[Lou_Duran]

How many times can one say the same thing using similar words but in different arrangements?  How much understanding is gained?  How many minds changed?

There are some people who have a heightened sense of "fairness" and, at times, a less than kind view of humanity.  Life is not perfect; shit happens at times and you deal with it.

There is nothing catastrophically wrong with the ratings AS THEY ARE TOUTED.  Getting rid of the comp rounds would do absolutely zilch to right the perceived wrongs of the complaintants.  If the course they feel strongly about doesn't receive its "due", they would allege problems with rater competency, regionalism, sampling size, complexity of the assignment, or any number of other reasons cited on this site ad naseum.

BTW, I was under the impression that the tee sheets at Rustic Canyon were full all of the time.  I guess that its lack of top 100 status by GW hasn't done much harm to it.  Or is an argument being made that it could be charging a much higher green fee if it received its due?  And I thought that we were champions of affordable golf at gca.com.    

[Mike Hendren]

That is how gentlemen operate.

Thank you, Gib.

A gentleman would:
-offer to pay
-graciously accept a comp
-offer to reciprocate, and MEAN it
-drop a few dollars in the shop
-express gratitude for accomodation
-write a thank you note
-not bother to respond to this thread
-repair all ballmarks, discard broken tees and replace divots
-do absolutely nothing that would embarrass the magazine, Brad Klein and anyone who had a role in sponsoring his or her nomination as a rater

I cannot fathom the preacher at someone's funeral praising the dearly departed's commitment to the integrity of the golf course rating process by dutifully refusing to accept any comped rounds.  

Why don't you guys go back to telling Ran how to run his web-site.

Lou, you are excused!

We need a great big group hug at KPIII.

Mike

[Gary_Nelson]

All this Top 100 stuff is largely irrelevant to me, a Publinx player with little private course access.  I think it is irrelevant to MOST golfers if Cypress Point or Pine Valley are ranked higher than Augusta.  Guys like me have little chance to play any of them.

I can't see any reason why the private clubs care about their rankings.  They have no real-estate to sell and their membership should be driven by other factors than a Top 100 best course status.

What MIGHT be important for marketing purposes is the Top 100 You Can Play list in Golf Magazine.  This one eliminates the question of which Pelican Hill course gets in... because BOTH of them get in.  Courses in this category certainly can gain an advantage when selling tee times to guys like me.


As for freebies and corruption in the system, my opinion is that a large sample size eliminates these issues in the long run.  This won't fix the problem of few raters seeing the "geographically challenged" courses.  This doesn't bother me because these owners made the decision to put a course there and can't complain if the raters don't come to visit.

That's my 2 cents.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I feel suitably chastised.  See, I firmly believe that you have as good or better grasp of the concept of what it means to be a gentleman of anyone I know, and being a gentleman is more important to me than anything else in this silly game called golf.  So I firmly believe I meet all but one of the qualifications you just listed, but I obviously fail mightily on:

"not bother to respond to this thread"

I humbly beg forgiveness, with the explanation that my only interest has been trying to defend the integrity of a system of which I am proud to be a part (for all its warts), and people who I am proud to know and count as friends.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

That is how gentlemen operate.

Thank you, Gib.

A gentleman would:
-offer to pay
-graciously accept a comp
-offer to reciprocate, and MEAN it
-drop a few dollars in the shop
-express gratitude for accomodation
-write a thank you note
-not bother to respond to this thread
-repair all ballmarks, discard broken tees and replace divots
-do absolutely nothing that would embarrass the magazine, Brad Klein and anyone who had a role in sponsoring his or her nomination as a rater

I cannot fathom the preacher at someone's funeral praising the dearly departed's commitment to the integrity of the golf course rating process by dutifully refusing to accept any comped rounds.  

Why don't you guys go back to telling Ran how to run his web-site.

Lou, you are excused!

We need a great big group hug at KPIII.

Mike

Mike;

Thanks for bringing a dose of common sense to this discussion.  

Yes, I shouldn't reply to this thread, but I already have so I have a question for the non-raters here.

If tomorrow you were a course rater, would being comped really affect your private vote on a course's merits??

Harry Chapin used to say, "everyone sells out, but at least try to sell out over something WORTHWHILE and IMPORTANT".  

A free greenfee and you folks would lower your integrity and honesty?  

C'mon!

[Mike Hendren]

See, I firmly believe that you have as good or better grasp of the concept of what it means to be a gentleman of anyone I know, and being a gentleman is more important to me than anything else in this silly game called golf.  

Tom, you are easily duped.  

Also, you will note multiple posting by my ownself.

