Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Young on February 13, 2014, 02:19:51 PM
-
As with anything there are always the whack jobs in any field, hobby or vocation. And it is often the whack jobs that get the attention. I have seen complete whack job writers get credentials for major championships and whack job raters smooze their way across country on a golf trip with buddies w/o paying a dime for golf/lunch for the entire group.
I usually side with JK when it comes to such but in saying that I think it is usually the whack jobs he is describing. There are plenty of good raters and writers that go about their task in proper form. I'm not talking of those...but if something like the below was implemented across the board it would be good for golf writing and rating. And many of the whacker golf writer/raters would quit.
The food critics now have a set of guidelines for all food critics not just one magazine. Why couldn't the same be done for raters and writers and all be vetted. The below are pretty good...
http://www.afjonline.com/FoodCriticsGuidelines.cfm
http://www.lamag.com/lafood/digestblog/2013/05/14/new-guidelines-for-food-critics-acknowledge-bloggers-the-internet
-
Mike,
What a great topic.
Unequivically...........YES
And, if that can't be done, then, prior to being appointed, they should have to submit their curriculum vitae.
-
Mike
Another great post. It makes too much sense. If I am not mistaken raters don't walk the course. Most just basically play it. I don't see how one can get enough time to scope out nuances while playing. The restaurant idea is great. Funny I had a lady play in my walking event last year that was a food rater, I wonder if she paid to try the famous ann arbor deli? I hope you start this for golf arch
-
deleted - apologies if i offended anyone, a joke amongst friends that was taken badly.
Peter
-
Mike...Frankly, I think that is spot on. If we are going to set forth on a mission to put forth the most unbiased opinion regarding the quality of a golf course, similar guidelines to the ones you post should be used.
Question...do these Restaurant Critics cover a small regional area or are they Nation/World wide?
BCowan...Why do you say raters don't walk the course? I, personally, walk many of the courses I rate. I know many other raters do as well.
-
Mac
I meant to ask a question if they do? Sorry about saying most don't. I only caddied for two raters and they didn't as I recall and it was 14 years ago. I hope they do walk the course when they rate. I did not mean a blanket statement.
-
I, personally, walk many of the courses I rate. I know many other raters do as well.
Just curious, what percentage of courses you have rated did you walk only?
-
Gotchya.
I actually think that gets into an interesting point on rating. What is the purpose of the rating process?
Is it to find the best course for a specific subset of golfers? Or is it to find the most universally appealing course?
Most universally appealing course...I think you need a cross section of golfers. Walkers/Non-Walkers. Scratch players/Hacks. Men/Women. Great Drivers/Great putters. Then take all their opinions and sort the data.
Best Course to a Specific Subset of Golfers...obviously, this kind of approach appeals to a much more narrow audience. For instance, Best Course for a Low-Handicapper. Best Course for Walking Golfers Only. Best Course for the mid-to-high handicappers (perhaps labeled the Most Playable Courses).
-
Mike
Who says that raters are not evaluated?
-
Mike
Who says that raters are not evaluated?
Adam,
You're implying that they are, so please tell us how "Golf Digest" and "Golf Magazine" evaluates their raters ?
How much annual turnover is produced by those alleged evaluations ?
-
Mike-I agree is a good idea but unfortunately anonymity and access in the case of private courses are not mutually exclusive. In order to rate the golf course you have to arrange access at which point your cover is blown. I would think that this facet of any proposed guidelines would be most beneficial to the process and yet unattainable at the same time.
-
What is the purpose of the rating process?
Mac,
That is the million dollar question for the industry. I have my thoughts for the different publications. BUT if guidelines such as the food critics outlined were followed the system would improve for all IMHO.
Adam,
I'm assuming they are not evaluated by anyone other than the particular magazine for which they work, The food critic outline was generic for critics working for all magazines. Also, Adam, for those of you raters that are not part of the segment I am discussing, I think it is difficult for you guys to imagine what is seen out there sometimes. But as an example, I have had friends who were raters come to a club where I am a member and tell the pro they were a rater expecting not to pay and yet having no reason to rate the course or write it up. They came back several times that year and did the same. I never let them know I paid for each time this happened. I'm not saying the guy is a bad rater but under the food critic guidelines this would never happen.
-
Mike-I agree is a good idea but unfortunately anonymity and access in the case of private courses are not mutually exclusive. In order to rate the golf course you have to arrange access at which point your cover is blown. I would think that this facet of any proposed guidelines would be most beneficial to the process and yet unattainable at the same time.
There is not a course in the world that accepts raters that wouldn't accept a well traveled gentleman who knows how to ask in a proper manner.
-
What is the purpose of the rating process?
Adam,
I'm assuming they are not evaluated by anyone other than the particular magazine for which they work, The food critic outline was generic for critics working for all magazines. Also, Adam, for those of you raters that are not part of the segment I am discussing, I think it is difficult for you guys to imagine what is seen out there sometimes. But as an example, I have had friends who were raters come to a club where I am a member and tell the pro they were a rater expecting not to pay and yet having no reason to rate the course or write it up. They came back several times that year and did the same. I never let them know I paid for each time this happened. I'm not saying the guy is a bad rater but under the food critic guidelines this would never happen.
Mike,
If this behavior was reported to the powers that be at the publication, you're friend's gig as a rater would disappear quite quickly. You may not be saying the guy is a bad rater, but in fact, he is a bad rater.
-
What is the purpose of the rating process?
Adam,
I'm assuming they are not evaluated by anyone other than the particular magazine for which they work, The food critic outline was generic for critics working for all magazines. Also, Adam, for those of you raters that are not part of the segment I am discussing, I think it is difficult for you guys to imagine what is seen out there sometimes. But as an example, I have had friends who were raters come to a club where I am a member and tell the pro they were a rater expecting not to pay and yet having no reason to rate the course or write it up. They came back several times that year and did the same. I never let them know I paid for each time this happened. I'm not saying the guy is a bad rater but under the food critic guidelines this would never happen.
Mike,
If this behavior was reported to the powers that be at the publication, you're friend's gig as a rater would disappear quite quickly. You may not be saying the guy is a bad rater, but in fact, he is a bad rater.
I assure you that is not true.
-
Mike
I don't think anonymity is import with Golf rating as it would be with Food, they aren't going to drastically improve the course that morning and service is more important at restaurant than a great golf course imho. A cook could know to focus more on the dish if rater was know prior or during. I thought Links Mag. had the rankings the best that I have seen. Is history one of the criteria for GD? It would be great to do a gem rating one with certain criteria. I do think raters should pay to play or how about just walk and rate no play?
Mac
To branch off your ?'s, a selection of best set of greens, best bunkering, most playable for widest group of players (pro's to 30 handi), best ''bones''. Word of mouth blog ranking would be cool vs big name published mag?
