Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Forrest Richardson on November 22, 2007, 03:54:50 PM
-
I was discussing rankings, "best news" and the whole nature of magazine rankings with a client who goes through the same system when it comes to ski resorts.
Argument against disclosure: Doing so would allow course owners to lobby and pass perks on to panelists. A comment from the other side says that keeping panelists names cloaked gives the impression that there is never any lobbying or perking, yet it is a well known fact that lists get out and lobbying occurs.
Argument in favor of disclosure: Since some resourceful owners and PR firms can find out the identities anyway, it evens the playing board. A comment from the other side says that disclosure would create a free-for-all with houdning of panelists by everyone and their brother.
What say you all?
-
in favor of total transparency and a level playing field.....it would hopefully eliminate the perks and the "do you know who I am" panelists who try to run rough shod over new clubs/courses
-
Forest,
I don't know how other "ratings" go and I'm sort of new to the whole golf course rating deal but I really don't see a lot of this going on...and if it does I can't see it working (bribes, etc.) and really affecting a courses overall ranking because I imagine that most rankings are based off a minimum number of ratings by different raters (20 or 25). So thinking a course could try and bribe that many raters doesn't jive with me. I really don't think publishing or not publishing the names would make a difference.
-
As far as I know there is already full transparancy. On the occasions when I call a course to arrange a tee time as a panelist, I announce what my intentions are and with which magazine panel I am on. More times than not, the person on the other end of phone will write down the wrong magazine and I will make sure to rectify that error when I findout about it.
As for perks, they are not offered the way they are implied in the original post, that I have seen. And if they were, they wouldn't be accepted and have zero barring on the evaluation of the golf course.
There's only one way I know of to get the recognition this owner appears to covet. Build him something very good, to great.
-
Completely agree with Adam. I just don't see pirks or bribes going on in the rating business....especially not to the level you imply in your post.
-Brian
-
Adam / Brian — The focus of this question is whether magazines should publish, openly, the names of raters. Whether or not there are perks or lobbying, is not the primary question.
While it is obvious that building a great golf course is paramount, I would submit that several golf courses have been rated well even though they may not truly be deserving. And, of those, at least some were very likely controlled by very resourceful owners who got a hold of raters in their locales and did whatever reasonable to get them to stop by and provide as positive evaluation as possible. The downside of this (not publishing) is that the un-resourceful (public, out-of-the-way, small scale...whatever) course/owner may never be able to attain even the inkling of attention from panelists.
-
Forrest,
Golf Mag( or was it Golfweek?) did publish their list of raters and Golf digest guys , from my experience, seek comps up front so isn't there already a lot of transperency?
Ward
-
Yes, I recall that GOLF did publish names. I am not sure whether they do any longer.
There is not much transparency in terms of publishing. I do believe that most raters are well mannered in identifying themselves and in not giving in to overt perks — at least the raters I have known and seen at courses.
Again, this is not about raters behavior, but rather about the question of whether it is a better or worse "system" if magazines would publish and make available the identities of their rating panelists.
-
Forrest, So the owner of this obscure course would do what with the information?
-
I suppose, if panelists identities were published, ALL golf courses would be on a level playing field to send communications to panelists, make them aware of openings, remodels, improvements, changes, etc.
If just one PR firm gets their hands on a list of magazine panelists — let's say GD and GW — I would think they have a tremendous advantage for their client in getting panelists to a recently remodeled course. Now, that doesn't take the place of great golf course design and implementation, but it does solve one equation: Getting the word out on an individual basis.
-
Forest,
I don't know how other "ratings" go and I'm sort of new to the whole golf course rating deal but I really don't see a lot of this going on...and if it does I can't see it working (bribes, etc.) and really affecting a courses overall ranking because I imagine that most rankings are based off a minimum number of ratings by different raters (20 or 25). So thinking a course could try and bribe that many raters doesn't jive with me. I really don't think publishing or not publishing the names would make a difference.
Brian,
With all due respect I think that while being new you may also be a little naive to this rating business. Let me ask this.....do you also feel your vote is used if the results vary from what is "needed" by a magazine? It is manipulated way beyond individual raters....JMO....
-
Forrest, Courses do contact the magazine and they let us know that we would be welcome to call on their course. The reason ? I suspect they are varied like the examples you gave. i.e. changes.
Our assignment at GW is to play the needy courses. So I don't see Mike's point.
-
Forest,
It honestly doesn't matter if they are published or not. I think the responsibilty for finding out that a course is newly remodeled falls on the magazine. For example, Golfweek works on a priority / non-priority system...so if a course was on the non-priority list and was recently remodeled they should be moved to the priority list.
-Brian
-
I vote for secrecy with the obvious exception of the few guys who run the ratings. No comps, no gifts no nothing. Show up blind, pay your money like every other schmuck and rate the course. I don't buy that nobody is influenced by free golf. It human nature to be grateful for gifts. It really is beyond me how people believe that rankings of anything can have much merit when the rankers are announced and comped. In any other area the mere suggestion of this would get a good laugh.
Ciao
-
I don't buy that nobody is influenced by free golf. It human nature to be grateful for gifts.
Ciao
Sean, You post alot of good stuff on here. This however was not one of them.
Most of the panelists I know are independant, and, wealthy enough where your accusation is the good laugh.
Tommy Naccarato would not be influenced by a comped round, even if he was unemployed for the decade prior to playing it.
-
I vote for secrecy with the obvious exception of the few guys who run the ratings. No comps, no gifts no nothing. Show up blind, pay your money like every other schmuck and rate the course. I don't buy that nobody is influenced by free golf. It human nature to be grateful for gifts. It really is beyond me how people believe that rankings of anything can have much merit when the rankers are announced and comped. In any other area the mere suggestion of this would get a good laugh.
Ciao
Sean, what you suggest may be seem logical, it just isn't true. Whether or not I am comp'd makes no difference in my ratings.
The place where your thoughts really break down is that I just can't go to a private club and plunk down my money. Aronimink has recently finished some extensive work and wants Golf Digest panelists to come. They need forty, soon to be fifty ratings to be eligible for the top 100. The only way that is going to happen is for guys like me to make the trek and play the course.
-
"Whether or not I am comp'd makes no difference in my ratings."
Tommy, can you say the same about all panelists? I don't think Sean is accusing the lot of you guys. But the perks clearly exist and conflicts of interest abound with comps as do abuses. That too, sadly, is human nature.
I've heard of panelists that played a single course multiple times in a year without paying. I also know of stories of where golfers pretend to be panelists in order to get free golf. I say abandon all free golf for raters at private clubs. If the clubs want them so badly, let them arrange for raters to play with members and charge them the going rate, no discounts.
Aronimink will do just fine even if it takes time for those 40 or 50 raters to find their way to Newtown Square. While they're there, they should stop by Cut Above Deli for a sandwich. I hear if a rater presents a stamped scorecard and his credentials, they only charge a 50% premium.
It isn't like raters are altruists doing the world a service, even though many think they are. Let the public and resort courses do whatever they want. But for private golf, panelists should play with a member and pay their way.
Sean, we have this debate all the time with these guys. Many of them are great guys. I met Tommy Williamson and he was a delight. However, I still think the private clubs shouldn't offer any deals to panelists that their members' guests don't have. Arguing this is a complete waste of time with the majority of panelists.
-
Forrest,
I am in favor of disclosing the panelists, and many if not most actually do. I think the trend absolutely has to be to the most transparency possible.
The Dallas Morning News panel is actually discussing revealing our votes in the name of transparency. I'm not so sure about that, if only because I don't want to field a dozen phone calls a year asking why I gave Tiddly Links a 8.3 and Waterfalls National a 8.4. While I like to think I could always defend my vote (I would probably say WN would have gotten a higher rating if the water was turned off that day!) just like in the political elections, I don't think I should have to.
-
I just honestly don't see what the big deal is that everyone is trying to make out of it. I think most raters take their job serious enough and don't let wether they had to pay or not come into play. I did probably 15 official ratings this year (where I called ahead and they knew who I was walking in the door) and the course in which I gave the highest rating to this year charged me.