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I am so easily duped it's rarely worth the effort trying to dupe me.  But I mean what I say about you, my friend.

Dupidly yours,

TH

 

[Lou_Duran]

Mr. Hendren,

No need for the excuse.  I am out and about again.  This normally happens when I got too much to do so I procrastinate and do nothing.

And I know that we'll be in CA and all, but none of this softie group hug BS.  As Senator Kerry says, "bring it on"!  Perhaps you need to get your competitive juices flowing again by foreclosing on a couple of selfish, money-grubbing, dead-beat capitalists before the KPIII.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm out -- and I mean it (slams his $20 bill on Jerry's kitchen counter for emphasis.)

I didn't realize that this was a rater's site when I first began reading and posting here, but I realize it now. It was a waste of time to suggest journalistic ethics be applied to a process that attempts to pass itself off as journalism. No one here is even interested in listening -- with the exception of Tom Huckaby, whose indulgeance, at least, is appreciated.

Again, I intended no aspersions on anyone's integrity. I think a better system is possible -- and I don't think it would be prohibitavely expensive. But there's no point in arguing for it against a legion of raters who see no need to change the status quo. I won't help this thread reach page 14 [had to modify that -- it's already reached 13 ]. Thanks for your time.
 

[Dan Kelly]

Mike --

Harry Chapin was wrong.

Dan

P.S. Belatedly, it occurs to me that I shouldn't be so cryptic.

Not everyone sells out.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rick;

You can't say that a system is corrupt and not expect the people who are in the system to defend themselves if they feel their integrity is in question.

Let's say that what others are proposing is a better system.

How does one enforce 285 geographically-distriibuted raters trying to play a few thousand courses of various ilk.

You don't.  Instead, you try to select good, knowledgeable people of integrity and then weed out bad apples as they surface.


 

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mike,

I think perception is more important than reality.  Accepting free gifts including green fees could be precieved as a conflict of interest.  Why indulge a system that could be preceived as easily corrupted?  Mike, if tomorrow your golf magazine said absolutely no free anything, would that affect your desire to be a rater?  Probably not.  Would it add credibility to the process?  Absolutely.  

I think this weekend I'll invite my kids teachers over for a nice meal and some after dinner drinks, you know just to get to know them better, and tell them how much I appreciate their hard work.  Next weekend I'll invite over my kids basketball coach for the same treatment, you know the same coach that will be picking next years travel team, maybe even take him for a little free golf this season.  Why not?  It doesn't matter how it might be preceived by the other parents, Hey I'm an Honest Guy.

One other thing, I never forgot a profile about Billy Graham, and one interesting practice of his was he never met with a woman or girl without other persons present.  There may be a lot of liability reasons, but I got to beleive it was his astute recognition of the importance how how he was PERCEIVED, and how important that perception was to his credibility and the credibility of his mission.  Of course, on the other hand I forgot Jesus sat and dined with whores and tax collectors, but hey they don't make Jews like Jesus anymore.  (Kinky Friedman)

[Dan Kelly]

You can't say that a system is corrupt and not expect the people who are in the system to defend themselves if they feel their integrity is in question.

Mike --

Rick's having slammed his 20 on the counter, I'll answer:

How many times do we have to say, explicitly, that we are questioning the integrity of the SYSTEM, not the integrity of any individual rater -- and emphatically not the integrity of any individual rater in present company here?

If you refuse to accept those explicit statements ... if you refuse to accept that we are not questioning your integrity even as we question the integrity of the system ... I ask you: Whose integrity is being questioned, and by whom?

I submit that the answers to those last questions are: Our integrity is being questioned, by you. And we've done nothing more than you have to justify any such questioning.

Dan

P.S. to Kelly Blake Moran: Excellent post. Thank you.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wouldnt you still rate even if you were prohibited from ever accepting a perk?   Wouldn't almost all of the raters who you know and respect do the same?   If so, then why not support taking this step if only to assure the readers that the raters are impartial?

David;

Of course I would.  I consider it an honor to have been asked and try to do the best job I can.  

However, I can tell you that if it were decreed tomorrow that no raters could accept gratis rounds, the ratings would suffer for a very simple reason.

Many of the raters are hardly wealthy people (your's truly included) and would simply get to see and rate fewer courses.  I can tell you that I can't afford to do more than I'm doing now, which usually involved several plane flights (paid out of pocket) per year, hotel accommodations, along with MattWardian mileage being put on my car.  If sometimes the golf is comped, it gives me greater flexibility to perhaps see another course or two.  

I don't feel that I'm being bribed, nor have I ever felt that was implied by anyone, anywhere that I've met.  In fact, many of the courses that comp know that they have very little chance of being selected for the America's Best Courses list.  Instead, I believe the courses do it out of a sense of goodwill and respect for the publication.    