-
What is the purpose of the rating process?
Adam,
I'm assuming they are not evaluated by anyone other than the particular magazine for which they work, The food critic outline was generic for critics working for all magazines. Also, Adam, for those of you raters that are not part of the segment I am discussing, I think it is difficult for you guys to imagine what is seen out there sometimes. But as an example, I have had friends who were raters come to a club where I am a member and tell the pro they were a rater expecting not to pay and yet having no reason to rate the course or write it up. They came back several times that year and did the same. I never let them know I paid for each time this happened. I'm not saying the guy is a bad rater but under the food critic guidelines this would never happen.
Mike,
If this behavior was reported to the powers that be at the publication, you're friend's gig as a rater would disappear quite quickly. You may not be saying the guy is a bad rater, but in fact, he is a bad rater.
I assure you that is not true.
JK,
I probably shouldn't have responded with such blanket certainty. I am only aware of the ethics guidelines at a couple of the publications. The actions mentioned above are strongly prohibited by those guidelines (on several levels), but I guess the presence of the rules and their enforcement could be two separate things. I'd like to think they matter, but it wouldn't be my first foray into naivete.
-
There is nothing wrong with forgiving a rater for making a mistake. Who knows, the next one you get may be worse.
-
Enforcement of ethics for raters at most publications is spotty, if not token. But to be fair, a lot of times the behavior does not get back to the magazines, because no one at the club wants to be the guy who is reporting on them -- because it's assumed that no action will be taken.
Mike: These guidelines would be great, but don't you think they are pie in the sky for the golf business, nationally and internationally? Many raters are somewhat involved in the golf business, and are used to being comped for reasons other than being a rater.
I do not think paying for all your golf is the key to having a worthwhile viewpoint. Just look at all the people on Golf Club Atlas who let the price of the green fee (or the price of a hot dog) set the tone for their whole experience! It's fine with me if they want to let that sort of stuff influence whether they have a good time, but I don't think it should be allowed to influence their opinion of my architectural work ... or yours.
To me, the guys who should be kicked off the rating panels are the ones who think it all revolves around THEIR vote. ["I'm responsible for your course being rated," i.e., you owe me.] I've seen that several times, and it never fails that the guys who think so are the people whose opinion I value least.
-
What is the purpose of the rating process?
Adam,
I'm assuming they are not evaluated by anyone other than the particular magazine for which they work, The food critic outline was generic for critics working for all magazines. Also, Adam, for those of you raters that are not part of the segment I am discussing, I think it is difficult for you guys to imagine what is seen out there sometimes. But as an example, I have had friends who were raters come to a club where I am a member and tell the pro they were a rater expecting not to pay and yet having no reason to rate the course or write it up. They came back several times that year and did the same. I never let them know I paid for each time this happened. I'm not saying the guy is a bad rater but under the food critic guidelines this would never happen.
Mike,
If this behavior was reported to the powers that be at the publication, you're friend's gig as a rater would disappear quite quickly. You may not be saying the guy is a bad rater, but in fact, he is a bad rater.
Matthew,
I understand what you say but my friend is not a bad rater. He is one of the better ones. He is objective and does not wet his pants when he meets TD or BC not does he smirk and tell a Rees he has no clue. He did what he did out of habit. I paid for him because the proper thing to do is pay for your guest and IMHO he should have never asked. When I first knew these things were out of whack was when I went to play HDunes in Fla and myself and an asst supt had to pay full fare while the 2nd asst golf pro and the same rater friend were comped. I paid for myself and the asst supt and played. The rater " in a subtle " way checked to see if his lunch was included. The course had not asked to be rated. We need guidelines like the food industry.
-
Mike,
Understood. I agree with your pov for the most part. There is a certain amount of skepticism and eye rolling directed at raters and the entire process. The icky situations we've all heard about regarding questionable rater behavior do the process no favors.
Like many situations, a big step in the right direction would be the enforcement of existing rules that apply to the very examples you've mentioned.
-
I do not think paying for all your golf is the key to having a worthwhile viewpoint. Just look at all the people on Golf Club Atlas who let the price of the green fee (or the price of a hot dog) set the tone for their whole experience! It's fine with me if they want to let that sort of stuff influence whether they have a good time, but I don't think it should be allowed to influence their opinion of my architectural work ... or yours.
I guess you have to trust them to be reasonable. Probably about as much as you trust raters to fall for the wow factor of a site and bunkers etc. Archies aren't innocent in this rating scam, they play up to raters just a clubs do.
Ciao
-
Archies aren't innocent in this rating scam, they play up to raters just a clubs do.
Ciao
Sean,
A few may not be but so often the architect is viewed by the outside as being the promoter when in fact it is the developer promoting his project thru the architect. For the sigs, that why they hired them anyway.
The few times I have had a rater come at me with the " I am Mr. Rater, jump" attitude, I will bite my tongue for at least 5 minutes before I do all I can to piss him off.
-
Mike, do you mean the golfers who do junk for the magazines, or the the raters who do the official course slope and course ratings for handicap purposes? I've known both, but the former are irrelevant, in my opinion. That's a game to get these guys on the courses. My concern would be with the latter.
-
Enforcement of ethics for raters at most publications is spotty, if not token. But to be fair, a lot of times the behavior does not get back to the magazines, because no one at the club wants to be the guy who is reporting on them -- because it's assumed that no action will be taken.
Agree....
Mike: These guidelines would be great, but don't you think they are pie in the sky for the golf business, nationally and internationally? Many raters are somewhat involved in the golf business, and are used to being comped for reasons other than being a rater.
I think the ones who are in the business and are used to being comped are , in most cases, not the ones I am griping about. (I saw WU, president of a major ball and club manufacturer walk up to the counter in a shop in Cabo one day and pay for himself and his son and never say who he was.) Those are the guys you really want to comp.... A few of the guidelines may be pie in the sky but they could be modified to fit. The one single item that I never get a good answer for is paying green fees. Give me one reason why the green fee should not be paid by a rater. And if The course being rated thinks it needs to comp in order to bring the rater to his course so that he can obtain the mandatory number of reports for inclusion , that should be stopped also. One solution would be for the publications to reimburse the rater or writer upon receipt of the requested rating form etc.
I do not think paying for all your golf is the key to having a worthwhile viewpoint. Just look at all the people on Golf Club Atlas who let the price of the green fee (or the price of a hot dog) set the tone for their whole experience! It's fine with me if they want to let that sort of stuff influence whether they have a good time, but I don't think it should be allowed to influence their opinion of my architectural work ... or yours.
Yeah..that hotdog freaked them out didn't it? ;D ;D I'm not saying paying for all of ones golf is the key to a worthwhile viewpoint. I'm saying that complimentary fees should not be the norm. So often the rater presents himself at any club he enters even when he is not their to rate. As you mention earlier the average golf professional would just as soon comp him as have to deal with it.
To me, the guys who should be kicked off the rating panels are the ones who think it all revolves around THEIR vote. ["I'm responsible for your course being rated," i.e., you owe me.] I've seen that several times, and it never fails that the guys who think so are the people whose opinion I value least.
You have said it better than myself...it also goes for the few whack job writers out there that consider themselves career changers...
-
Mike, do you mean the golfers who do junk for the magazines, or the the raters who do the official course slope and course ratings for handicap purposes? I've known both, but the former are irrelevant, in my opinion. That's a game to get these guys on the courses. My concern would be with the latter.
Carl,
I was speaking of the magazine raters.
-
I do not think paying for all your golf is the key to having a worthwhile viewpoint. Just look at all the people on Golf Club Atlas who let the price of the green fee (or the price of a hot dog) set the tone for their whole experience! It's fine with me if they want to let that sort of stuff influence whether they have a good time, but I don't think it should be allowed to influence their opinion of my architectural work ... or yours.
If one pays a green fee that is astronomical and then complains, I agree with you. I think complaining about ridiculous green fees and boycotting playing them is another. Someone posted the top courses green fees prior to the 70's and taking inflation into account they have gone to no bounds today. Maybe people of older generation had more sense or principle. How someone judges cheap is also important. Someone who uses a service such as a caddie and doesn't pay well is cheap, but someone who lives within their means and doesn't ask for one is not. We can't be for reducing maint. fees and water applications and except $200-500 green fees as no big deal. When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it. How much is it to walk it and rate it?
-
When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it. How much is it to walk it and rate it?
B,
Two things here...
I have no problem with a course comping someone who actually makes his living in the golf business if he doesn't abuse it.
Raters that are not in the golf business are a different story. I would see zero reason for a director of golf to comp.
Second thing...compared to a two hour dinner at a top steakhosue where dinner, drinks and tip could be more than $175 per person....is a $500 green fee that expensive for four or five hours at a top flight club? Could be a pretty good deal.. ;D
-
Mike-Do you think someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.
-
When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it. How much is it to walk it and rate it?
B,
Two things here...
I have no problem with a course comping someone who actually makes his living in the golf business if he doesn't abuse it.
Raters that are not in the golf business are a different story. I would see zero reason for a director of golf to comp.
Second thing...compared to a two hour dinner at a top steakhosue where dinner, drinks and tip could be more than $175 per person....is a $500 green fee that expensive for four or five hours at a top flight club? Could be a pretty good deal.. ;D
I understand about in the business comps. I don't know what steakhouse you go to. I pay $35 for a steak and two beers $12. Plus tip. I don't know where you get $175, i eat very good grade, maybe not true Kobe. Yes $500 is insane! Shows how the modern generation doesn't own anything except debt! Is this the same Mike Young that I look up to for trying to organize groups to improve courses with minimal maint budgets? Did your keyboard get hijacked by someone else?
-
''Mike-Do you someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.''
+1 i was thinking that earlier.
-
Mike-Do you think someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.
Tim,
If he knows what he is doing then , yes, he has a better take. If he's hitting the shots or putts with a hickory shafted club and an old ball and trying to roll it across a bunker or something then probably not...if one is playing chess on the same board where another is playing checkers the ratings could vary greatly. :)
-
I don't know what steakhouse you go to. I pay $35 for a steak and two beers $12. Plus tip. I don't know where you get $175, i eat very good grade, maybe not true Kobe.
Believe me, there are no "maybes" with Kobe beef. If you're eating it, you're aware of it.
Listen to "Levels" by Meek Mill. It'll help you understand.
-
Mike,
I've read through the restaurant critic guidelines and I'm not sure how they apply to someone who is asked to rate a golf course. Why is anonymity important to rating a golf course? It's not important to rating other things, like Broadway shows, for example. Also, golf course raters who are on a magazine panel are not journalists. They don't directly write articles about the courses they play, they just record their opinion in the form asked by the panel management.
Theater critics are journalists. They don't pay for tickets to the performances they critique and no one considers it an issue.
You seem to have the most trouble with panelists not being charged to play, along with panelists who abuse that system. Is it not the courses who keep that system going? Don't the courses decide who pays and who doesn't? If it is such an issue why don't the courses just stop offering to comp?
-
Mike-Do you think someone that plays the golf course as well as hitting some extra putts and chips from different vantage points has a better take for purposes of compiling a rating than someone who only walks the holes? Thanks.
Tim,
If he knows what he is doing then , yes, he has a better take. If he's hitting the shots or putts with a hickory shafted club and an old ball and trying to roll it across a bunker or something then probably not...if one is playing chess on the same board where another is playing checkers the ratings could vary greatly. :)
That was my thought as well Mike. I had not considered anything other than modern equipment for purposes of my question. Direct interaction with the features would seem to produce a more desirable rating.
-
Mike,
I've read through the restaurant critic guidelines and I'm not sure how they apply to someone who is asked to rate a golf course. Why is anonymity important to rating a golf course? It's not important to rating other things, like Broadway shows, for example. Also, golf course raters who are on a magazine panel are not journalists. They don't directly write articles about the courses they play, they just record their opinion in the form asked by the panel management.
Theater critics are journalists. They don't pay for tickets to the performances they critique and no one considers it an issue.
You seem to have the most trouble with panelists not being charged to play, along with panelists who abuse that system. Is it not the courses who keep that system going? Don't the courses decide who pays and who doesn't? If it is such an issue why don't the courses just stop offering to comp?
I'm not sure anonymity is that critical in golf rating either.
Mike, please understand I have no argument here with legitimate raters. I'm talking about the ones that TD describes earlier as thinking THEIR rating is the one that counts...as you say above my issue is with ABUSE and it goes for writers as well as raters. I do think many courses have tightened their comps but the good guys such as yourself ( will I be accused of kissing up to you here? ;D) don't realize it because they do it in the proper way and it doesn't affect them. The same goes for the good writers. I'm old enough now to know I will have the business I have whether I piss a writer off or not so I can tell you there are some serious mental cases with writers in this business and the good writers know what I'm saying. It's now easier to start a blog and join some writing group like ING (I think that is what it's called) and then email every course in Mexico or Costa Rica and tell them you are coming into town to write for a golf publication ( I've learned publication is the key word because it may be a blog or mag) and would they put you up for a night or two and take care of your golf. The writing is now a more serious problem than the rating game because many of these types have mental issues. BK , JS and some others know exactly what I'm talking about. I am amazed how many "writers" contact even someone like me. If I were a legitimate golf writer today and had paid my dues I would be pissed at how this thing has gone. It's a much bigger joke than the rating game.