I think making all raters pay will discourage some raters from getting out and making the trek to play the courses. I think if anything raters should police themselves. One thing that upset me this year was hearing a story about another rater from another publication that showed up to a course with 5 of his buddies (and had told the pro it would be just him showing up) looking for everything comped....well I love the fact that the pro charged them all!
-
It wouldn't make a difference with me. I can't imagine being much influenced by getting solicitations, any more than I'd be by following thru on any of the 30+ solicitations I receive each year by virtue of living in a gated golf community in NC.
I play the new courses and others that I'm assigned, as well as attempt to get to courses that the magazine has requested raters play, try to get to just about all of the other candidate courses in NC at least once every 2-3 years, and then plan one or two away trips to destinations where there are enough candidate courses that I can access within a reasonable drive from one or two base hotels (I use this site more than anything to identify my target courses for my away trips.) And if I can sneak in a course or two during family vacations, all the better.
Not gonna' get into the comp thing other than to say that I appreciate but don't expect it, don't accept anything other than a break on the green fee, rarely bring someone along to play with me but if I do then I expect to pay for that person, and always spend some money in the pro shop.
-
I've admitted many times on here that I am a GD panelist. If they want to disclose my name they are more than welcome to do so. I would discourage doing a contact list with addresses, phone numbers, etc, but just the names would not affect me much one way or the other.
I would hope panelists are not influenced by comps or service or any outside factors other than the golf course itself. I really believe that a very large majority goes about it the right away.
One thing I always try to do is make it very clear to the course that I am putting effort into the rating of the course and not just out for a fun 18. Despite the recent photo taking thread I find my digital camera is truly valuable to helping me assess things afterward. It is true that pictures do not capture everything, bu they certainly assist my faulty memory with the details of specific holes especially on trips where I may play 5-6 courses.
-
I was discussing rankings, "best news" and the whole nature of magazine rankings with a client who goes through the same system when it comes to ski resorts.
All ski resorts are public. A panelist cannot call a private club without disclosing that they are a panelist and want to rate the course.
I would have no problem with public courses requiring the usual green fee.
-
I don't buy that nobody is influenced by free golf. It human nature to be grateful for gifts.
Ciao
Sean, You post alot of good stuff on here. This however was not one of them.
Most of the panelists I know are independant, and, wealthy enough where your accusation is the good laugh.
Tommy Naccarato would not be influenced by a comped round, even if he was unemployed for the decade prior to playing it.
Adam
I am not accusing anybody of anything, but your idea of "no influence" wouldn't ring true in any other aspect of life and it doesn't ring true in the area of golf. People are people no matter what their favourite sport is and golfers don't get a free pass on standards because they are golfers. I am saying that to have complete integrity, any panel which rates a service or product cannot take kickbacks (free anything) from that organization. I know that I will always doubt the findings if it isn't made perfectly clear that the raters cannot be influenced by anything except the product they are rating. Receiving free anything places the system in doubt regardless of individual integrity.
This of course is ideal world stuff. However, the further removed from the ideal unfortunately means that the odds of breakdowns in the system go up. The Michelin Guide is the best and most respected guide in the world. It sets the standard and because the standard is so high the guide book is has an exceptionally integrity.
I have always thought that if the ranking system was any good, then its worth money. In general, I would much rather see a book every 4 years or something like this. Drastically reduce the number of panelists and follow the Michelin system. If the product is good, people will be happy to pay for it. In essence, all of the current systems are broke and need a serious rethinking of how to fix them.
Ciao
-
Sean, what is the policy of the Michelin system towards disclosure/non-disclosure of the evaluators' names?
I think this discussion thread is confusing two different sorts of disclosure. At Golfweek, panelist are certainly free to announce themselves when they inquire about play. Just as they are free, as some have here, to announce their status as raters with a particular magazine. Many do precisely that when they make advance plans to play/rate a course, but I also know that many play private (and public) courses without announcing themselves and access the course as a guest of a member or even as fee payers. I'm not naive enough to believe this is the majority of cases. But at more clubs than most of you can imagine, where they couldn't care less about raters (Winged Foot, Cypress, Friars Head) the only way to get on is to play as a member's guest.
The other aspect of disclosure/non-disclosure is what we at the magazine do. I know Golf Magazine has published the list of their raters. At Golfweek, we guarantee anonymity on our part -- leaving it free for raters to reveal themselves if they want. The reason for this is simple. We don't want our 450 raters to get deluged with direct solicitations, phone calls, emails, offers of free shirts and rooms by courses and their p.r. agents looking for visits and votes.
We are very strict about non-disclosure. We get requests all of the time from clubs, management companies, etc. for the list. My own book publisher tried getting the list from me to promote my Donald Ross book and couldn't get it. That's also why, when sending out email blasts, we put all of the names on the "BCC" bar (not the "Send To" or "CC" bar) so raters can't get them and laterally pass them on.
I don't mean the system is perfect. Self-policing by raters is a start but it's no way enough. We have rigid rules about participation, ethics, not asking to bring a foursome, etc., and I don't hesitate to enforce them. In one legendary case, a rater whom I heared had made very liberal use of access to one course that offered it to him was terminated as soon as we heard about it. If anything, we've been accused of being over-zealous in such matters, which is fine with me. Still, the infractions are minor because the people selected are pretty sensible, the rules are clear and the enforcement as diligent as feasible. But disclosing their names up front isn't going to make the system better.
Finally, I love Mike Young's characteristic paranoia about magazines selectively including/excluding votes depending upon their whims and preferences. I can't speak for how the other magazine do things, but I have no time or inclination to even look at what a rater votes on at an individual course. And given the electronic/intranet ballot we have no choice but to accept it as is anyway.
-
Brad
So far as I know, the raters are unknown, visit restaurants un-announced, use unqualified criteria or at least secret criteria (an aspect I really like because it means that a tick box system won't do and restaurants can't taylor a menu around any Michelin system) and pay the bill. IMO, these are all good aspects of their system and they help to ensure integrity. I also like that Michelin only rate the very best and there is no set number. The knife & fork deal is pretty cool too because it highlights possible future candidates for stars or just misses.
Ciao
Would it be possible to produce a book/pamphlet type deal every so many years which the customer has to pay for?
Ciao
-
Sean
I couldn't get access to most of the candidate courses if I did everything anonymously. Not just the top 100 or so, but the candidates for the best in a given state. And even if I could get some access, it would be much rarer and less frequent. I can't help but believe that my ratings get better as I see a course a second or third time and play more of its regional and style competitors.
Couldn't the quality of the ratings might suffer if everything was done anonymously? We all believe that too many new whiz-bang courses get pushed too high in the ratings at the start. You could say that we are handing out "first impression roses", for you Bachelor fans. But then over a little time, they setle down to where they more appropriately belong. Raters play the course a few times over the course of that 5-10 years, and we can better see what's really there and what isn't, and also the course isn't being pushed condition-wise or in any other way by it's owner/developer in an effort to sell memberships or real estate, so we see it as it really will be in a more normal manner.
Perhaps the Michelin model would work well with public access courses; then you have a comparable with restaurants as they are public. And perhaps internationally, where access to practically any golf course is far more available than it is here. But not here.
-
The first step in the rating process is to call a private club and ask for preferential treatment; something no one else can or would think of doing. At a minimum, the magazine should encourage, but even better, insist that the rater play with a member and pay regular guest fees whether or not they are offered a comp round.
The benefits of playing with a member and paying their way can be substantial, besides the glaring fact that is how all other guests have access to a course, it removes the possibility of conflicts of interest. Playing with a member raises the possibility that the rater can learn about the course history, architectural evolution, variable weather conditions and a broader perspective of play. If this impacts the number of raters, so be it. The sense of entitlement or sacrifice by a number of raters can be irritating. These mindsets are closely bound to the notion of comps and conflicts.
This argument has been repeated over and over. The status quo is in place and the raters are content with it. My point is that the magazines should not be and they should seek to make changes. I don't buy golf magazines and this rating setup has a lot to do with that.
-
I would not be a big fan of indentifying all the panelists. I would think that most panelists get enough emails as is.
