he was involved in the routing and construction (well I can, but it must have been an imposter posting and emailing under a different name).

I certainly have nothing against Wittonbury as I haven't seen the course. My concern is with the Golfweek ranking process and the questionable behavior taking place behind the scenes and at some panelist outings. There is a great deal of evidence that some iffy things have occurred related to the work of several architects/courses and that the process needs to be seriously reevaluated.
Geoff

[John_Conley]

Geoff:

Is the #1 Public Access course in Connecticut a big deal?  It isn't like something was proclaimed the #1 college basketball team in Connecticut.  I played Simsbury Farms and something in Hartford.  Not much to choose from in that area.  If the TPC is public access it doesn't change much.

I've never met you and all I know is that someone told me your dad is a famous basketball star.  Is there something more I should know, because you seem to have a vendetta.

Brad Klein:

You should release new Top 100 lists monthly instead of annually.  Jim Michaels - another person I don't know - might tire out from bashing you so much!!

General:

Lists seem okay to me.  As usual I'm surprised by a couple courses' placements.  That's how it is supposed to work or they'd just ask one person and leave it at that.

[Michael Moore]

Remember when we picked which Pelican Hill to drop!

Mr. Shackelford -

A delicious thread for this outsider, and congratulations on your latest book, which has proved to be an excellent resource for an article I am researching.

Did you continue rating for Golfweek after you found the process to be corrupt?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Lets settle a few things OK!  

I a letter was sent out that suggested raters attend events by GW as I remember it was not over Brads name but the publisher.  Unfortunately I am unable to find a copy of that letter right now.  After receiving that letter I and others discussed our concerns over attendence at events with Brad. Subsequently it was made clear that event attendence was not a requirement.  GW raters are required to actively participate in a number of ways.  Submission of ratings as well as attendance at events are some of the ways we can remain active.

This constant questioning of Brad's credibility is an unfortunate distraction from people with their own agendas.  Half truths and innuendo detract from what should be a fun and invigorating discussion.  Mr. Shackleford and Mr. Michaels are simply harming their own stature through this harangue.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John Conley,

I have a great deal of respect for Brad and love his writing, and continue to enjoy his writing and look forward to seeing his design work, oh wait, he had nothing to do with that one, my bad. My questioning is out of lost respect and sadness at seeing a potentially important ranking being tarnished.

How do my questions become a personal vendetta because I question how a course gets ranked after a panelist outting includes free wine and free (expensive) golf balls? (I'm not even addressing the order-what-you-want-lunchfest at Cascata, which is for another thread). As for my original post question, one person has addressed the architecture as mediocre, no one else has stepped forward to talk about the merits of this course, which was my point.

I think it's a problem when there is the potential perception that the person running the ranking might be using the list to his advantage. If I were running the list, it would be very simple. Any course I'm involved with is NOTEVEN ON THE BALLOT. Why can't Golfweek have such a policy to protect the integrity of the list and the reputation of panelists such as yourself who I'm sure take the process seriously and want to have your efforts respected? How can a Pine Needles vote in coming years be taken seriously? Or if Wittonbury is really good as some have said, doesn't it's appearance and Dr. Klein's ties to it undermine the credibility of the list?

Michael,
Thanks. I was let off the panel (thankfully!) when I started writing for Golfdom five years ago, as Dr. Klein and Dave Seanor couldn't have someone from a "competing publication" on the panel. I was disappointed at the time that they put magazine politics ahead of building a diverse panel and was thrilled to be part of what started out as such a promising ranking. But I would have quit anyway once I became involved with Rustic Canyon as I thought Golfweek was correct not to have architects or consultants voting (they've since changed this policy to my surprise).  I couldn't afford to be a panelist now, with the once-every-two-years required appearances at outtings (despite the freebies and cheap hotel rates), nor could I stand Big Brother looking over my shoulder wondering why I voted for some courses and gave not so great scores to others.

