[John_Conley]

"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.  "

Did a P.R. firm just say they could help you get recognition?  As I say... consider the source.

While I doubt an aggressive P.R. campaign could net an undeserved ranking, I have no doubt it could get a course the recognition IT DESERVES.  Isn't that all anyone could ask for?

People don't travel to see the Raymond Feltons (Latta, S.C.) of the world as much as they go to see the Sebastian Telfairs (Brooklyn, N.Y. and SI cover).  Someone lobbying on behalf of the Wild Horses and Red Mikes can be a good thing.  It cuts both ways.

[Brad Klein]

Mike,

800 raters X 40 rounds each = 32,000 rounds

X $100 green fee =

$3.2 million

[Dan Kelly]

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.  

Megadittos, Kelly.

(That should give Lou Duran a little Rush. Thanks for all the due respect, Lou.)

Oh, and by the way: A "Fam" trip is a "Familiarization" trip. The destination buys your presence by paying for all of your expenses. In my experience, respectable journalists decline all such offers.

[Mike_Cirba]

[Mike,

These numbers really bother me...you make the assumption that there are not qualified raters who are happy to pay their own way....the real problem for the average golfer and the only thing of any real worth a rater for Golfweek receives is access.   If raters like you and David Wigler paid green fees and only rated 20 courses a year instead of 40 would the lists be any worse off.   And to protect yourself please don't say the less known courses would not get seen because you are only interested in paying for name courses.

I'm glad that all of this is about "the system", and none of it is personal.  

As raters, part of what we are charged with doing is seeking out the "no-name" courses that are surely NOT the big names, and 8 of 10 times I pay out of pocket.  In fact, at Golfweek we have a minimum requirement to play a certain number of courses from the list each year.    

John, I'd play them anyway, if I was a rater or not...if I was comped or not.  

That's what you and others aren't getting.

Ever hear of Musket Ridge Golf Course by Joe Lee in Myersville, MD?  Didn't think so.  Well, I drove 3 and half hours each way last fall to pay the $65 green fee because it was on our list of new courses to see.

Guess what?  You haven't heard of it for a reason.

How about River Marsh GC by Keith Foster in Cambridge, MD?  Or Mark Twain GC in Elmira, NY?  Or Francis Byrne GC in Orange, NJ?

Same or similar stories.  

Perhaps it doesn't mean a whit what anyone thinks of my opinion, John.  

Just don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do, or what I do or don't pay for.

[David Wigler]

Mike,

800 raters X 40 rounds each = 32,000 rounds

X $100 green fee =

$3.2 million

Beyond which, to pay me they would need to pick up Airfare, Hotel, Car and other expenses or else there still would be an appearance of impropriety.  Add $400 additional for a grand total $15.8 million.

Never gonna happen!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad;

Math was never my strong suit.  

$3.2 million, huh?  I'm not a business whiz either but I'd love to see someone send some of the proponents of this system here to your Board of Directors to ask for that kind of cash!

Oh yes...with their job on the line!

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Oh, and by the way: A "Fam" trip is a "Familiarization" trip. The destination buys your presence by paying for all of your expenses. In my experience, respectable journalists decline all such offers.

What experience is that...?  We get many respecable journalists taking us up on fam trips for the resort from all aspects of the journalism pool.  We get them from spa publications, tennis publications, travel & tourism publications, hotel publications, even some tennis publciations.  Only the biggest of the big publications don't use fam trips...

[Dan Kelly]

[quote author=Dan Kelly

Oh, and by the way: A "Fam" trip is a "Familiarization" trip. The destination buys your presence by paying for all of your expenses. In my experience, respectable journalists decline all such offers.

What experience is that...?  We get many respecable journalists taking us up on fam trips for the resort from all aspects of the journalism pool.  We get them from spa publications, tennis publications, travel & tourism publications, hotel publications, even some tennis publciations.  Only the biggest of the big publications don't use fam trips...

I'll stand by my statement.

Does any of you ever wonder why you get such riveting, tough-minded coverage in the sorts of publications Mike cites?

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

That's why respectable journalists decline to be fed.

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

Perhaps I misunderstood you.  My apologies if I did.  

My point is that you have an effort being made (and significant personal expenses incurred) to see as many courses as possible to try to make the list as valid as possible, both by the magazine itself and by individual raters who love to see and play different courses.

It ain't perfect, but I would really like to see people effectively fault more than 10% of the results.

After all, we are talking about trying to identify the Top 100 Classic (out of 7,000 classic courses) and Top 100 Modern (out of 10,000 modern courses).