The free golf argument always fascinates me. There will always be a few in any group that abuse a priviledge but you don't have to set policy (or develop a bias) based on a very small minority. I just played a pretty decent private club the other day, was hosted by a friend who is a member and he wouldn't allow me to pay. Maybe I should toss $150 out the window on the ride home so I don't feel a bias to rate the course any higher than it should be ;)
I'd like someone to explain to me (or better off to my wife) how paying for a $500 plane ticket, $90 for a rental car, $120 for a hotel,... to play XYZ golf course in some XYZ state is "free golf" just because a green fee happens to get comped ;)
-
First of all, Mark, did your friend pay for your round or did the club comp you? If your friend paid for your round, then this example has no bearing on this discussion at all. If your friend arranged for you to be comped by the club because you are a rater (you are, right?) then I have a problem with that. You said you played with a friend. What was subordinate, playing with a friend or rating the course? Was rating the higher purpose and thus subordinated the value of playing with a friend? You can't have it both ways. You either played with a friend and either of you should have paid or you played as a rater and in that case you should pay as well.
What is free about paying for a plane ticket, rental car and hotel when playing a golf course as a rater is the will to do so. You and other raters choose to do it so there is no entitlement for having done so. That is a ludicrous argument and only serves to support the counter argument that there should be no comps by private clubs. Period. Special privileges allow conflicts of interest. I would think even perceived and not just realized conflicts of interest ought to be avoided.
If a new private wants to bring in raters in order to raise the profile of the project or an existing club wants to do the same after a redesign or significant changes, allow raters and prospective members to all come in during a period of time as long as there aren't any special privileges to raters. If members are going to buck up for raters (and I don't think they should), their money is better spent bucking up for prospective members as well and they should be able to bring in guests for free during that period. In any case, it should be clearly spelled out to the members and approved by them under this limited circumstance for new or redesigned privates.
-
Earlier in the thread, someone asked if more obscure courses could get the names and then use them to further their marketing. The thought was that some of them might rise in stature by having more rater visits.
They don't have to contact the rater directly. They simply need to contact the magazines and the magazine will notify the raters that the course is seeking visits. Brad and GW send out a periodic newsletter with similar information. I would assume that GD does the same.
I suppose the magazines could suply us all with an email address and I could go in and delete the messages occasionally. In my case, I'm going to play the new courses that are built locally and plan a certain number of excursions during the year to play in other areas. The courses I choose are more likely going to come from the recommendations I read here rather than anywhere else.
-
Isn't the solution pretty simple????
Make ALL raters pay their own way, and accept no freebies. If they are caught accepting anything for free, they lose their rater position.
I don't really buy the argument that it would be too expensive. For some maybe, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would be willing to fill in for the financially shorthanded. The nearly unrestricted access to private courses should be a big enough perk.
-
Wayne,
Private clubs already can do as you've suggested. They are under no requirement to allow panelist play at all, and may charge what they like and require the panelist to be a guest of a member. Many choose not to charge a fee, but I bet 90% of private clubs do require panelists to play with someone affiliated with the club whether it be a member or staff member. Panelists should not "ask" for a comped or reduced green fee in the first place.
Cabell,
Whatever view you take, the issue is far from simple.
If courses charged panelists every time there would be little change at the top most likely. Many top courses could care less about panelists as it is and do just fine. The problem created is that if a panelist has to pay for golf and has access anywhere why would they play anything but the very best? The top 100 list wouldn't suffer much, but the state lists (which I think are important, even if they have their own flaws) would be worse off for not having panelists see the courses. Sure you could assign courses, but is telling a panelist to go pay and play some course five hours away any more objective than the current system? There's challenges no matter how you do it.
-
Why do some think comped golf impacts course ratings ??? I don't get it because courses have no idea what rating a panelist gives their golf course. A panelist could say one thing and do another.
My recent situation is a good example. I was invited as a guest not to rate the course, but to play golf with a friend. Does that mean one can't draw an opinion of a course on an "unofficial" visit? I sure hope not. Many times, courses don't even know panelists are there. Sometimes it is better that way.
-
Andy,
I don't buy your logic. If a courses is worth playing, panelists will play it - especially if it is close to home. And any self respecting panelist should be making every effort to play any new golf course that opens up within 120 miles of him (free or not).
-
Sean, Fitting golf into other models does not work. Your game mind is showing.
I've had years where I played 225 rounds of golf. Most of those appear free because I pay for an annual pass. Playing 5 rounds as a panelist, where I may or not be comped a green fee is insignificant, even if it's $500. For full disclosure, I have only played one course with such a ridiculous fee and I was there as a guest of the GM/Pro who is a friend and had it written in his contract that friends (of his) could play for free.
There is no system other free markets at work here. Each Mag has their own wau of going things and people are free to try and "play the game", but in my eyes getting a free putter will not change the fact that the architect did a good job or a bad one.
http://www.hunter-pr.com/success-stories/
-
Cabell,
If you think that every panelist plays every candidate course (which should mean its worth playing or it wouldn't be a candidate) within 120 miles of them as is I think you probably are kidding yourself. I agree with your point, but reality tells me otherwise. Not every panelist has unlimited free time and money to go see every course; I benefit from being single and living in an area with reasonably priced everything to see more courses than I could in California or New York.
I've played 23 public courses in New Mexico since I moved here in January and have paid for at least one round at 21 of them. The other two? One was as assistant coach for a high school team and it wasn't a candidate course anyway. The other was brand new and allowed me to play prior to their official opening. Its a few hours away so once I get a chance I'll go back and visit. There's only one other course that I haven't seen, and that will be a priority next year.
-
Mark,
You didn't answer my question and your recent situation is not a good example. If you went and played as a guest of your friend and he paid, this has nothing at all to do with the issue being discussed. In fact it is an obfuscation. If you chose to rate the course while a guest of your friend, then that is a secondary matter not related to the issue of charges, which were apparently covered by your friend and not the club (you never disclosed).
Andy,
I agree with you that private clubs have a right to decide these matters. I think the magazines should be the ones that set the highest standard for their panelists to follow. Besides, how many clubs have standardized practices tacit or clearly expressed in club governance documents? If the number of private clubs that require panelists to play with a member is 90%, then I think the problem is less pronounced than I reasoned. However, what percent of panelist rounds would you say is comped or deeply discounted below the going guest fees?
-
Wayne,
Many clubs have pretty set policies that they give me when I write or call asking about them, I obviously don't know if they are written or formalized. They are also pretty specific as to what they will charge and are upfront about that as well.
Giving a percent is difficult because I do not know when I pay something whether it is deeply discounted or not. Its not uncommon for a course to discount or comp the green free but ask the panelist to support their caddie program.
-
Wayne,
Maybe another way to look at this is who is doing a service for who? Do you think it is possible that some clubs believe that the panelist is doing a service for them (and its not the other way around)? Maybe the panelist is coming out of their way or taking a vacation day from work, ... to do something for them? I think the sterotype some have of panelists is questionable.
I'm curious, when you were doing field visits to clubs for work on your book, did you always pay for access to walk and/or play the golf course? I recall a few clubs we visited together and don't recall having to pay and no one flashed there panelist credentials or PGA cards, etc. Maybe they viewed us as doing a service for them or else they were just being generous hosts ;) There is ALWAYS a sincere offer to pay.
-
My experience at my club as far as policy for raters is: It depends on who picks up the phone.
-
Joel — "All ski resorts are public." No, maybe a majority of ski mountains are public, but the resort components are certainly not in most instances.
Adam — But, what if the magazines and those in charge of ratings are not so inclined to push panelists to a particular course? What then?
Here is something to consider: What is the result if a panelist who attends a retreat or meeting of other panelists gets a hold of a decent list of fellow panelists? Then, let's say this panelist uses that list to share with the developer of a new course in his area. The developer doesn't send shirts or customized bottles of California wine...just a simple letter inviting the area panelists to join in a round.
Now, if the list was known to all — no foul, no advantage, etc.
But, when lists are private, opportunity exists for such "abuse"...even though the scenario I shared does not seem that out-of-bounds to me.
-
Wayne,
Maybe another way to look at this is who is doing a service for who? Do you think it is possible that some clubs believe that the panelist is doing a service for them (and its not the other way around)? Maybe the panelist is coming out of their way or taking a vacation day from work, ... to do something for them? I think the sterotype some have of panelists is questionable.