Cos,
Dr. Klein has defended the panelist outings in correspondences to me, so either you have it wrong or he is not being completely honest with me about his feelings on those events and their role in the rating process. Either way, he was present at the outing that I found to be the most questionable, and didn't do anything to stop the appearance of impropriety (accepting freebies) from what I understand.
Geoff

[frank_D]

dear brad klein

how does one get an application to be a rater ?

after reading the above comments - it seems i wouldn't do any worse

[i only hope mr klein didn't read my last post directed at him before it was deleted from this site - i love the smell of napalm in the morning]

[John_Conley]

Geoff:

As you know, a panelist that is allowed a visit has NO CONTROL over the treatment they receive.  I was allowed lunch last week.  Another place picked up my caddy tab after playing with the club pro and ran it through the account he's allowed to use to support the caddy program without affecting his pocketbook.  (In instances like that, I ALWAYS offer to pay the going rate for my caddy AND my host's.)

The problem isn't this treatment, but rather whether or not it affects the process.

In my estimation - from my experiences - knowing my voting pattern - AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE - the magazine and its people have taken measures to protect this from happening.  Are they failsafe?  I doubt it.

If you've done every thing you can to improve something and it is still imperfect - think BCS, these magazine lists, NBA officiating - perhaps there's nothing more that can be done.

I ask you, what can be done to improve the process?  If all you come up with is something so a municipal in Connecticut can't be #1 in state it seems petty.  I don't think it is possible to intervene in a host club's prerogative to waive a green fee or let a guest have a Coke at the turn.

Sometimes I feel badly that a course doesn't deserve a rating from me that is up to the standard of hospitality I received.  That feeling goes away after about a minute.

All the best,
JOHN

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John,

Believe me, I understand there are going to be free green fees and lunches and that's just part of the process, and I would guess that 95% of the panel doesn't weigh the number of freebies they got when filling out their ballot.

What I have a problem with, and which you have confused here, is an organized gathering put together by the magazine, where a complete disregard for the panel rules is demonstrated, with supervision of the rules being broken rather egregiously by the people making the rules. And when that course in question then makes the list and little has been said about its architectural merits, the events in question don't exactly reflect well on the process. It certainly makes one wonder what else has gone on at other outings (or what courses think they should put forward in terms of perks or ad packages when they get the chance to host a panelist get-together).

That is far different than the Wittonbury situation, which is simply a conflict of interest. The panel supervisor was and is involved with the course, and thus, it should not be eligible for consideration.

Again, the entire process would be better without such "educational" seminars. They may be well-intentioned, but everything I've heard points to events that they are not improving the process. And Dr. Klein's suggestion that just as many courses have gone down after such events doesn't exactly speak well of the events either. Does that mean there was a group gang-up session after the round, or perhaps even peer pressure to not like a course because the post-round analysis said it stunk? You could go on and on, the point being, the process appears to have drifted far from its origins which were well-conceived and intentioned.

Please try not to confuse my two questions. One is about panelist outings and one is about eligibility.
Geoff

[John_Conley]

If a course gives a rater a free round, free caddie, free balls, free lunch, and free wine do you really think that course can be objectively rated?  

Free balls and free wine??? GMAFB.

To answer your question, yes.

I've paid to play, have paid for caddies, and paid for lunch.  It isn't like anyone ASKS for anything.  Verbiage on my credentials even points out that I am EXPECTED to pay for golf.  Why does this bother you so?

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

When I used to work on Capitol Hill on what was the the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, we used to get wined and dined from every side of an issue.  We were wined and dined by the Cable Industry and the Telephone Industry with equal vigor.  When an issue came up before the subcommitted that the two sides disagreed upon, we were totally objective and voted in a way that best served our home constituents.  

Most all golf courses pick up green fees, lunches, etc.  So, basically, all courses stand on their own merits.  Not everyone is so shallow as to be so easily bought off with a $10 lunch and a sleave of Pro V-1s...