Let's talk about courses and tell me what should be there that isn't, and visa versa.

[Rater Police]

Mike,

800 raters X 40 rounds each = 32,000 rounds

X $100 green fee =

$3.2 million

800 raters X 10 rounds free or reduced price (approximately) = 8,000 rounds

X $100 freebie =

$800,000 given to people that have done nothing to make the game better=

Lack of credibility of ratings and a flawed system

[Mike_Cirba]

Rater Police (or anyone else so inclined);

Let's hear specifically which courses you would remove and/or add to...let's say the Top 50 on each list.

Put up or shut up.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

[quote author=Dan Kelly

Oh, and by the way: A "Fam" trip is a "Familiarization" trip. The destination buys your presence by paying for all of your expenses. In my experience, respectable journalists decline all such offers.

What experience is that...?  We get many respecable journalists taking us up on fam trips for the resort from all aspects of the journalism pool.  We get them from spa publications, tennis publications, travel & tourism publications, hotel publications, even some tennis publciations.  Only the biggest of the big publications don't use fam trips...

I'll stand by my statement.

Does any of you ever wonder why you get such riveting, tough-minded coverage in the sorts of publications Mike cites?

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

That's why respectable journalists decline to be fed.

hmmm... I note a high horse around here somewhere...    With rare exception (generally publications with a million or more subscribers) almost every magazine or newspaper gets stories from Fams.  Whenevery you see a "Special to xxx publication" that's generally the result of a writer on a fam.  Someone needs to come into the real world of journalism...

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

As has been mentioned by David Wigler and others, greens fees are actually only a relatively small portion of the "costs of the game" incurred by raters.

However, since $$$ isn't part of the ratings criteria, I'm not sure that one's personal sensitivity to rising costs in the game would benefit their perspective.  
 

[Dan Kelly]

Someone needs to come into the real world of journalism...

No, thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rater Police (or anyone else so inclined);

Let's hear specifically which courses you would remove and/or add to...let's say the Top 50 on each list.

Put up or shut up.

It's gotten awfully quiet.  Everyone must be busy compiling their lists.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys -- how about we understand at least one thing -- ratings will ALWAYS -- REPEAT ALWAYS --engender controversy. Why? Quite obviously when you place one course above another you will get a myriad of complaints from those not chosen. Show me an architect who doesn't have an ego of some type and I'll show you someone who doesn't have full confidence in the product they produce. It's also human nature that people with egos (small or otherwise) will have some sort of reaction that person "X" and person "Y" always seem to get the fanfare while they toil in relative obscurity.

That's unfair -- but life's unfair too. Good panelists will search out courses of all types and should report on what is happening with such layouts that often fly under the radar screen. Ditto the up and coming talent that exists in the architectural community.

Anytime you compare / contrast there will be people who will argue (correctly at times and incorrectly at other times) that so-and-so course should have / should not have been rated --or rated higher or even rated lower. The nature of ratings breeds these comments and to be frank is one reason why publications, of all types, print them periodically.

You will also have people put forward any reason that they can hang their hat stating the final result listed is flawed in one way or the other. Eliminating comped green fees would not change that. If it wasn't the comped green fees -- then it's the size of the panel -- the location of panelists -- the impact of regionalism, the membership connection raters have with certain courses, and so forth and so on.

Personally, I believe one doesn't need such a large grouping of people to unearth all the gems that are out there. The 24/7 real time world we live allows for mass information to move so quickly that it's highly unlikely any course of distinction can't be visited by those who seek to do so.

Second, Dan Kelly presents one clear and possibly viable option -- have the entire process handled by a few knowledgeable people who are then reimbursed by the magazine they're rating for.

Dan -- sounds great -- just convince the folks at the different magazines if they will pony up the $$$. I won't hold my breath.

One other thing -- whether I pay green fees 100% or have them comped at times won't stop me from playing the courses I need to play and writing my opinions without any hesitation or reservation. If people don't believe me so be it.  

Mike C:

I know from whence you speak -- there are tons of courses that I've played / visited that very few people ever talk about. I've been down those lonely roads you mention partner and played all those "well known" layouts.




 

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Cirba- Perhaps those that "already have lists" should post them.  I will take some time and compile a list but with all the questions about the ratings I still have not seen anyones list.

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

That's one course on and one course off.  Anyone can do that.

I want someone to put up something that shows, let's say, that 20% of the list is in error.  That it's "fundamentally flawed".    

Take 10 courses off either list's first 50 and tell us their replacements.

Anyone?