I'm curious, when you were doing field visits to clubs for work on your book, did you always pay for access to walk and/or play the golf course? I recall a few clubs we visited together and don't recall having to pay and no one flashed there panelist credentials or PGA cards, etc. Maybe they viewed us as doing a service for them or else they were just being generous hosts ;) There is ALWAYS a sincere offer to pay.
If the clubs didn't think the panelists were doing them a service, do you really think they would offer perks? Of course they believe it is a quid pro quo situation. That goes without saying. However, the leverage is on the side of the panelists for that very reason. They can do something for the club and that's why conflicts can arise. Surely this is readily understood by all.
When I visited a club to do research for my book, why would I pay to simply walk the course and study it? Overwhelmingly I did more study than play. If I did play, more often than not I paid. I wasn't doing my work for a commercial concern but rather an at-a-loss book project. Except for one or two courses where archival material did not exist, I provided the clubs with hard and digital copies of the Flynn drawings and provided a written architectural evolution report including sourcing aerial photographs (most courtesy of Craig Disher) and ground photographs and other information pertinent to the history of the courses. In any case, do you equate this work with ranking a golf course? I guess you do because you bring it up as some sort of validation point.
I don't remember visiting a course for the Flynn book with you to play where I didn't pay, but I may have. I couldn't flash a panelist card or PGA card as I am not a member of either one. If we happened to play a course where they allowed us to play without charge, I don't know what service they thought you were providing except maybe as another set of eyes to help me. They knew that I was there primarily to do research.
Do you think the primary reason raters do their thing is to provide a service that benefits golf or rather the access that they are granted?
-
If every course in the country was given one vote as to how to treat "raters", do we think the concensus would be to comp them based on the valuable service they are performing for the game of golf?
Also...is a rating formula from a panel a better method than a straight ranking from one very well traveled individual?
I'd be more interested in reading about Mike Young's top 25 than about seeing who's No. 1 Pine Valley or Cypress...
This format could also be regionalized very easily...Makr Fin could probably do a Tri-State top 25 and compare it against Matt Ward's and keep my interest...
You could also feature the same clubs that pay advertising dollars...
-
[quote author=Wayne Morrison
Do you think the primary reason raters do their thing is to provide a service that benefits golf or rather the access that they are granted?
As a non-rater, interested by the thread.. Great question.. IMHO.. has to include both, but more of the "access"
for full disclosure.. transpearency.. ms sheila & i have been comp'd once while with another rater.. after the first drive, desperately not wanting to top one, and being successful.. we really didn't think about the free fee again, till our conclusion and consideration of whether we'd pay to play there again.. no different than thoughts at any other place we play.. we'll try anything once..
oh yeh , btw.. eliminate ratings of private courses.. I don't see any public value to that exercise!
-
I am truly not sure where I stand on this overall thread issue. But, the notion that comped rounds would not affect rater bias seems ludicrous. I am a physician and I hear all the time that drug company freebies do not affect my colleagues behavior. I say "baloney"....Drug companies are too big, too smart, too powerful to not be quite clear that giving free lunches, pens with company logos, etc must change physician prescribing behavior. Likewise, I believe it does impact the ratings for comped golf, food, etc...I also believe that the quality of the course may far outweigh the effects of the freebies, but when courses are only marginally different the freebies might just make the difference. There might be good reasons for allowing comped rounds, BUT the raters need to be ever conscious of the truth...free just might sway their opinion, if only a little bit.
I am not a course rater. Full disclosure.
Bart
-
Bart,
You make good points, however, the one big difference is that in your analogy, a salesman providing free samples/gifts, etc. to a physician will be able to determine if the physician is prescribing their drug of choice. In golf course ratings, a club will never know what rating an individual panelist gives their golf course.
Also remember that most of the other top courses would laugh at the thought of providing a panelist a free round of golf. They just don't do it (at least I don't think they do) yet it doesn't seem to impact their status in the rankings.
Getting back to Forrest's question; the problem with identifying all the panelists is that I don't think most would want to be identified. As I said earlier, sometimes it is better to go to a club under the radar and many panelists do just that. You often get a better appreciation of the course and how it is normally prepared in this situation.
Wayne,
To answer your question which is a good one, I do think the majority of panelists (at least the most active ones) do this because they believe that they can make a difference (hopefully in a positive way). I know and have met dozens and dozens of panelists and have yet to have one tell me that they are in it for the free golf. Frankly if they did or I felt that they didn't take what they are doing seriously, I'd let the powers to be know about it. Panelists like that only hurt the perception of everyone else.
-
Mark,
Make a positive difference for who? Or what?
I don't care one way or another about the process, I just don't think it can be equated to a Consumer Reports type survey...
-
Many people keep saying they won't get a chance to rate some courses if there wasn't a system that is in place like the one we have. I say, then perhaps some folks on the rating panel should be dropped if they can't get the job done. Its more important to have integrity in the system then to allow comped (ie potentially compromised ratings) golf.
I don't think you lot are getting it yet. It doesn't matter a damn if one guy can be influenced by free golf or whatever. The problem is that the system allows for these kickbacks and that CANNOT possibly be deemed as a positive factor where integrity of the system is concerned. Its amazing to me that folks can pick out very similar conflicts of interest in other aspects of life, yet turn a blind eye for golfers. I wonder if these guys who believe golfers are holier than thou also believe that drug testing is a waste of time. It could well be a waste of time for almost all golfers, but perceptions are important whether or not people think there is a problem or not. These sorts of things, when they work best, have to be cleaner than clean. What is the point of starting out with a flawed system and trying to make do when the lack of controls are obviously missing?
Ciao
-
Sean,
I think you might not get my point...I don't care if a course is 58 or 93 so the guy that got comped and gave a higher review because of it didn't effect my life at all...I also don't think that rating effects anyone other than the club itself.
I would be interested in hearing an indivuduals personal list with explanations.
-
Guys,
I wish this was black and white. It's not. But I do believe that if any of the magazines believed that an "uncomped" system yielded a better ranking, they would try to do it (though I'm not sure it is possible even if they tried). Clubs will do what they want and one can only push so hard to pay without embarrassing yourself and your host.
JES II,
How can someone influence golf in a positive manner; let’s put it this way, at GD, a new course might only get 10, 20 or 30 votes give or take. One vote can make a big difference and most take that very serious. If for example a panelist thinks XYZ’s latest new course is superb, they can vote it up and also tell 40 of their “closest friends” what they think about it. On the other hand, if they think it is too much like the last one he or she did or that the architect is spreading themselves too thin,… they can do the opposite. Panelists can make a difference and they need to understand that.
-
Mark,
I know you can make a difference in the rankings...that wasn't intended to be the question...I thought I asked what you could possibly do positively FOR GOLF through the ranking process?
If you're trying to tell me moving one course up the rankings is a net positive I'd remind you it's a zero sum game...only 100 courses in the top 100...when you move one in, you also move one out...
-
JES II,
What is a positive difference - How about down grading courses that are "over-maintained" and/or look artificial or contrived in appearance as a result of excessive manicuring, over watering, over grooming of hazards,...! Granted this is personal preference and left to the individual club's discretion. However, if we want to make a difference and maybe start a trend toward more economical and sensible maintenance practices, this could help. If for example, you've read any of my post's about bunker maintenance (upwards of 25% or more of super's budgets) or looked through our hazards book, you would know where I stand on that particular issue.
-
Mark,
That would be an interesting conversation with the panel heads for each magazine...which courses have been bumped off due to being over-manicured? Which are on a list on the basis of their lean maintenance routine?
-
Adam — But, what if the magazines and those in charge of ratings are not so inclined to push panelists to a particular course? What then?
Forrest, This question of yours does not compute.
The magazine provides a list of courses on the ballot. (1500+)
They are brokendown state by state. Some courses are marked "Priority" which means they need votes for stastical purposes. GW does not push us anywhere. Throughout the year we get emails that sometimes contains a list of courses that are either new to the ballot or have made a request to the magazine to inform their raters they would be welcome to visit their course, for reasons we've already covered.