If that's naive, then that's how I prefer to approach it and I've never seen it proven or even suggested otherwise in my travels.

Kelly;

Please see above.  

Asked and answered, previously.

Good post, though.

Dan;

Please see my numerous posts on the first 4 or so pages where I covered my feelings in mind-numbing detail.  

Frankly, I don't think there is anything inherently corrupt or fundamentally wrong with the current method, especially trying to create a subjective survey in an imperfect world.  Rick Shefchick tried to compare it to journalism, but isn't journalism supposed to be reporting "facts".  No one has claimed this is anything more than it is...a group of well-travelled golfers who the magazine has asked to subjectively rate courses for purposes of compilation and comparison.  

It isn't worth all of the emotion, tirades, defensiveness, and accusations that go round and round and round.

"All my life's a circle" - Harry Chapin

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Then, Mike, and this has probably been answered as well, why can not a rater sign a voucher that they played a course, the pro sign it, and submit it to the magazine for green fee reimbursement?  I am certain to hear the golf magazines can't afford it, budgets are tight, slim profit margins, we're losing money, and so on. Hey man, if you fuel this big rating system while your vehicle for promoting the rating to sell magazines does not make money then its time to shut down the printing presses, and do something more productive.  

Brauer and people like him come on here and say hey its no big deal, what's the fuss, but I think ratings and best of awards can have a huge impact on an architect's career and more importantly it could have a big impact on a golf club's business.  Man, a course wins the award or cracks the top 100 and they wll market it to high heavan, and people will come pay money to play because of that recognition.  There seems to be a lack of concern for the credibility of a system that does have a major impact on business.  Stupid as it sounds but I stopped a while back responding to the Golf Digest best of awards, I just delted the email the other day when it came, because it just seems hopeless for a little guy like me for a lot of reasons, including my perception that there is more politicing and back slapping then I could bear to engage in. Unlike Brauer, I am in no way so presumptious (sic) as to think that my work is worthy of such attention, but even if I did I just don't want to play the game, and i am probably wrong, but I think there is more to the game then just submitting your form.  And it is resistance to change like you exhibit that just confirms my perceptions of the system.

[JohnV]

Everytime someone on here says, "Well, I don't think the people who post here are a problem, but there is a problem."  

I start to wonder about a cheaper solution, if we get all 275 Golfweek raters to post here, would the problem go away?

[John_Conley]

... I think ratings and best of awards can have a huge impact on an architect's career and more importantly it could have a big impact on a golf club's business.  Man, a course wins the award or cracks the top 100 and they wll market it to high heavan, and people will come pay money to play because of that recognition.  There seems to be a lack of concern for the credibility of a system that does have a major impact on business.  

Kelly:

I'm very familiar with the system and am not aware of any "lack of concern for the credibility".  Furthermore, I fail to see the plight of the underappreciated - or at least I fail to see how this is different than any other industry.

A mutual fund does well, makes the cover of Money and money pours in.  A movie wins acclaim and it does better in rental.  Critics tout the effectiveness of a software product and an army of salespeople will be barking out the 3rd party endorsement.

Does the world of golf design - at least as it relates to competition for precious jobs - change if there are no magazine lists?  The jobs are still precious.  Competition is still keen.

You won't feel any different when you are named Golf Digest "Architect of the Year" and when you can point to three or four of your courses that have won acclaim?    I think that magazine rankings can be an asset for people like Engh, Strantz, and McClay Kidd who see their pitches received differently as a result of this process.

It cuts both ways.

[Dan Kelly]

Everytime someone on here says, "Well, I don't think the people who post here are a problem, but there is a problem."  

I start to wonder about a cheaper solution, if we get all 275 Golfweek raters to post here, would the problem go away?

JohnV --

Are you sure they're not all posting here? (Obligatory smiley.)

[Lou_Duran]

Dan K. says "How many times do we have to say, explicitly, that we are questioning the integrity of the SYSTEM, not the integrity of any individual rater -- and emphatically not the integrity of any individual rater in present company here".

With all due respect Dan, that is a bunch of unadulterated horse manure.  Inanimate entities have no motives, emotions, or ability to make judgements without human input.  It is people who have failings, and if there is a problem, it is here where the attention needs to be focused.  To the best of my knowledge, the process is not broken, the product is fairly well and widely accepted, and no pretense of statistical accuracy or scientific purity is made.