For the record, Rustic Canyon would be in my top 50 and I haven't played Southern Highlands.  

[Rater Police]

Mr. Cirba,

This isn't about what I think should be in the Top 50.  We know it's the bottom 50 that are the most questionable anyway.

This is about questioning the integrity of the ratings of a panel that puts out a Top 100 list of golf courses that allows their panelists to accept "free" or "comped" rounds and the like.  It doesn't make you a bad person.  It makes the system flawed.  

Telling us how much you spend to travel to these places means nothing.  Here's why.  If you are a rater and I am not and we both live in let's say LA.  We both want to go play Great Course Country Club in Florida.  We both buy tickets and make hotel reservations.  We both get a rental car and go to the course.  Because you are a member of some panel that you did nothing for golf to get on, you get a free round and I pay $200.  

Tell me a) the logic behind this, and b) how the $200 in your pocket isn't significant.

It's simple.  I don't think anyone is claiming the individual rater is corrupt.  I think it's the rating guidelines in accordance to freebies that is corrupt.

[HamiltonBHearst]

I will ask again.  many raters are hiding behind the collective aspect of the ratings.  Why has a rater not posted their individual ratings. Is this not allowed?  Most of the raters I read on here seem pretty honest, and passionate and competant.

[Mike_Cirba]

This is about questioning the integrity of the ratings of a panel that puts out a Top 100 list of golf courses that allows their panelists to accept "free" or "comped" rounds and the like.  It doesn't make you a bad person.  It makes the system flawed.  

Do you know of any magazine that forbids their raters?

If so, how do they enforce it?  If not, how would you enforce it?  

Telling us how much you spend to travel to these places means nothing.  Here's why.  If you are a rater and I am not and we both live in let's say LA.  We both want to go play Great Course Country Club in Florida.  We both buy tickets and make hotel reservations.  We both get a rental car and go to the course.  Because you are a member of some panel that you did nothing for golf to get on, you get a free round and I pay $200.  

Tell me a) the logic behind this, and b) how the $200 in your pocket isn't significant.

Because I'm willing to bet that I do a heckuva lot more golf-only travel (non-business related) and play a heckuva a lot more courses than the average golfer, which I think is one of the primary reasons I was asked to become a rater in the first place

It's simple.  I don't think anyone is claiming the individual rater is corrupt.  I think it's the rating guidelines in accordance to freebies that is corrupt.

No, you're merely claiming that they didn't "do anything for golf" to get on.  It's all politics.  What a load of shit.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Kelly B. Moran (I refuse the middle name) says, "...Brauer and people like him..."

Please alert me if there truly is anyone "like" Mr. Brauer. I will need to up my insurance coverage!

Seriously, Kelly B. Moran (how about just "Kelly-B"?) makes a very good point: Ratings do mean a lot to owners and architects. To believe otherwise is nonsense. While it may not be the most essential thing — I don't think it is — it none-the-less is an honor and can sway the ability to get better work and meet new and better clientele.

[John_Conley]

Great.  Now the strong voices have become anonymous.  "Consider the source..."  How can any of us give an anonywuss much credence?

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

I think the others are simply busy at the moment each compiling their own definitive lists.  

[Rater Police]

Mr. Cirba said:

Do you know of any magazine that forbids their raters?

If so, how do they enforce it?  If not, how would you enforce it?

No I do not know of any magazines that forbid their raters.  I hold the same opinion of those magazines as well.

Enforce it by forbidding any comped rounds.  Period.  Basically, I think it is fine that you take a free round, I just think it compromises your panel's integrity.  I find it amusing that you can't seem to get the point.

Mr. Cirba said:

Because I'm willing to bet that I do a heckuva lot more golf-only travel (non-business related) and play a heckuva a lot more courses than the average golfer, which I think is one of the primary reasons I was asked to become a rater in the first place.

So you should get comped rounds of golf because you happen to travel more than other people?  Are you being forced by Golfweek to spend your own money?  Or are you choosing to go play these courses?  I don't understand how the way in which you decide to spend your money has anything to do with the justification for accepting free rounds.  If you don't like the fact that Golfweek asks you to travel to play courses then I suggest you quit.  It sounds like it is a major inconvenience for you.  People all over the world spen money to travel to play golf and don't get "comped rounds", so why should you?

Mr. Cirba said:

No, you're merely claiming that they didn't "do anything for golf" to get on.  It's all politics.  What a load of shit.

What are raters doing for the betterment of golf?  I can't think of anything significant.  I agree that ratings are very much political.  I see you have resorted to cursing to get out your frustration.  How eloquent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()