Raters are encouraged and able to make reccomendations to add a specific course to the ballot.
GW does not push. Maybe others do. If so, I would have no idea, what then.
-
Many people keep saying they won't get a chance to rate some courses if there wasn't a system that is in place like the one we have. I say, then perhaps some folks on the rating panel should be dropped if they can't get the job done. Its more important to have integrity in the system then to allow comped (ie potentially compromised ratings) golf.
I don't think you lot are getting it yet.
Sean,
Since I don't get it, I'm just wondering what category should I give the extra points to next time I get a discount or comped round? Ambiance seems to be the most likely but maybe shot "values" would be better. ;D
Not meaning to pick on you individually but yours was the easiest post to use to make my point. These rating threads get a bit too serious sometimes.
-
Sean,
I think you might not get my point...I don't care if a course is 58 or 93 so the guy that got comped and gave a higher review because of it didn't effect my life at all...I also don't think that rating effects anyone other than the club itself.
I would be interested in hearing an indivuduals personal list with explanations.
Sully
That is exactly what I want - A Michelin approach to rating courses - their system just about lock stock and barrel. There is no ranking number or set number of courses which earn stars. If good enough, the course gets a star of some sort (1-3) and an explanation/description which helps the reader understand why the course & club (because ambience is an influential factor) as a tandem are great not only from a playing perspective, but also from an experience level. Some courses get get recommended that presumably are just short of a star but there is less detail about their merits included - its sort of a red flagging for interested parties and may indicate what is up and coming and what is down and out.
I am not interested in the breakdown of shot values and all that stuff either because its all mumbo jumbo to "scientifically" justify a rating for a course which players know from experience is great. A tabulation of of numbers doesn't mean anything. I am much more interested in a bit of background and general impressions backed up with specific examples. Think something like the Legendary Courses.... series, but a bit more critical/analytical.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I believe that GD publishes a book called "Places to Play" which is a star-based rating of courses that the public has access to. Don't know how those ratings are compiled, but I do believe that panelist ratings are included in the mix.
-
From reading this website for a few years I can tell you there are at least two things in the golf business where the barrier to entry is almost zero. Those things are becoming a rater and stating that one is a golf architect. As for those of us that are golf architects..I think now maybe a website is required. But at least I admit the barriers for doing what I do. But delving a little further.....I have many good friends who are raters....and these guys never really tell anyone.....I am sure the majority of the raters on this site fit into such category. I don't think it matters to them whether their name is known or not. It will not change anything. And then there is the 5%, or maybe less, who actually get into the rater stuff and start taking themselves seriously. We all know these guys when we see them and their self importance when they come into a shop or onto a course. They will take whatever you will give them. What I don't think most people understand is how big of a business the "rating game" is to the real estate projects and the magazine advertising guys. And this is not saying all mags.
There are companies that do nothing more than work with projects to help them get a #1 rating ...or a "best new"......IMHO random raters that are taken off of the street due to an interest in golf are a much better cross section than those that may hold a position in the golf business and "understand" the importance of rating to a particular mag.....The rating business is money and nothing more for most mags....it really doesn't matter if the raters are known or not....the results will be what they need to be.....I apologize if some see this cynical.....PROVE me wrong.....
-
Sean,
I believe that GD publishes a book called "Places to Play" which is a star-based rating of courses that the public has access to. Don't know how those ratings are compiled, but I do believe that panelist ratings are included in the mix.
David,
You could rate courses for the Places to Play guide if you wanted. Just go to the GD website and do a little searching and the link has always been pretty easy for me to spot. The star rankings take a lot into account though other than quality golf architecture but it truly is a rating by the average golfer. Unfortunately as time has gone by the star ratings have inflated somewhat so there are a lot of 4 star courses (out of 5) that don't distinguish between really good courses and the middle of the pack.
-
Let's take David's suggestion a step further along his natural progression and have it that no one pay for golf. In this way, the raters won't be unfairly privileged and the members would have nothing at all to complain about except the closing of their courses due to checks bouncing. But hey, that wouldn't be for a couple of months at least.
Panelists request that a private club grant them special privileges that are not only unavailable to all other non-members but also unavailable to the members' guests. This situation only exists because the clubs hope that it will benefit them. Often this creates a conflict because not only do they grant access not allowed to others, they add another layer of perks and often don't charge the panelists or discount the charges, a benefit which isn't grantedto member guests.
Don't any panelists (and this site is chock-full of them) see a problem with that? If not, they are to enmeshed in the process to think objectively on the subject. The patent response is that they pay for airfare, rental cars and hotels. Who gives a rat's ass? So does every other out of town guest. It is a decision made freely and without coercion. The panelists seek access they are not entitled to. If granted, they should at least pay for it like everyone else. Ideally, the clubs and magazines should work together (obviously the leverage is on the ratings side) and mandate that raters only play with members and always pay the typical guest fees.
It is very simple. No panelists get freebies or discounts or unaccompanied play unless the club allows it and only then at the going unaccompanied rate with the responsibility for the rater falling on a member or committee's account.
It is shocking that David is strangely wondering why no one suggests that issues disappear if no rater ever pays? Getting something for free is influential when everyone else has to pay and you don't not merely if you have to pay for it under other circumstances. I can't tell if he was being satirical or sincere. I hope it is the former because the later has no support whatsoever.
-
Wayne,
I think Shivas' post had at least some element of sarcasm in it, but that's just me.
Remember, panelists should never ask for a complementary or discounted green fee at any course. I think that applies across the board.
-
Andy,
I hope you're right and I expect he was being sarcastic. I remember that a panelist should not ask for compliments or discounts but I think the clubs and magazines should go well beyond that and mandate that these are never granted or accepted. Anything less brings in the element of conflict and whether perceived or realized, this needs to be factored out completely.
Hey, I admit as a member of a private club that I don't want panelists getting comped or discounted while my friends (who I vouch for) or I have to pay. There, I said it. I wish panelists would be half as honest as that and recognize (even the one's with the highest motives) that it is unfair and a conflict or the very least a potential one. They can't even do that.
By the way, Mike Young's post was right on target.
-
Sean,
The "places to play" guide with its star-based ratings seems to be what you want. It might also be what Mike Young thinks is a better rating system as well given his comment that he believes, "random raters that are taken off of the street due to an interest in golf are a much better cross section". Most of the ratings come from golfers like this as anyone can contribute to it.
I really don't think the majority of raters would care if they get charged to play. They expect to pay anyway and always offer to do so. Many show up under the radar and clubs don't even know they are getting reviewed. They get on through a friend or the Superintendent or someother manner without ever revealing that they are a panelist. It is interesting, however, that there must be half the current Top 100 clubs that are "seeking out panelists" because they are concerned they don't have enough votes and not enough guys are visiting them. Why they care is a whole different discussion.
-
I have an idea....lets just require that every course wanting to be considered COMP all of the raters and then there shouldn't be a problem! The playing field should be level.
Mr.(DR.) Bryant suggested a parallel with the drug reps and the rating panelists. Drug Reps are being compensated greatly for their work and the "freebies" offered by the drug companies are expensive bribes where everyone is profiting greatly.
Rating panelists are for the most part avid hobbyists who are spending pretty good money travelling from one place to another on their own buck. To think the majority of them(us) are lacking the integrity to make some informed comment is ludicrous. Ask some of those who have showed lack of good judgement who are no longer card carrying raters what this can cost them.
What bothers me most about this conversation is the level of criticism. This isn't the START talks or a solution to world hunger. This is an industry seeking critiques in an effort to get some marketing and in the process to benefit the industry. An industry, I might add, that isn't very healthy.
I will admit that in my 11 years as a rating panelist, I have received comped rounds, and paid for many. I have received a few shirts (less than five that were all part of some other event, should I burn them as an offering to the GCA thought police?). I would like to think that a bribe for my opinion would cost quite a bit more.
Mr. Brauer asked whether the panelists should be identifed, instead this has become yet another way to pound the comped round issue. What disturbs me more is that this website was once a place of serious discussion and it is now all too often a rerun of the Jerry Springer Show.