Personally, I would hate to apply the same journalistic standards to the golf rating/opinion process and lower its quality.  Or are we all so sanguine about current reporting and opinion pieces which look at basically the same data and reach such disparate conclusions?  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

John,

I do not think your choice of the mutual fund industry in the context of a discussion about credibility and standards is very good.  I did say i do not submit my course to the best of, clients have, one asked my permission, but i do not take anytime to submit them nor do i encourage my client's so I do not think my perception of the mutual fund industry, oops, rating industry would change, however, for all of you raters whom would like to see if I whistle a different tune please visit my courses, give them obscenely high ratings and catapult several of them into the top 100!  Come on i dare you to see if I am a phony. Man 2005 is going to be a banner year.  Thanks, John.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

To answer your questions John, sorry, yes i think if the rating systems went away it changes the ball game.  Without the condescending list of what every body should beleive is the best because our raters say so, you might actually have in depth reporting on golf courses, lengthy reviews, no stars, no ratings, just solid informed journalism, maybe there would be a proliferation of HW Winds, Darwins, etc. whom would travel the country.  that would be great for golf.  Some architects would benefit from this that is not the problem, i have no problem whatso ever with other architects getting recognition, rising from obscurity, etc.  But, again, whose to say these writers are not receiving freebies to visit courses, or snuggling up with favorite architects at their offices, we know journalists can be deceived and blinded by celebrity.  But I would much rather see in-depth solid coverage like that than a list, and then another list, and then another list. You rarely see that type of journalism as it relates to new courses, rarely.  And it may be because the lists have made it uneccesary.  why bother to send reportes traveling the country racking up expenses, and writing lengthy pieces when you can get 280 people to do it for free.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Kelly;

If a magazine offered to subsidize all rounds played per year by x-hundred raters (in the case of Golf Digest, roughly 800) playing and rating say 40 courses each per year, with an average fee of $100, I guess that works out to $320,000 worth of fees.

Then, add the staff to effectively monitor and distribute.  Let's add benefits.  We're probably getting close to half-million annually.

I'm not sure the economics of the publishing business, but if that's what a magazine wanted to do, I'd have no problem.  

I just know it hasn't happened yet and I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

I'm not resistant to change, Kelly.  I also think there are problems that haven't been mentioned.  It's not a perfect system but I think individual raters (at least the vast majority of those I know) are trying their best to operate effectively within current reality.      

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Totally agree Mike.  Still doesn't change perceptions, and I guess it is my problem so I need to deal with, but perception means everything.  And I am certain some raters are concerned by perceptions as well.

Check this out by the way.  From Billy Casper Management, just in via email:

"FAM Trips"

"We’re forever proactive creating publicity opportunities for clients. In the next 90 days, Buffalo is managing six FAM (not sure what a FAM trip is, maybe JakaB will know since he is good at acronyms, or maybe some journalists on here can tell us more) trips for golf media to experience and report about the exclusive destinations we represent. "


"Odds and Ends "

"Who’s reported about Buffalo’s clients of late?  The list is way too long for this page, but here’s a sampling:  Delta Sky, Money, GOLF, Golf Digest, Golf for Women, LINKS, Golfweek, Associated Press, NY Times, The Golf Channel, several major-market daily newspapers and an onslaught of regional golf media.  "

"Five of the top 10 “Best New Golf Courses” featured in Celebrated Living, American Airlines' first- and business-class magazine, are our clients.  It’s who you know.  "

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I like that last quote from them, don't you, five of the top ten new courses in the magazine are their clients,

"It's who you know."  As the midget from Texas says, "That's priceless".

Actually they are managing one of my new courses so I am in the know.  Like I said with John's help, and Casper's help 2005 is going to be big, really big,  It's who you know!!

[David Wigler]

KBM,

I have stayed out of this for a while but a quick point on the difference.  Casper's is paying all of the clients expenses (Air, Travel, Food, Golf, etc.).  In return, he is expecting a glowing article that will be published.  If the article is not good enough, Casper will no longer invite the person and he will no longer get freebies from other people because he broke the implied contract.  It is a whore's deal.

GD, GW and Golf are doing nothing of the sort.  In GW's case, even if the course picked up the greens fee, I picked up Air, Room, Car, Food, something at the pro shop, etc.  In addition, my rankings were private, so no one knew what I put.  There is no implied contract nor any visable way of checking to be sure the course got a stellar review for the comp they gave me.

One last thing and it speaks to hard vs. soft costs.  There are no hard costs involved in giving me a round of golf (You already have the course, carts, etc.).  It does not cost the course anything to let me play.  What Casper is doing involves real hard dollars (Airfare, Hotel Room, Food, Cars, etc.).  If courses started offering to pick up the travel expenses of raters, than I would totally agree that they system is corrupt.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()