[SPDB]

Geoff -

I've disclosed my friendship with a Fazio design associates on numerous occasions (feel free to check the archives). My allegiance is to my friend, not his employer. Were we talking about courses he's designed then its a different matter entirely (and I've made my disclosure on a couple of Merion threads). I think my connection to Fazio (if one in fact exists) is considerably more attenuated than either your connection to Rustic, or Brad's to Wintonbury. Its a deflection, meant to distract the argument (your association (not familiarity as you allege) with Rustic).

Moreover, I fail to see how this has had any sort of measurable impact on my views of Fazio (which remain the same as they were before my friend started working there). I've checked the archives, and believe that my views on Fazio are fairly balanced btw criticism and approval (e.g. the numerous times i've referred to his regrettable record of restoration (including your beloved Riviera)).

Nevertheless, I agree with what you say about the perks offered to raters, which the raters should be prohibited from taking. John's answer that a rater cannot control what a club offers him ignores the reality that declining any gratuity is well within the rater's control.

I don't know you, and whatever opinions I have about you are limited to what you post here, or what you write elsewhere, but I think your enthusiasm sometimes bubbles over and prevents you from looking at things in a realistic or respectful way. If you had as much respect for Brad as you claim, I doubt you would indict him in such a public and personal way. Unless of course, it was frustration born of a perceived slight to a course you helped design.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff F:

Please help me stop laughing while you lob all sort of generalized and non-specific drivel regarding the passions of raters.

Jeff -- I'll clue you in on what you may not know -- you don't know me -- and for you to lob your inane 99.99% figure speaks to your inability to see people as individuals rather than some lump item that's easy to assail.

I play golf, first and foremost, because I love the game. I enjoy playing golf courses that are well designed and I have spent a good part of my life ascertaining where they might be from a range of sources -- including GCA. I have developed my own relationships / networks inside and outside of golf that I don't need the "assistance" of anyone in order for me to play the places that I believe are among the best. I also have my own $$ and can well afford to play just about anywhere as long as my wife agrees -- can't let family fall behind!

For the purposes of full disclosure I rated for 17 years for Golf Digest and now do likewise for GolfWeek.

You may not know this but I consider myself an honorable person. I am not a golf whore who simply wants the tag as "America's guest." I also know when people are trying to hard sell or soft sell me. I just say to folks determined to "influence" the proceedings to simply let the product speak for itself. Those smart enough who do that will benefit by what the course has to offer. Those that don't will find me quite uninterested in all the trinkets they want to hand out.

In most of my visits I go "under the radar" and don't tell anyone from the club's hierarchy that I am going to visit.

If you want some credibility on the fallibility of certain panelists do yourself a huge favor how bout the novel idea of putting name to face? How bout you bag the broad brush and use one with a bit more laser like focus? I don't doubt there are always going to be people who will look out for themselves -- including PGA professionals -- and when IDed should be banished. Just realize those folks IMHO represent a tiny proportion of the total number of people who try to be as honorable and honest as they can be.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Mike,

It went a little further than a sleeve of Pro-V1's and a free lunch. And I'm sorry, but I know of many courses that do not pick up lunch, golf balls, hotel rooms (oh yes...that's going on too) and other expenses.

But since this is part of the process on Capital Hill and Kiawah Island, what do you offer in the way of rater perks? This will be good for other courses to know what they need to do to keep up.

Geoff

[Mike_Cirba]

I am a Golfweek Rater.

I have never been influenced by any preferential treatment at a course in casting my ballot.  Almost ironically, some of the courses where I've given my lowest scores have been ones that have rolled out the red carpet.  

I'm there to judge the quality of the golf course and nothing else.

Similarly, I have never been asked by anyone associated with the magazine to change, alter, or fudge my ratings in any way.  

If I were asked to do so, or if I felt unable to divorce my critical viewpoints from treatment received, I would resign.

I spend WAYYYY much more money as a rater travelling to see courses than I would ever hope to be compensated.  

[THuckaby2]

I am not a golf whore who simply wants the tag as "America's guest."

Hey, I resent that!

 

Just trying to lighten the mood here.  I must say I
love this week, when it's GW's turn to get raked
over the coals.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()