-
WH Cosgrove,
My observation is that panelists have thin skins when they are confronted with unfair practices at private clubs that benefit them and their magazines. OK, the clubs decide to act as they do, but why is that? If the magazines and clubs worked together to establish a standard, would you have a problem with that even if it meant no comps or discounts and accompanied play?
What bothers me is that some panelists have a complete lack of understanding that those outside the process, the ones without a vested interest, may have some valid points.
The only reason the entire enterprise exists is because of an assumed benefit to the clubs that are trying to stay viable. In this tougher economic condition, the pressure on them is even greater. Don't you think this environment presents even more opportunities for conflicts?
If you think that this discussion degenerates to the point of a Jerry Springer show, then your sense of perspective is in need of adjustment. Certainly panelists aren't as bad as the guests he has on his show ;D
-
Not that I feel as though I 've seen it all... but, when I have been invited to different private clubs they all have their own unique policies and pricing structure.
One member told me to call the club and see if they are receptive to panelists. His reasoning was if I didn't, it was gonna cost somebody $150.
In another case, I was invited to play, but the member had run out of his "cheap tickets" for guests. So he too asked me to contact the club as a panelist knowing they would be receptive to comping my round(s). In another case the same issue with the lower price of guest rounds was exhausted. Rather than question the policy I just paid the member for my round assuming it was what he was charged for it. How do I know I wasn't scalped? I don't. Do I care? Not really, other than if I was lied to, I would care about that. In any of the above scenarios, Did it affect my rating of the golf course? Not one iota.
Now, let's get to some deeper questions about the industry, specifically pricing. Why do course comp anyone? I'd say partly due to protocols and partly due to the real economics inherent in golf. It does not cost the course to comp yet, Pricing is out of control. Thanks to RJ at Pebble Beach we all pay a higher fee wherever we golf. Does it cost the club any money to comp individuals? I'd say it's neglible to nothing in real terms. Sure there's a chance for a lost opportuity cost, but once again, most of these clubs costs are sunk and only have the maintenance and f&b to subsidize. Lowerng the costs to their members, maybe?
Golf really does not fit into models well. does it? Under normal circumstances the price should be dropping, not rising. The glut of courses with shrinking demand should create a pricing war. Has it? Surely not at the green fee level.
-
Quite a few panelists are PGA professionals. If I am not mistaken, there is a common courtesy among clubs to comp such individuals when then visit to play golf. Do you force these guys to pay so their review of the course is not compromised ;) Or maybe you just kick them off the panels and pull someone off the street to replace them ;)
-
Wayne,
Who ever said much of anything in life, let alone golf, let alone magazine panelists, was fair? I think I understand your viewpoint and certainly respect it though, even my father grumbles at me for some of the opportunities that I've had. I feel very fortunate to have the time and ability to play golf and see as many courses as I do. Hopefully my viewpoint adds something to the finished lists in promoting good golf courses and architecture.
Adam makes very strong points IMO as to why clubs act the way they do. In some way THEY must feel its worth their while. The ones that don't want panelists have no requirement to allow us at all.
Would there even be a GCA.com or much interest in golf course architecture without these lists? I know that being a fan of lists in general its how I was introduced to the topic. I would guess some others could say the same.
-
Andy, Ran's own evolution and history tells us that it was some list, that prompted the discussions amongst his family.
While I consider it a travesty that PR firms, like the one I posted, have the gaul to hint at their prowess in manipulating golf course magazine ratings. I would defend to death their right to do it. But as ol' Abe Lincoln use to say,,, You can fool some of the people some of the time...
I've always believed that what goes around comes around.
-
Ran has been a panelist for a long time. Does anyone really think that he would change his reviews depending on whether he gets comped or not. I don't think so and I feel the same way about others.
-
Mark,
I have already established that I understand that professional courtesy is and should be extended to golf professionals, superintendents and general managers. These industry insiders have nothing at all to do with panelists. I doubt very much you believe there is a connection and thus the wink and smile guys.
Then you bring up specific individuals with recognized integrity. This doesn't have anything to do with the general principle I advocate either.
You skirt around the issue when it is plain and simple. You try to make it complex when it isn't.
-
What I'd like to see more of here is simply this;
Instead of another post about raters, why don't we discuss ratings?
For instance, if graft, bribery, and general lack of integrity are wholesale issues amongst raters of various publications as seems to be the contention here, then that should be obvious from the highly tainted and suspect ratings.
I can only speak for Golfweek, but their ratings of Classic and Modern courses (as well as public "state" listings) are posted on their website.
Can anyone point out some of the obvious, financially-influenced flaws?
I suspect raters from Golf Magazine and Golf Digest would also want to put their same ratings to the sniff test as a defense against their own individual and collective integrity, but for now, I'll be happy to discuss any Golf Week course rating with anyone and tell you why I think it is where it is in the ratings.
Before we cast aspersions or call into question the general moral fiber of any group, I think we should produce hard evidence, lest we find some nameless, faceless "raters" guilty of some imaginary crime.
-
Wayne,
The reason I bring up those groups is because many of them ARE panelists! How do you propose handling them as people who are out there reviewing courses for the rankings? Do you charge them if they are there to review a course? Also, why is their integrity any different than that of any other panelist? They are not panelists because someone forced it upon them. Furthermore, if a panelist abuses their position they don't last long!
Mike makes a good point. Show some evidence before making blanket accusations against a large group.
-
Ok, my second 2 cents.
Rankings are useful...for numerous reasons.
Most raters are probably men/women of integrity.
Receiving something for free gives, at least, the impression of impropriety (if the person receiving the freebie has some control/valuable opinion etc over the gifting party).
The rankings are affected little by the freebies (but probably a little)...so there is not some gross misranking to discuss.
Revealing the names of the panelists would probably make very little difference in the final outcomes of the rankings but might make it better or worse to be a panelist.
Those of us who are not panelists wish we had access to the great private courses that are not accessible through our current connections.
If receiving freebies does affect the rankings of some panelists, then the other money that panelist does or doesn't spend to rank courses is irrelevant.
The golf digest way of ranking courses "you can play" is not nearly as helpful as the panelist rankings. Grade inflation and overall lack of perspective leads to clumping of the course ratings in such a way that you cannot tell the difference between a Doak 4/5 and a Doak 7 by the "5 stars" method. I have clearly played Doak 4/5's with 4 stars (UGGHHH).
We should be generally grateful for the men/women of integrity for the job they do ranking courses and not treat them with disrespect unless they (a particular individual) has earned it.
It is interesting the disparity of the TOP 100 lists and I have always been curious as to why?
All right...good luck.
Bart
-
Last post on this thread.
Mark,
If you will please consider the structure of my consistent argument, you would know that I wouldn't treat anybody differently be they Ran, Mike Cirba or anyone else. That is the crux of my whole argument. You on the other hand advocate that one group, panelists, merit different treatment than is given anyone else other than industry insiders including professionals, superintendents and general managers. Fact check. Panelists are not industry insiders. Sorry.
This isn't, as Bart Bradley suggests, a matter of disrespect. It is a matter of recognizing a process that is flawed and discriminate in its execution.
As for demonstrating evidence before "making blanket accusations against a large group." I am not inclined to do so. I am arguing against the process and privileges more so than the results, no matter what the results are.
I don't value the product highly so I am bound to be disinclined to award favors and favoritism towards the participants. It doesn't matter what percentage of panelists demonstrate integrity, the process isn't worth any special treatment irrespective of the quality of the panelists. You, as a participant, disagree. I get it.
Mike,
I hope you understand that even if there is a lack of linkage between rankings and comping, I still don't think it is a good idea. I am not pointing fingers or lumping everyone in the same category.
By the way, some of the lists contain enough head-scratchers that indicate a flaw in the system be it internal or external. Of all the mag systems, I believe GW has the best system.
Like Sully, I'd rather hear your analysis of courses or Ran's or Mark's. That's a lot more meaningful than a compiled list of people I don't know or understand their tastes. Although in Mark's case, his preference for Lehigh over Rolling Green leaves a lot to be desired ;) ;D
-
Mark,
IMHO golf professionals, supts and managers are comped because they are golf professionals, supts and managers. I actually would do my best to help a sincere panelist play golf at a place where he needed to play...but if they come with an "attitude" of get me comped...I will do my best to see they do not play that course that day.....
