Slightly OT - Course raters playing a course more than once

[Dale Jackson]

Tom Doak said in another thread "I had noticed how panelists make these big trips and play every course once and rush on to the next, and if they don't play a hole well they can't remember it."  To which I reply, "exactly right".

I am one of those raters and this is a great source of frustration because I do not feel I can do a course justice with just one visit, particularly the best courses that have so much going on at most holes.  At the best courses I find I am overwhelmed with choices and strategy, and at all courses, I think most raters miss a lot of the subtlety because we just cannot pick up on more than a fraction of the smaller scale features in one round.

I have never tried to play a course more than once because I did not want to impose on the facility, nor did I think it would be appropriate.  We are guests, and I am keenly aware of that whenever I am at golf course.

My question to Tom, other architects, course owners and club managers - what would your reaction be if a rater wanted to play more than once?  Also, would you mind if a rater plays the course and then goes back out to study it in more depth and photograph it?

[Tom_Doak]

Dale:

I'm torn between saying that courses should allow raters even more access, and saying that magazines should dump the ratings business altogether because it's a farce.

GOLF DIGEST is apparently leaning toward the latter now, at least as far as "Best New" courses are concerned ... they don't expect they will have to cover very many for the next couple of years, so they've decided to let Ron Whitten go see them all and make the decision himself.  [I only wish they'd done that last year; I think I would have had another winner instead of a runner-up.]

The whole notion that panelists are so quick as to pick up on the details of a course has never been right, but clubs are not about to give multiple-access passes to hundreds and hundreds of guys.  The real solution is to have a much smaller panel of people who can get to these places the right way -- by making connections with members, according to the normal guest policies of each club.  But most of the magazines have subscribed to the "bigger is better" theory of creating panels because they have been counting on freebies from the courses.  If the best private clubs stood up to this tactic, the magazines would have to find another way ... because their lists would be panned if the best courses were not at the top.

[Dale Jackson]

Dale:

I'm torn between saying that courses should allow raters even more access, and saying that magazines should dump the ratings business altogether because it's a farce.

I think we all know that the magazines will not stop publishing ratings as long as it sells magazines to golfers who are interested in reading those lists, and sells advertising to golf courses who want to leverage their rankings.

[Scott Warren]

Dale,

Given you're admitting you often miss so much on one play, does that not make you feel a bit compromised to then rank those courses, knowing what impact rankings can have?

Having read the above, though, I am glad we have managed to get you to visit us at Deal for more than one day in September!

[Greg Ohlendorf]

Dale,

It just depends how one goes about the rating process. If a rater goes out and tries to play great golf, beat his handicap, etc., it's pretty tough to take it all in. If a rater goes to a course to do what he's there for, ie. rate the course, one trip around can yield meaningful results. The rater needs to worry about his rating first...take notes, photos, look at different angles, roll a couple of balls on the greens from different angles (if it can be done without affecting the pace of play) etc during the round. If you hit a ball into the woods, a good rater needs to walk back out to the fairway to see what he's missed. Obviously it would be great to see all of the courses more than once, but its just not practical. One just needs to pay attention while one's there...and be gracious and appreciative.

Greg

[Matt_Ward]

Dale:

From a practical perspective -- most raters will not get back to many facilities more than the one time.

I have said that it would behoove Digest and other pubs to have a split panel -- one at the regional level where multiple plays will likely occur and those at the national level. Years and years ago Digest had such a thing but the national panel was made up of big name people such as Sam Snead and others of that type and you knew these folks were only congregating at the same predictable courses (e.g. ANGC, Seminole, WFGC, Oakmont, etc, etc).

Many raters are truly more regionalistic in scope. They don't travel enough or play enough to merit a national rater tag. Candidly, I do believe that there are raters who can judge very well the merits of a course from a single play but I do agree that multiple plays would either confirm what was seen the first time or provide info on a different take on things -- this is especially the case with courses that don't usually come off well with a single visit like Pinehurst #2.

Tom:

Frankly, I don't why Ron could not have been the main focal point for the Best New from the get-go.

It's no real secret to know which courses are really hot leading into any year and for the top guru guy like himself to get there and play them. Raters could still have a voice but more of a secondary one.

I also agree that the herd of cattle that calls itself raters has morphed into a stampede of people and frankly many of the clubs -- not just the elite private ones have had their share of bad stories. It only takes one or two bad apples and the rest get broad brushed because of it.

The sad reality is that the top magazines want it both ways. They want "free" information from raters scattered around the nation or whereever and they don't want to ante up payment for such services or at the minimum cull the number of people to a more workable number. Whitten alone could easily get a smaller grouping of people that have the smarts and locations to ensure sufficient coverage. Often time -- the recent results you see coming from such sources has been a mess. Plenty of the really solid layouts are not even selected -- a case in point -- the likes of Rock Creek being neglected for major acclaim and I say that even if you were not the architect of record. There have been way too many errors of this kind.

From a reality standpoint -- once the awardees are announced the results have often been met with blank stares or outright hissing because those not selected were clearly missed. Frankly, more info today is changing hands far faster through blogs and other 21st media than in waiting for the mags to announce their findings. If I was in their shoes I'd be concerned that despite all their claims on defining greatness they are far too many times swinging and missing big time.

[Mac Plumart]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a truly great course will continue to show golfers new nuances for years and years.  Remember Mackenzie's comments on The Old Course.

Therefore, raters/panelists shouldn't be overly concerned with only playing a course once as playing it again won't yield that much more information.

But here is the kicker, I think you have to do a fair amount of due diligence on a course prior to playing it and take meticulous notes while playing it to get the most out of a single play.  Simply showing up, playing course x, running over to course y, and then getting up at zero dark thirty to make it to course z isn't going to cut it.