-
When archies play Doral comped and then comment on how wonderful it is, forget it. How much is it to walk it and rate it?
B,
Two things here...
I have no problem with a course comping someone who actually makes his living in the golf business if he doesn't abuse it.
Raters that are not in the golf business are a different story. I would see zero reason for a director of golf to comp.
Second thing...compared to a two hour dinner at a top steakhosue where dinner, drinks and tip could be more than $175 per person....is a $500 green fee that expensive for four or five hours at a top flight club? Could be a pretty good deal.. ;D
I understand about in the business comps. I don't know what steakhouse you go to. I pay $35 for a steak and two beers $12. Plus tip. I don't know where you get $175, i eat very good grade, maybe not true Kobe. Yes $500 is insane! Shows how the modern generation doesn't own anything except debt! Is this the same Mike Young that I look up to for trying to organize groups to improve courses with minimal maint budgets? Did your keyboard get hijacked by someone else?
BCowan,
I'm not saying your everyday steakhouse or golf course but that once a year or so place...I agree $500 is expensive but compared to bottles of wine or some steakhouses, it's easy to justify... :)
-
It's now easier to start a blog and join some writing group like ING (I think that is what it's called) and then email every course in Mexico or Costa Rica and tell them you are coming into town to write for a golf publication ( I've learned publication is the key word because it may be a blog or mag) and would they put you up for a night or two and take care of your golf. The writing is now a more serious problem than the rating game because many of these types have mental issues. BK , JS and some others know exactly what I'm talking about. I am amazed how many "writers" contact even someone like me. If I were a legitimate golf writer today and had paid my dues I would be pissed at how this thing has gone. It's a much bigger joke than the rating game.
Mike,
I have seen online measurement tools that can measure and pay a writer for literally every keystroke that they make including on Social Media. Obviously this is being driven by forces larger than raters looking for a comp :), but it does apply here. It will take some time but measurement tools that focus beyond "how many eyeballs" hit a page are coming.
By the way, where do you live? $500 steak houses ! You must hang out with Mike Whitaker and all his House of Cards buddies in Washington DC. :D
-
Never really had any interest in being a rather, but my two cents - which nobody would accept - would be to discontinue the practice of raters actually playing the course.
To me it would make more sense to emphasize walking the course with a member who knows the course well.
Back in the early 90s I heard about this golf course in Michigan which still not many people had heard of: Crystal Downs. So, I decided to stop in on a long drive from Los Angeles to Montauk.
I was extremely fortunate to stumble upon a gentleman named Dick Ford who invited me to play. I declined, but asked if I could walk the course with him and if he wouldn't mind me asking him questions along the way.
Dick Ford couldn't have been more gracious and helpful in my efforts to learn about the course. It was a running discussion about each hole, shot and green complex. It could not have been any better.
No way I could possibly have learned as much about the course if I played. Not even close. I would have been far too preoccupied with the score I shot.
Dick Ford did invite me to come back on another occasion and fortunately I was later able to come and play the golf course a few times. Wish I could visit on a regular basis, but that day with Dick Ford will always stand out.
I know it won't be popular here for me to say it, but rosters playing courses is BS. Real students of golf architecture would never insist on such a thing.
Come back and play the course if you really like it.
-
I am not a rater but my experience has been that if I play a course with a really good caddy I find out far more about its quality and character than I could any other way. I get to understand how the course plays as well as the strategy designed into the course. I was fortunate to have a very good caddy at Streamsong who has been a caddy on Long Island for a long time and his insight and knowledge allowed me to understand the courses far better than if I just ventured out on my own. (It also was probably the real reason why I was able to kick Richard Choi's butt.)
-
Never really had any interest in being a rather, but my two cents - which nobody would accept - would be to discontinue the practice of raters actually playing the course.
To me it would make more sense to emphasize walking the course with a member who knows the course well.
Back in the early 90s I heard about this golf course in Michigan which still not many people had heard of: Crystal Downs. So, I decided to stop in on a long drive from Los Angeles to Montauk.
I was extremely fortunate to stumble upon a gentleman named Dick Ford who invited me to play. I declined, but asked if I could walk the course with him and if he wouldn't mind me asking him questions along the way.
Dick Ford couldn't have been more gracious and helpful in my efforts to learn about the course. It was a running discussion about each hole, shot and green complex. It could not have been any better.
No way I could possibly have learned as much about the course if I played. Not even close. I would have been far too preoccupied with the score I shot.
Dick Ford did invite me to come back on another occasion and fortunately I was later able to come and play the golf course a few times. Wish I could visit on a regular basis, but that day with Dick Ford will always stand out.
I know it won't be popular here for me to say it, but rosters playing courses is BS. Real students of golf architecture would never insist on such a thing.
Come back and play the course if you really like it.
Tim,
That's a very interesting take.
Clearly you would be a good rater, whether you played or walked.
I would definitely not be a rater under that criteria ;) (nor am I one now)
but then I don't really consider myself a real student of architecture-just a fan of playing golf who has courses and cultures he likes more than others
(that "student" word creates those forgot my homework or go to school naked dreams ;D)
-
Mike,
I have two friends who are writers, both women. One writes for a well known travel magazine, the other for a small golf publication that no one has ever heard of. Both visit amazing resorts at the invitation of the properties' marketing departments and never pay a dime for anything. The travel writer's visits make sense to me as the resorts receive excellent exposure for their "investment." I still can't figure out why anyone would host the golf writer as her articles will never be seen by enough people to offset the value she receives. But, you know what? The resorts and courses keep inviting her and she keeps going and no one, to my knowledge, ever checks afterward to see if her article is actually published or how many people might see it.
As you know, the PR or indirect marketing business has worked this way for eons in the hospitality industry. It is part of their DNA. The fact that it has carried over to golf is no surprise given that so many courses are pure entertainment business driven. None of this troubles me one iota. What does trouble me are all the resorts and courses that comp writers in exchange for exposure without doing their due diligence on what they will receive in return. I guess many just feel the more PR they sling out there the greater the chance some of it will stick. So be it... it's their inventory to do with as they please.
As for magazine rating panel members playing for free... if this is a problem it is the courses that have created the problem. The courses control their inventory. They decide who pays and who doesn't. If they didn't think they were getting some value in return for letting the panelist play for free they wouldn't do it. And, just as I would want a customer to let me know if someone representing my company was exhibiting rude behavior, I can assure you the magazines would want to know if someone representing them was not completely professional in their actions. To stay silent is doing everyone a disservice. Unfortunately rude and boorish behavior is becoming more and more commonplace in every facet of our lives... just consider some of the knucklehead crap that gets published on this website.
If I owned a course and a panelist representing a magazine pulled some of the stunts you described I would contact the magazine and ban their panel from future visits. I'm confident it would get the reaction you would want.
And, if I thought charging panelists full guest fee was the proper thing to do I would just do it . The only repercussion would be fewer panelist visits from the guys who are just looking for a free round... which is what you want anyway.
-
Whitty
I disagree. Sure, clubs control their inventory, but anonymity would eliminate the practice for comping because
1. clubs wouldn't allow a lot of these raters on the property
2. for the most part clubs wouldn't know who was visiting and in what capacity
Both of the above greatly reduce the opportunity for club schmoozing and targeted schmoozing (which free green fees are part of) is a way of buying a vote - otherwise clubs wouldn't do it. Remember, clubs comp raters because they want to be rated, for most, it is in their interest or at least members really love the idea of their club being rated even when it doesn't make any difference to the bottom line - ain't vanity great?
I have long campaigned for mags to operate rating like the Michelin Guide - which is recognized as the most reputable rating system in the world. Of course it would mean mags having to stump up more cash, but it would also mean mags woould be far more discerning about who there raters are and how many there are - both good things in my book. So yes, raters should be rated by whoever hires them, but under the present system it doesn't really matter.
Ciao
-
This forum is a hotbed for those who want to rate the raters. I think that those of us who do not care to do that should focus on rating the raters who rate the raters. Etc. ad infinitum.....
-
When Golfweek started charging raters for their spots on the panel everything changed. Now they are are just premium subscribers.
-
Raters should certainly be scrutinized with regard to ethical behavior and being good ambassadors for the rag they represent. Here's the problem with rating the raters- A rater friend of mine was just recently chastised for having too many outlier ratings; i.e. too many ratings that were statistically too high or too low relative to the rest of the pack. No wonder making a dent in the status quo is like trying to turn the Queen Mary on a dime. Combine that with the lack of anonymity, freebies, schmoozing, the dubious criteria and pseudo mathematical rigor and these large panel ratings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, even the ones I agree with.
-
When Golfweek started charging raters for their spots on the panel everything changed. Now they are are just premium subscribers.
or part of the world's largest pay for access market.
No wonder a Golfweek rater feels gypped if he's asked to pay green fees ::) ::)
-
Sean,
Again with the comping! It's the clubs that control that, not the magazines or their panelists. If a club wants to attract more attention to itself by offering to let panelists play at no charge, so what? It doesn't change the quality of their course. It might get them a few extra points here or there from a few raters, but with a large number of panelist votes required to determine a course's score it could never be enough to move the needle too far.
Anyway, if all the courses are comping, as you guys propose, where is the influence? You can't stand out by comping if everyone is doing it!
Kavanaugh doesn't like Golfweek charging panelists a membership fee. So what? Companies, like individuals, always do what is in their best interest. It's a function of supply and demand and I would imagine Kavanaugh is a good enough businessman that he would have thought of the same thing had he been in charge. Want to eliminate the ability for Golfweek to charge a fee, then reduce the demand for a panel position by convincing courses not to host panelists... which seems to be a big part of the draw for a number of people. The clubs created this dynamic... not the magazines or the panelists... and, it's only the clubs that can change it. But, they don't seem too motivated to do so, from what I can tell.
All this comping, if it really exists, doesn't always get the course the positive exposure they desire. As Tom Doak says, you might bring a panelist in and have him focus on your $12 hot dog instead of your fine course! Because, as we all know, a panelist can't separate the value of a hot dog from the quality of a golf course. I guess to make things equal the course should have comped the dog! ;)
-
From my perspective, it would be a waste of time. Before I got involved with this site about five years ago I had no idea how the magazine ratings were done. I still don't know the details, but I do know more than I did before, and I've actually met, spoken with and played with raters. Although I am sure there are raters who take their work seriously, the ones I've met seem primarily interested in using their rater status "to get to play courses" otherwise pretty much closed off to them. So, what I've really learned is that the ratings game is just a gimmic, and therefore that ratings aren't worth much and are mostly to be ignored. My sense is that rating the raters would just play into the gimmic, there would be work-arounds, and add another layer of B.S. to the already existing B.S. I admit that for some it would be fun to rate raters, but in the end I wouldn't expect it to improve what is already a flawed process.
-
I'm naïve and idealistic, I guess, but I really can't wrap my head around the notion that some raters act in anything but a completely deferential way towards the club that is choosing to host them for a given round. If a club perceived rude behavior from any guest, whether the guest paid or was comped, I would encourage them to report the behavior to that panel's administrator's attention.
As for the notion of comping vs. requiring a guest fee be paid by raters, I would wonder to what extent the hypothetical complete elimination of the comp would change the makeup of the ratings panel. Say a rater rates 20 courses in a given year and gets comped vs. pays, say, $125 each round. That $2,500 is probably of little consequence to most raters, but I would say that to others, it could be a deal-breaker or at least a deal-changer. The courses might miss out on a high rating and only people of at least a certain level of means would even be eligible to participate in a meaningful way on the panel. In an era where many people would hope to see golf become less expensive and more diverse, perhaps the established practice of comping course raters is a small part of such an effort. Just throwing that out there.
-
Tim
I disagree, that rater would rate less courses and possibly take more time on the rating. Also he would be playing the product as is advertised or guest experience that the rest experience. If you pay for something you are more inclined to pay more attention in my opinion. Ever gone to a free concert, I did once never again! Who says more ratings is better? More raters drowns out the better raters. There is no reason someone can't start a blog that is reputable and offers different ratings and require raters to pay. Should have to show credit card recipe from Golf shop (not sure all except cc). I think it would make a big difference.
-
Companies, like individuals, always do what is in their best interest. It's a function of supply and demand and I would imagine Kavanaugh is a good enough businessman that he would have thought of the same thing had he been in charge.
Not really. As I read yesterday:
"A corporation does not have natural ethics; it just obeys the balance sheet.
A (publicly listed) corporation does not feel shame. We humans are restrained by some physical, natural inhibition.
A corporation does not feel pity.
A corporation does not have a sense of honor -- while, alas, marketing documents mention "pride."
A corporation does not have generosity. Only self-serving actions are acceptable."
-
TD - read that quote and I thought: like golf courses, corporations aren't "fair", they simply "are". I wonder if the lessons golfers learn (or should learn) once they accept that fact might help us learn how to better deal/interact with corporations as well.
The sad part for me is that, ironically, it's the so-called "ethics" of the market-place, e.g. an equitable exchange, tit for tat, cost-benefit analysis, due diliegence, that have filtered down/into our sense of what ethics between human beings should be all about.
Peter
-
Companies, like individuals, always do what is in their best interest. It's a function of supply and demand and I would imagine Kavanaugh is a good enough businessman that he would have thought of the same thing had he been in charge.
Not really. As I read yesterday:
"A corporation does not have natural ethics; it just obeys the balance sheet.
A (publicly listed) corporation does not feel shame. We humans are restrained by some physical, natural inhibition.
A corporation does not feel pity.
A corporation does not have a sense of honor -- while, alas, marketing documents mention "pride."
A corporation does not have generosity. Only self-serving actions are acceptable."
Wow! You've been spending too much time in China!
-
To me, the guys who should be kicked off the rating panels are the ones who think it all revolves around THEIR vote. ["I'm responsible for your course being rated," i.e., you owe me.] I've seen that several times, and it never fails that the guys who think so are the people whose opinion I value least.
Come on, throw a name or two at us... I know you wnat to. ;)
-
Wow! You've been spending too much time in China!
Well, yes I have, but nothing in what I printed above has much to do with China. I guess the only thing it has to do with China is that corporations are happy to hire lower-paid Chinese workers to assemble their crap, and China is happy that our corporations keep their citizens employed, so they don't revolt against the government.
I am just on the side of individuals vs. big corporations. They are not the same thing, for all the reasons cited above.
Don't mean to thread-jack.
-
I am not sure how such a rating of raters could be devised. How much experience would be enough? How much formal education (and what kind) would be enough?
Raters like critics of any field need to come clean about their own backgrounds, tastes, fetishes etc. You should state your idealized vision of what a course should be. I can respect, though may disagree, with the rater-critic if they are willing to do that.
A while back I started a thread with the title who is "qualified" to be a rater and quickly concluded that I was not qualified .... and that only a handful of people in the world have the inclination and means to take on such a task.
-
I have long campaigned for mags to operate rating like the Michelin Guide - which is recognized as the most reputable rating system in the world. Of course it would mean mags having to stump up more cash, but it would also mean mags woould be far more discerning about who there raters are and how many there are - both good things in my book. So yes, raters should be rated by whoever hires them, but under the present system it doesn't really matter.
Ciao
+1. I've long thought that no rating system can be truly worthy unless attendance is anonymous, be that food, golf or whatever else.
-
In the world of ratings we should not lose sight of the fact that Restaurants, Hotels, Resorts, Broadway shows and yes even Golf Courses want to be rated. These industries have PR firms and marketing departments that hustle the media to keep their show or restaurant or golf course in the news.
While ratings are a constant source of amusement or consternation on this site you cannot deny the fact that they drive business. A good rating or review can make a season and a bad rating or review can lead to a short run.
The dilemma with rating is when we experience the show or meal or course do we agree with the rating we read.
That is the tension here, we want to grade the raters because we do not agree with them or we think they were not discerning enough because the were bought by all the comps or they are just plain ignorant.
Rating the raters or applying some form of code of conduct or ethical guidelines might lead to fewer knucleheads calling themselves experts but it won't change the fact that I personally have a different opinion from them. And it won't change the fact that some courses out there will do all they can to curry favor with raters.
A high rating can translate to higher greens fees and revenue.
-
Last night I received an IM from an owner of one of the Outback Nebraska courses ...His question to be added to this was: Do raters rate to the ratings? I say of course they do....no doubt about it...
But anyway back to MW question of the clubs controlling the comping. Most clubs would rather err on the side of comping vs. not comping just in case it matters. The really good clubs most wish to play don't need the ratings anyway. It's the up and coming new places that sell RE or rooms that are seeking such. They budget a specific amount for such activity. That's fine but they should expect the mags to send qualified people to rate their places. They know when the knuckleheads come thru and they just listen to them and go to the next task at hand. MY GRIPE REMAINS THE SCUMBAGS..the good guys MW will never know it exist and will feel as though raters are being attacked. No. I'm attacking the magazines that allow the jerks, scumbags or whatever we call them to rate or even write for their publications. All of this could be controlled by the publications. They know when they have a bad apple....it's the clubs that have to tip toe around such and make sure they don't tick the guy off.
If I'm going to comp someone I want it to be a guy that plays the course often and enjoys it...not some guy that shows up and thinks I should be elated when I see his rater card....
-
Wow! You've been spending too much time in China!
Well, yes I have, but nothing in what I printed above has much to do with China. I guess the only thing it has to do with China is that corporations are happy to hire lower-paid Chinese workers to assemble their crap, and China is happy that our corporations keep their citizens employed, so they don't revolt against the government.
I am just on the side of individuals vs. big corporations. They are not the same thing, for all the reasons cited above.
Don't mean to thread-jack.
OK, let's not hammer this out here... but, companies (like countries) are made up of individuals. And, just like individuals, some act in an ethical and responsible manner and some do not. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all humans could feel shame, were restrained by natural inhibitions, felt pity, had a sense of honor, or exhibited generosity... as your quote implies they do. But, they don't. As we have all observed too often, "only self-serving actions are acceptable" to many individuals. In the real world it works both ways.
-
In the world of ratings we should not lose sight of the fact that Restaurants, Hotels, Resorts, Broadway shows and yes even Golf Courses want to be rated. These industries have PR firms and marketing departments that hustle the media to keep their show or restaurant or golf course in the news.
While ratings are a constant source of amusement or consternation on this site you cannot deny the fact that they drive business. A good rating or review can make a season and a bad rating or review can lead to a short run.
The dilemma with rating is when we experience the show or meal or course do we agree with the rating we read.
That is the tension here, we want to grade the raters because we do not agree with them or we think they were not discerning enough because the were bought by all the comps or they are just plain ignorant.
Rating the raters or applying some form of code of conduct or ethical guidelines might lead to fewer knucleheads calling themselves experts but it won't change the fact that I personally have a different opinion from them. And it won't change the fact that some courses out there will do all they can to curry favor with raters.
A high rating can translate to higher greens fees and revenue.
Steve,
Some good points and maybe "rating the raters" should be changed to "certifying the raters". I could care less if they have a different opinion from me.
-
.....And it won't change the fact that some courses out there will do all they can to curry favor with raters.......
No, but it's very difficult to curry favour with someone that you don't even know is about. Sign the guest book as A N Other (but hopefully not literally) and away you go.
-
Last night I received an IM from an owner of one of the Outback Nebraska courses ...His question to be added to this was: Do raters rate to the ratings? I say of course they do....no doubt about it...
But anyway back to MW question of the clubs controlling the comping. Most clubs would rather err on the side of comping vs. not comping just in case it matters. The really good clubs most wish to play don't need the ratings anyway. It's the up and coming new places that sell RE or rooms that are seeking such. They budget a specific amount for such activity. That's fine but they should expect the mags to send qualified people to rate their places. They know when the knuckleheads come thru and they just listen to them and go to the next task at hand. MY GRIPE REMAINS THE SCUMBAGS..the good guys MW will never know it exist and will feel as though raters are being attacked. No. I'm attacking the magazines that allow the jerks, scumbags or whatever we call them to rate or even write for their publications. All of this could be controlled by the publications. They know when they have a bad apple....it's the clubs that have to tip toe around such and make sure they don't tick the guy off.
If I'm going to comp someone I want it to be a guy that plays the course often and enjoys it...not some guy that shows up and thinks I should be elated when I see his rater card....
Mike,
I guess I'm just naive, but it astounds me that someone would act like a jerk or asshole when they are visiting a golf club as a representative of magazine. The potential for abuse is obvious with unattached freelancers, but I don't get why someone would take the chance of having something come back on them in some form of repercussion. There is nothing to gain and way too much to lose. I'm trying to put myself in your position and accept the fact that a course would rather err on the safe side, but I don't see how it is not in the club's best interest to call a spade a spade and report someone who has acted inappropriately.
-
I know of one Head Pro who told anyone wishing to rate his course, that they could do so only if he could see their previously written work.
The number of requests dropped quite a bit.
Bob
-
I know of one Head Pro who told anyone wishing to rate his course, that they could do so only if he could see their previously written work.
The number of requests dropped quite a bit.
Bob
Bob,
That is the kind of due diligence I was talking about earlier... but, as it relates to writers. I don't know how a "rater" would meet this requirement as they don't write about the courses. If I owned a course, or was the GM/Pro of a top flight club, there is no way I would give a writer the run of my place without some knowledge of the person's work and where an article might appear.
-
Raters are overrated.
-
I know of one Head Pro who told anyone wishing to rate his course, that they could do so only if he could see their previously written work.
I hope he did not torture himself by actually reading any of it!
-
I know raters who have been reported by courses for bad behavior. Sometimes they get kicked off, sometimes they don't. What they do every time is tell their rater friends how the management of the course are a bunch of assholes and paint the experience in a bad light. The course suffers for it. The rater suffers, the course suffers and the people running the panel are inconvenienced. Any decent pro with an ounce of experience understands that the best thing for him is just to let it go and not let the specific rater back.
Comps are bribes and with bribes come different standards of behavior. If you bribe a cop and don't get everything you want you don't call and tell another cop. You either stop bribing or offer the next cop more.
-
Comps are bribes and with bribes come different standards of behavior. If you bribe a cop and don't get everything you want you don't call and tell another cop. You either stop bribing or offer the next cop more.
These words of wisdom are from personal knowledge?
-
Jkava, great post. Every now and then you make an epic post! that was a good laugh
-
I don't think we need a seperate set of standards for raters, it's all written down here:
http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status.aspx
If raters are paid for their work or are self-employed (like a book author), then they're considered professionals and all professional standards apply including not taking any comps and remaining anonymous if at all possible.
If raters are amateurs, then they are entitled to be reimbursed for the costs they incur up to a certain amount. Even then they'll most likely end up paying on top of that for travel, food and of course the time it takes to do the unpaid work.
For players: it's only a bribe, if you let the money influence your performance. It's not a bribe, if you let the money influence at which event you tee it up.
For raters: it's only a bribe, if you let the money influence your rating. It's not a bribe, if you let the money influence which course you visit.
Ulrich
-
I am not surprised if once in awhile a rater feels like he is owed special treatment. I also don't believe all of them really think they are providing some sort of special service. Access and comp rounds at nice courses is a nice benefit and it is crazy to think otherwise.
But I also believe repeated boorish behavior would soon be sniffed out and acted on.
What I do think happens is a group think mentality with the result being raters rate based on what they think others will think is beautiful vs what they find beautiful themselves. Rating to the mean seems to be encouraged and I have a feeling outliers are soon weeded out.
So instead of some originality we are left with raters who, subconsciously or not, feel the need to rate the "norm".
There are plenty of raters here who can call BS on me, but I see that same group think here and it certainly exists out there in the golf industry world. Working, or thinking, differently is not an easy road in the golf business where we have so many experts who are really nothing more then parrots.
-
I am not surprised if once in awhile a rater feels like he is owed special treatment. I also don't believe all of them really think they are providing some sort of special service. Access and comp rounds at nice courses is a nice benefit and it is crazy to think otherwise.
But I also believe repeated boorish behavior would soon be sniffed out and acted on.
What I do think happens is a group think mentality with the result being raters rate based on what they think others will think is beautiful vs what they find beautiful themselves. Rating to the mean seems to be encouraged and I have a feeling outliers are soon weeded out.
So instead of some originality we are left with raters who, subconsciously or not, feel the need to rate the "norm".
There are plenty of raters here who can call BS on me, but I see that same group think here and it certainly exists out there in the golf industry world. Working, or thinking, differently is not an easy road in the golf business where we have so many experts who are really nothing more then parrots.
Don,
Agree...
What has happened unintentionally in the last few years is that sites like this and other blogs have provided unearned credibility to so many who have no clue with raters and a few bloggers being the first to come to mind. There are guys running around sucking up to architects and some of these archies are letting them hang on (I don't know why) do do related things. I am often amazed at the little amount of respect some of the "enlightened" on here have for the guys that actually have payrolls in this business. :)
-
Group think is a bad word. Democracy is a good word. Both mean essentially the same thing :)
The point of rating a course is not to put one's own taste on a pedestal and thus elevate it above what most of the golfing public says. After all, those are the folks, who are supposed to make use of a ranking when deciding which course to visit.
As far as unearned credibility goes: those, who fail to check into someone's work and just assume they're competent because of their connections, have no credibility either. The good thing about a site like GCA is, that we are all out in the open with what we write. If someone wanted to know whether one of us is to be taken seriously, why not take a peek in here? For that matter it would, of course, be much easier if we had a way to see all postings by a specified poster on one page.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
Your post makes my point. You think if I like something different, I'm trying to be smarter, or more enlightened. So if I want to keep my status, keep my respect from you, I have to like what everyone else likes. In your world, when I rate something, I have to rate by considering what I THINK everyone else would like. Like democracy? If I vote libertarian or green, I still have my vote next go around, even though the GOP and Dems will say I have wasted my vote by not giving it to them. Except I think both are money grubbing, power thirsty screw ups. I'm not trying to be smarter; I just wish we had better government.
-
Group think is a bad word. Democracy is a good word. Both mean essentially the same thing :)
The point of rating a course is not to put one's own taste on a pedestal and thus elevate it above what most of the golfing public says.
IMHO the purpose would be to give an unbiased personal opinion based on a consistent set of parameters.
After all, those are the folks, who are supposed to make use of a ranking when deciding which course to visit.
Again, I don't think anyone really uses ratings for deciding where to play. Magazines may sell such a thought to advertisers but not in the real world.
As far as unearned credibility goes: those, who fail to check into someone's work and just assume they're competent because of their connections, have no credibility either. The good thing about a site like GCA is, that we are all out in the open with what we write.
Not so...
If someone wanted to know whether one of us is to be taken seriously, why not take a peek in here? For that matter it would, of course, be much easier if we had a way to see all postings by a specified poster on one page.
Again please remember this post was not about the good guys that rate or write. It is specifically about the bad apples that rate and write. These places are used to gain credibility via volume and not substance. The danger they bring to both rating and writing is in not knowing what they don't know.. cheers
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
Your post makes my point. You think if I like something different, I'm trying to be smarter, or more enlightened. So if I want to keep my status, keep my respect from you, I have to like what everyone else likes. In your world, when I rate something, I have to rate by considering what I THINK everyone else would like. Like democracy? If I vote libertarian or green, I still have my vote next go around, even though the GOP and Dems will say I have wasted my vote by not giving it to them. Except I think both are money grubbing, power thirsty screw ups. I'm not trying to be smarter; I just wish we had better government.
+1,
democracy aka Tyranny by the Majority
-
The point of rating a course is not to put one's own taste on a pedestal and thus elevate it above what most of the golfing public says. After all, those are the folks, who are supposed to make use of a ranking when deciding which course to visit.
I agree and disagree with the above. And the difference comes in understanding what ranking/rating you are looking at.
For entities like Golf Digest and Golfweek, raters are NOT to put their taste on a pedestal. Rather they are to rate according to a pre-defined set of criteria. In fact, the Golf Digest process and criteria is much more strict and mathematical.
However, something like the Confidential Guide with its rating process is one person's taste on a pedestal. For those ratings to be of any value to you, you need to have similar taste in golf courses as Mr. Doak does.
As I've said for awhile, for anyone to get the most out of all these rankings and lists, they need to understand how they are derived AND at the same time understand their own taste in golf courses.
-
The point of rating a course is not to put one's own taste on a pedestal and thus elevate it above what most of the golfing public says. After all, those are the folks, who are supposed to make use of a ranking when deciding which course to visit.
I agree and disagree with the above. And the difference comes in understanding what ranking/rating you are looking at.
For entities like Golf Digest and Golfweek, raters are NOT to put their taste on a pedestal. Rather they are to rate according to a pre-defined set of criteria. In fact, the Golf Digest process and criteria is much more strict and mathematical.
However, something like the Confidential Guide with its rating process is one person's taste on a pedestal. For those ratings to be of any value to you, you need to have similar taste in golf courses as Mr. Doak does.
As I've said for awhile, for anyone to get the most out of all these rankings and lists, they need to understand how they are derived AND at the same time understand their own taste in golf courses.
Mac:
I disagree with pretty much all of what you wrote there, but I'll stick to the part about my book.
The Confidential Guide does two things: it assigns a rating to each course, and it offers a short review. The review offers some information about the course to help you determine if you would like it. You don't have to have similar taste to mine in order for that to be of significance. A sample:
Mulranny GC, Co. Mayo. Golf from 1896.
The antithesis of Carne, I stumbled upon Mulranny en route to Connemara from the north, when I spied a remote patch of linksland and said to my traveling companion, “that is the kind of land people should play golf on.” Around the next turn, there was a sign for golf, and lo and behold, Mulranny Golf Club has occupied this patch of turf from 1896. Mowed mostly by sheep, except for the greens protected by wire fence, this was the tightest turf I’ve seen in Ireland, and with the wind blowing, quite a demanding nine holes, even though you can hit it anywhere and still play on. If you need a change of pace, this is the place. Some of the land at the fringes of the course begs to be used for golf, but it’s hard to see how such a location could sustain more holes. 5 - - - [2013]
Obviously, you can tell I liked it very much, but I didn't give it an 8 or a 10 just because I liked it. Clearly, if you don't like sheep or want something dramatic, this review tells you that you might not want to make the trip, but if you want a change of pace or to see an unspoiled little place, you might love it.
In my opinion, that's a lot more valuable than a ranking, and also allows for much more variety of tastes. But, of course, I'm biased ;)
-
Tom
Good to see Mulranny making the grade in your next book. When I stumbled upon the place in 2008, the outhouse-sized "clubhouse" was open and on the wall was a download of Tom Coyne's assessement of his visit in 2007. For any of you who have not read it, please do below:
www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/protecting-pin-county-mayo
A very special place......
Rich
-
Mulranny GC, Co. Mayo. Golf from 1896.
The antithesis of Carne
Why?
Do you think Mulranny would have garnered a 5 twenty years ago? If not, why do you spose that is the case?
Ciao
-
In your world, when I rate something, I have to rate by considering what I THINK everyone else would like. Like democracy?
My comparison to democracy was a little garbled. The democratic part for the sake of my argument was to be the public at large deciding which course to visit. They vote with their feet, so to speak. In that sense it's a democratic decision and you can also call it group think.
That being said, a good rater will always consider what others are thinking. He will know when his personal taste differs from a large body of golfers and will be extra careful to elevate a "pet" course. It's not a black & white thing, you need to find a middle ground between what you like and what you know that others will like.
In some cases, like Tom Doak's example with his book, you can give the reasoning behind your rating and that will go a long way. But again, you have to consider your audience, which for most books is the golfing public.
For example, Tom's idea of the thought processes going through a reader's mind when deciding whether to visit Mulranny may be correct or not. I'm sure he is extra careful in wording his articles, as is any good writer. I find it very difficult to put out a helpful course description in a few sentences. And it's even more difficult when you have to limit yourself to a plain number.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich
I agree about the two sentence desciptions. It almost seems as if they must be cryptic at that length. I think if a course is to have a decent comment a few paragraphs should be the minimum. Although, I don't really see anything wrong just a number among other courses with blurbs. That in itself may say something or indeed, some courses may not need anything further written about them.
I know Tom uses his book as a guide and as a ranking system. It seems more and more he has gone away from the guide and more toward the rankings. Speaking for myself, I would much rather see the book more about a guide and less about rankings. This allows for more personal comment which if done well provides far more insight.
Ciao
-
Mulranny GC, Co. Mayo. Golf from 1896.
The antithesis of Carne
Why?
Do you think Mulranny would have garnered a 5 twenty years ago? If not, why do you spose that is the case?
Ciao
I'm assuming he means the size of the dunes and possibly - and rather disappointingly if so - their suitability for golf.
In every other aspect, Mulranny is a long way from the antithesis of Carne.