Now understand.....I am like anyone else i encorage any owner of a course I do to buy all the ratings he can.....and that is the correct term...."buy" whether it goes to an individual rater, which it rarely does or a PR firm or ads in a magazine.....none of us will ever be able to "uncover" such work but it is the way the system is played.....most individual raters mean well.....the system is bad and the "jerk" raters are bad. I have benn with "Jerk" raters that think anytime they play and wherever they play, even if the course does not need rating" that they should inform they are a rater and expect to be comped. Comping a rater is no different than comping a member of one of the old dead guy societies.....IMHO... ;)
WH,
you say...." This is an industry seeking critiques in an effort to get some marketing and in the process to benefit the industry. An industry, I might add, that isn't very healthy."
With due respect.....yes the rating industry does need raters in order to help create the "image" that their "votes" determine a "fair" outcome......but if this was the case raters could band together and vote a complete dog into a ranking.....there is an overide in place...I would bet......I do think many individuals mae a sincere conscious effort in rating and have a high ethical standard as to these ratings....but like most things the market.....$$$$$$$ matter. ;)
-
I still find the idea that folks on this board won't admit to the possibility of reduced integrity due to kick backs is amazing. You guys have your heads buried so far into the system that you don't know up from down. All the excuses in the world don't change the fact that when you are given stuff and then asked to rate that free stuff you are compromised. There are no ifs and buts about it. Whether or not this compromised position results in a compromised rating is beside the point - you leave yourself open to the question. Only individual raters know the truth and there is no way to test it. Therefore, to protect the system, raters should not be compromised. This is simple stuff folks.
Ciao
-
Wayne,
I understand where you are coming from and if such a system were workable and somehow enforceable then I'd support that but I don't think that's realistic.
From where I sit, I'd much rather just go and play a course and not even make it known that I'm a rater. Who needs the attention? I sure don't. And, in the case of any public available courses I just show up, pay my freight, and get in line like everyone else. Even when it's costly, such as the $175 I paid at Falcon's Fire this fall (fee plus club rental) I'd rather support public golf whenever I can.
It's the private courses where one doesn't have a connection that becomes the problem. Often, the only way to play is to announce prior that one is a rater hoping to play there and asking if they can accommodate you at a convenient time for them. And, just so everyone knows, the Pine Valleys and the Seminoles and the Oakmonts and the NGLA's, and most of the old-guard established clubs couldn't care less if you're a rater or not. You either get invited thru a member or you don't play...simple as that.
I'm not sure about the other magazines, but frankly GW doesn't even wanting us approaching those clubs whose ranking is already established through years of play. Unless some wholesale changes have taken place, we are encouraged to see only "Priority" courses, and I can tell you that those are highly weighted towards modern courses, period, or classic courses in out of the way locales, or other courses that for one reason or another get nominated but haven't had much in the way of rater visits.
The issue with comping where i think Sean misses the boat, and perhaps you don't realize as well, is simply this; if every private course that hosts raters comps them, which a very high percentage of them do, then there is absolutely no reason at all to favor one over the other in terms of rating bias or anything else that would negatively impact the integrity of the final scores.
I have to chuckle when I consider the fact that I've been treated pretty amazingly well at some courses that have had simply awful architecture (and were thus rated as such) and been treated like the weekend maintenance staff at others where inevitably the greatness of the course made it worth the shabby treatment and was accorded commensurate acclaim.
-
WH,
you say...." This is an industry seeking critiques in an effort to get some marketing and in the process to benefit the industry. An industry, I might add, that isn't very healthy."
With due respect.....yes the rating industry does need raters in order to help create the "image" that their "votes" determine a "fair" outcome......but if this was the case raters could band together and vote a complete dog into a ranking.....there is an overide in place...I would bet......I do think many individuals mae a sincere conscious effort in rating and have a high ethical standard as to these ratings....but like most things the market.....$$$$$$$ matter. ;)
Sorry for the confusion, but the industry I meant was the course and development side of things not the publishers, which is an entirely different discussion.
Why would raters band together to vote in a "complete dog"?
Mike I think my point was in agreement with you. The ridiculous accusations made against well meaning individual raters become tedious in this GCA venue. When the integrity of the raters is combined with the minimum number of visits required by the competing rankings, the chance of some sort of collusion is a fairly remote possibility.
-
There are no ifs and buts about it.
Ciao
Well, actually there are some ifs and buts .... generally, I prefer black and white in the world, but when things are relative, and your position confuses them with absolutes, then there are a few ifs and buts:
Rater A -- only plays courses where he pays full freight.
Rater B -- only plays courses where he's comped.
Tell me again which Rater is more compromised?
Shivas,
Will you give your argument as to why Rater A is compromised?
Bart
-
Shivas Schmidt writes:
Yet we never talk about the former scenario...which leads me to the conclusion that the real issue here is not the efficacy of the system, but rather something as petty and non-productive as envy, spite, greed or some other similar nonsense.
I for one have talked about the former scenario.
You have three potential choices. The course pays, the rater pays or the publication pays. If you let the course or the rater pay, you are at the very least going to have the appearance of conflict of interest. The ideal candidate to pay would be the publication, who gets the benefit out of an impartial -- even if just in appearance -- rankings.
Cheers,
Dan King
I can promise to be sincere, but not to be impartial.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
Dan, If the course is paying, what is it they charge themselves?
I suppose a savvy accountant would write-off the full value of the green fee, even though their actual cost to provide the round of golf is negligible.
Now, the course is benifitting twice. Isn't it? On the tax side and then, all that influence they are garnering from the poor panelists. ;)
-
I agree with Dan, that the best case scenario would be for the magazine to pay for the green fees. However as most magazines run on slim margins, this would likely drive them out of business.
Does anyone know how Zagats works with rating resturaunts? Who usually foots the bill?
-
Adam Clayman writes:
Now, the course is benifitting twice. Isn't it? On the tax side and then, all that influence they are garnering from the poor panelists.
If you guys are all perfectly happy with the appearance of the course buying your influence then there doesn't seem to be any reason for a change. If you want to continue to insist that all rankers would never be influenced by courses attempts to buy votes, then don't worry about it. But don't take it so personally when the rest of us laugh at your naïvete.
If all rankers are such upstandings citizens that can remain uncorrupted within such a corrupting system, perhaps we should have then running our government rather than ranking courses.
Kalen Braley writes:
Does anyone know how Zagats works with rating resturaunts? Who usually foots the bill?
I don't know for sure, but judging by their Web site is looks like they now take input from anyone, and create a rankings from that. With that model, the ranker pays, but it also leaves their rankings with little or no value. Michelin had paid reviewers, and the publication pays for the meal.
Here is their policy. I have no idea how strongly it is enforced:
Zagat Survey's Content Creation Policy mandates the completely honest and objective gathering and compiling of our surveyors' ratings and reviews. The use of deceptive or unfair practices in an attempt to manipulate these ratings and reviews is a clear violation of this policy and may result in the removal of an establishment from Zagat Survey's publications. Unacceptable practices include, but are not limited to, the distribution of surveys by anyone other than an official Zagat Survey representative, encouragement of surveyors to vote a certain way, offering incentives or rewards for surveyors to vote for an establishment, and voting by establishment owners, employees or agents with respect to their own establishments. Besides violating this Zagat Survey policy, such conduct may constitute an actionable legal claim under many states' laws, including those of the State of New York.
Cheers,
Dan King
It's a naïve domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
--James Thurber
-
Dan, You gave three scenarios
The course pays, the rater pays or the publication pays.
Can you splain why you choose to ignore the question of the negligible cost to the course?
One of my votes is from our day together at SFGC. We played it gratis, because of me being a caddy. Did the fact that it was a green fee free round influence my vote, or, my opinion of the golf course, years later when I joined the panel? If you can honestly answer yes to that, I will laugh at your nai'vete.
Golf doesn't fit neatly into any model, especially one so fickle like a possible apearance of impropiety. Obviously some in the industry consider the panelist part of that industry. I can't decide if the fact that people think their way is best, and the whole system should change because it doesn't jibe with their version of how panels should get their votes, is funny or sad.
BTW, I'm not taking any of it personally, just attempting to discuss openly. If there's hanky panky of a nefarious nature someone should man up and illuminate us all as to the the specifics. I for one would be curious.
-
Adam Clayman writes:
Now, the course is benifitting twice. Isn't it? On the tax side and then, all that influence they are garnering from the poor panelists.
If you guys are all perfectly happy with the appearance of the course buying your influence then there doesn't seem to be any reason for a change. If you want to continue to insist that all rankers would never be influenced by courses attempts to buy votes, then don't worry about it. But don't take it so personally when the rest of us laugh at your naïvete.
If all rankers are such upstandings citizens that can remain uncorrupted within such a corrupting system, perhaps we should have then running our government rather than ranking courses.
Cheers,
Dan King
It's a naïve domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
--James Thurber
Hmmm, somebody passed Freshman Ethics and for crying out loud he wants to be a lawyer!
Shivas, If a guy only rates courses that he is comped on don't you think this narrows the pool of courses he will rate? I spose you will say that the pool is narrowed by the guy who will only pay up to X amount. However, that guy may be a lousy rater, but he isn't taking back handers. All other things being equal I know which I would trust more.
I still don't understand why its so difficult for people to comprehend the potential conflict of interest when a guy is asked to rate something that he was given for nada.
Ciao
-
Adam Clayman writes:
Can you splain why you choose to ignore the question of the negligible cost to the course?
I don't think it matters. Lobbyists can make the same explanation about buying politicians. It doesn't really cost them anything, since it is all counted as a cost of doing business. Besides, the company jet was going to Bermuda anyway, what difference does it make if a senator and entourage were also on the jet?
One of my votes is from our day together at SFGC. We played it gratis, because of me being a caddy. Did the fact that it was a green fee free round influence my vote, or, my opinion of the golf course, years later when I joined the panel?
I can't answer that question, only you can. If you are asking me to guess, I'd say no. But can you really expect the world, who generally don't know anything about you, to assume your vote can not be bought?
If you asked me to rank SFGC, that day would be a big part of how I rank the course. Part of what made that day so memorable was the lack of cost. I can not say for sure if I were to rank SFGC the fact that we didn't pay anything to play it wouldn't influence my feelings about the course.
I know for a fact there are outstanding politicians in the world. My sister, a council member from Saratoga, Calif. is proof that they exist. Even with politicians such as my sister, the system is still broken. Just because my sister hasn't been, and probably never will be, corrupted, doesn't excuse the corrupt system.
BTW, I'm not taking any of it personally, just attempting to discuss openly. If there's hanky panky of a nefarious nature someone should man up and illuminate us all as to the the specifics. I for one would be curious.
Whenever there is a story of a jerk of a panelist, do all of you call or write your publication telling them they should get rid of the jerks? Rankers should be up in arms about their bretheren giving them a bad name. I would think you'd be demanding your publication change their methods to make sure this sort of thing stops happening.
Sean Arble writes:
Hmmm, somebody passed Freshman Ethics and for crying out loud he wants to be a lawyer!
I don't think I ever said I want to be a lawyer. I just want to go to law school.
Cheers,
Dan King
The magician and the politician have much in common: they both have to draw our attention away from what they are really doing.
--Ben Okri
-
You know I hate these threads. They generally put panelists on the defensive just because we are playing by the rules. There are remarks that by innuendo question our ethics. The simple fact is these threads do no good. They won't change the rules and they certainly do not leave a good taste in my mouth.
-
Agree with the following post by Tommy completely. Everyone who is making a big deal of everything is doing just that. This isn't the Kennedy assination here. People go out and play golf courses and assign a number to them based on how they think the course compares to ither courses. I can't logically seeing someone sitting there and say well Muni Hills compled my round and I had to pay $50 at Up Scale Country Club so Muni Hills gets a 7 and Upscale C.C. a 5...come on people.
-
Dan, Your political analogy is flawed because the systems are different.
Successful PAC's influence politicians not by buying specific votes, but by contributing to politicians on both sides of the aisle, year in year out. It's a leap of faith that when legislation comes up, that adversely effects the industry, the politicians will vote accordingly, or, risk not getting his next contribution and therfore not being re-elected.
Panelist specific votes are not public.
If you think that anonimity doesn't matter, you are mistaken.
You can not have a democracy without factions and vice versa.
-
Tommy Williamsen writes:
You know I hate these threads.
I love these threads.
They generally put panelists on the defensive just because we are playing by the rules.
If the rules are flawed, why is it important that you play by the flawed rules?
Adam Clayman writes:
Dan, Your political analogy is flawed because the systems are different.
I wasn't aware that analogies could only be used with identical things. Seems to me that would defeat the purpose of using analogies.
Successful PAC's influence politicians not by buying specific votes, but by contributing to politicians on both sides of the aisle, year in year out.
this isn't nearly always true, and I don't understand your point. There are numerous special interests that give to a specific candidate, party, or cause. Does it really matter if a course gives freebies to Golf World, Golf and Golf Digest rankers?
Candidates are constantly denying special interests buy their votes. Matter of fact, their arguments sound a lot like rankers justification for being part of a corrupt system. But for some reasons lobbyists continue to try to buy politicians and courses continue to try to buy rankers.
If you think that anonimity doesn't matter, you are mistaken.
I think anonimity doesn't matter.
Cheers,
Dan King
Analogies, it is true, decide nothing, but they can make one feel more at home.
--Sigmund Freud
-
Suppose panelists are required to pay green fees everywhere. We know that those fees will range widely. Isn't it possible that a new yet unintended ratings factor will be introduced, some sort of value/quality scale? If two courses are essential identical but one charges $50 while the other $200, wouldn't the green fee difference itself likely impact the rating, with the less expensive one winning out? Or conversely, would the $200 fee tinge the raters impressions, making him believe that the course was better than it otherwise really is?
-
Tommy Williamsen writes:
You know I hate these threads.
I love these threads.
They generally put panelists on the defensive just because we are playing by the rules.
If the rules are flawed, why is it important that you play by the flawed rules?
Because they are the rules we have!! Do you expect us to set up our own rules?
-
I agree with Dan, that the best case scenario would be for the magazine to pay for the green fees. However as most magazines run on slim margins, this would likely drive them out of business.
Kalen,
Do you have any idea how much the new RE developments would pay the mags for a "Best New" ranking? Or how much do you think they spend in trying to acquire such? Or for that matter...how many actually start the process before construction? I also think one needs to be cleat that most of the new developments seeking such rankings are not interested in the quality of the golf but in what ever it takes to seel the lots and homes....if these mags are making so little why have so many become nothing but RE ads? :) :)
Mike
The other issues that affect rating as much as comp/non comp are issues such as aeration of greens, and grow-in conditions...for example..with no water for grow-ins in the coming year it will be interesting to see how many of the southern projects are viewed by raters that "say" these issues don't affect them. JMO ;D
-
At least two things will never change, no matter how often this subject is rehashed:
1. When someone rates something he receives for free, there will be an appearance of undue influence being exerted. I'm sure Brad and the other panel chiefs do a good job of weeding out those who abuse their opportunities, but they cannot eliminate the suspicion that someone's rating might have been affected by getting a free round, a free shirt, etc. That's why newspapers have become so hard-core about their reporters and critics accepting fee stuff. I don't think there have been abundant abuses, but banning freebies eliminates all reader suspicion.
2. Any rating system that lumps public and private courses together will always be problematic. Adam is right -- there is no other model out there to equate with rating golf courses. Every other ratings list I can think of compares goods or services that can be accessed by the general public if they have the money and inclination to pay for it. Access issues in golf skew everything.
As a non-rater, I'd prefer to see the magazines have small staffs of raters whose rounds are paid for by the publication, but that appears unlikely to happen. What we've got is probably the best we can hope for.
-
What difference does panelist integrity make?
I know you guys on here roast (is it GD?) one of the lists every year but I haven't looked at them close enough to know...what difference does it really make?
Is Golfweek really trying to say that, unquestionably, the 13th Best Residential Golf Course is The Preserve? I don't think even they would suggest that their lists are anything more than an opinion...maybe a collective opinion at most...