As goofy as this sounds, I try to do a fair amount of research on the course before hand to understand what I am about to play, pay attention as I play it, and then have a personal de-brief with myself after the round to try to comprehend what I just saw and truly understand what the architect was trying to do and if he, indeed, did it.

In my opinion, that is how you get the most out of a single play.

[cary lichtenstein]

I've played a number of courses a 2 or 3rd time and sometimes they better and sometimes they get far worse in my humble opinion.

A straight forward tee to green course is one thing, but a complicated course is a whole other ball game.

Multiple plays at Bandon lead me to rank Pacific Dunes as the best and the stretch of flatish holes on Bandon Trails to be disappointing, ditto at Frairs Head. The first time I played it I was in awe except for the holes in the potato patch. The 2nd time, I was even more convinced that Coore and Crenshaw should have moved more dirt and created an 18 hole masterpiece instead of a 10 hole one.

[mike_malone]

 What is the difference between multiple plays by one person and mulptple players playing once?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have only met 1 rater but I astonished when I spoke to him afterwards the amazing detail he could remember. I think I can remember quite a lot still from courses I played once 30 years ago, I think some people can and some cant remember an hour later, if someone started to explain how an engine works I would have no capacity to remember.
Back to the original question I think most clubs would welcome a rater having mutiple plays.

[Tom_Doak]

What is the difference between multiple plays by one person and mulptple players playing once?

Mike:

Yours is a very good point.  I often learn a lot by watching other people try to play a course.  Raters should, too.  But they are generally told to come by themselves [or at least not bring friends along for the ride], so I am not sure whether they play in a group they can observe or not.

Some clubs send the pro or an assistant out to play with the raters, which might not give a true impression of how the course plays for everyone else.

[Sean_A]

Personally, I think guys like Brad and Ron have been in the business long enough that they should be able to hand pick a decent size panel of well placed and located guys whose opinions they trust to get around with the proper method of knowing guys.  I have never bought that the club should know that a rater is coming.  I know raters will say they are not influenced and they may be true for some.  But the idea is to eliminate as much as possible even the perception that they are influenced by freebies.  It is the only way to get a proper assessment of a course. 

Some guys are better at evaluating a course than others.  I would never say there should be a minimum number of visits beyond one, but obviously two goes is better than one.  That said, if raters see courses over time they should put in a new rating every year for courses that are in the ballpark of making the lists.  A lot can change with courses and with the experience of the raters.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

You raise a very telling point. On many of my visits to places I have in my company a gent who is a bus driver and sport a 18-20 handicap. He and I both observe what the other does when playing and often times it makes for lively banter at the 19th hole and even when he leave in the same vehicle for the ride home.

In regards to raters and the like -- the reality of 2010 is far different than it was years ago when one had to have an army of people provide opinions. The Web / Internet has changed that dramatically and the speed of info is warp speed considering how static and coma oriented the ratings of yesteryear were.

I glean so much more from people who are active here and from specific lurkers who communicate to me info based on what they have either read, observed or personally experienced.

[Dale Jackson]

Dale,

It just depends how one goes about the rating process. If a rater goes out and tries to play great golf, beat his handicap, etc., it's pretty tough to take it all in. If a rater goes to a course to do what he's there for, ie. rate the course, one trip around can yield meaningful results. The rater needs to worry about his rating first...take notes, photos, look at different angles, roll a couple of balls on the greens from different angles (if it can be done without affecting the pace of play) etc during the round. If you hit a ball into the woods, a good rater needs to walk back out to the fairway to see what he's missed. Obviously it would be great to see all of the courses more than once, but its just not practical. One just needs to pay attention while one's there...and be gracious and appreciative.

Greg

To be clear, I am not new at this, I am not sure how many ratings I have submitted but in the hundreds.  And that is exactly my approach, in fact I do not believe I have ever kept score when rating a course.  I am there to rate, not shoot my all time best.  But anyone who says they can rate a course effectively with one round, I do not think, is giving the course its due.  Architects pour their heart and soul into their designs and I cannot assess everything they have tried to accomplish in 4 hours.

I think you have to do a fair amount of due diligence on a course prior to playing it and take meticulous notes while playing it to get the most out of a single play.  Simply showing up, playing course x, running over to course y, and then getting up at zero dark thirty to make it to course z isn't going to cut it.

As goofy as this sounds, I try to do a fair amount of research on the course before hand to understand what I am about to play, pay attention as I play it, and then have a personal de-brief with myself after the round to try to comprehend what I just saw and truly understand what the architect was trying to do and if he, indeed, did it.

In my opinion, that is how you get the most out of a single play.

And Mac I agree with you as well, do as much pre round investigation as possible.  But, while that clearly helps, it only goes so far.

My original post was concerned with course reactions to raters going beyond just one round and trying to get more information and doing a better job.

Tom Doak mentions courses sending a pro with raters, which is quite common.  Usually this helps the course and the rater, the pro can point out some features that might get missed.  One of the stranger experiences I had in this regard was at a top 100 course and regular PGA Tour venue.  They sent 2 of us out with a pro who insisted we play the Tour tees.  We were playing about 7,500 yards at sea level and needless to say it was a slog - there were about 12 Par 5s that day!  Probably not the best way to make a good impression.  Regardless, I loved the course and rated it higher than the average ranking given by the other raters from the magazine.

[Patrick Kiser]

I read with interest because how is one able to do the necessary pre-round homework if they need to rate 70+ courses a year  ?

I'm kind of scratching my head at that one a little.

Curious to hear what some raters do for this.

[Tags:]

Tags: