Raters and Freebies.

[DPL11]

Michael Whitaker,

Great post.

[Jeff Fortson]

Michael Whitaker,

That was poetry.


Scott Burroughs and Shivas,

Unfortunately, the PGA of America's Player Ability Test (P.A.T.) is not hard enough, IMHO.  There are plenty of pro's out there barely breaking 80 if not at all.  I think it is something that needs to be changed because it is watering down the rank and file of my association with guys that flat out can't play a lick.  The PGA has directed itself away from making the ability to play golf at a high level a priority and are focussed on how to teach us about selling shirts and washing golf carts.  It's a total shame.  

I personally shot 69-71=140 at my P.A.T and was medalist..... by 10 shots!!!  That is disgusting!  I was the only guy who shot under 150 out of 100 guys on a course that was tipped out at 6100 yards.  It's a travesty.  

But, the fight goes on.  I am now in the Met Section where playing IS a priorty and is valued by employers.  I am saddened that I am going to leave it in the near future.  It's the last bastion of where golf pros can be treated like golf pros and not 7-handicap shirt folders.

Being in the PGA doesn't give you a freebie anywhere.  I can't just stroll down Magnolia Lane and expect to get out.  Quite the contrary.  Many clubs still don't allow golf pros to play.  Some of them due to an old school mentality and some because some pros abused privileges.  However, I can go many places and play for free.  Pros will usually reciprocate with you in return that you offer them the same courtesy should that pro want to play your track.

I guess I just feel that I have earned my right to comped golf at times through the giving of my being and some of these "raters" have done nothing but exploit and take from the game of golf.


Jeff F.

[Lou_Duran]

Michael Whitaker-

And I am disappointed, no very disappointed with your post.  I too have recollections of NM including a certain individual who gladly passed on paying a re-play fee because he was able to tag along with a rater.  The situation you describe at Black Mesa may have appeared humorous or pathetic to you, but those of us who were comped were told to line-up on the left side of the counter so that the nice young lady could check us in and update her records.  And of course, you know that Black Mesa bought my ballot.  Please !!!!!

Those of you who've never been comped for anything may have some reason to complain.  I know one other individual who's been among the biggest complainers here who was not too proud to accept a comp round in my company at another well-known course.  I know, if you are not rating there is no conflict of interest.  To which I say bull----, and if you live in a glass house be careful about casting stones.

The whole tenor of this thread is nauseating.

[Don_Mahaffey]

OK, this horse been rode, what you say we put it out of it's misery.  

[Michael Moore]

I am a middle class guy who does a ballot for a solid regional publication which ranks only public courses.

I write ahead and strive to visit during off-peak times. I always see if there is any course news that they might want mentioned in the tidbits section. Going around to different courses and meeting pros and supers has been a wonderful experience. It's nice to get comped, but I would still love doing it otherwise.

The notion of trying to get your buddies comped is absurd.

The desire to get something for free is an overwhelming human tendency, as is the concomitant envy.

[Jeff Fortson]

Lou,

I, nor anyone else here, has come out and said that Lou Duran, Golf Course Rater, abuses his comp priveleges and uses his status as leverage to gain access.  I know you are not like that.  I don't understand why you are so defensive over this.  I can't take away what some of these "raters" have done to the reputation for "raters" as a whole.

I remember in elementary school when a couple kids would goof off and do something against school or class rules and the teacher would punish everyone by keeping all the kids after class to lay the guilt on the bad kids.  I recommend that courses do the same type of thing to "raters".  Until the rating panels do a better job of quality control on who they put on these panels I won't change my position, even if it hurts the feelings or priveleges of someone like yourself whom I find to be someone I like and would comp in a second.

I guess what I am saying, Lou, is don't take what I, and what I assume to be others voicing similar opinions here, personally.  If anything, I would think you would be concerned about what you are hearing from not just me but with others here who have shared similar stories.


Jeff F.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Available on line 24/7 and just about every book store in the country.

Dan & Ben,

So I guess Fairchild Publications and Fodor's and Random House are all doing this for the purity of the game?   Our friend who works for Golf Magazine is very quiet, and I would be too. No I don't have hard numbers, because I don't work for the magazines or their holding companies, but I do have a thing call common sense.

Nobody is saying it is their biggest money maker.

Mike,
That book is done by polling the public, last I checked. So all you have proved is that Golf Digest has published a travel guide and made money.

The book does not relate to rankings (which the conversation is about), but it does show the magazines ability to use the their name to make money selling guidebooks...

Next, if magazines are making $1 Million on plaques alone, before the advertising dollars (which others said were the reasons), I guess I just assumed that it had to be their biggest money maker.

[Michael Whitaker]

Lou - I'm sorry if you took my previous comments personally. I enjoyed playing with you and watching as you made extensive notes about the course and your round. You obviously take rating very seriously and, as a result, present a professional demeanor both on and off the course.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else being comped for a round of golf. My main point is that there are hundreds of people out there scurrying around contacting courses on their own behalf in order to serve the needs of a magazine. The magazine should be in control of this system, not the raters. The magazine should control who plays a course in its name and not allow people to contact courses without a prior invitation. The fact that the courses are being called by individuals instead of the magazine is why you hear all these complaints about people abusing their position.

Because the magazines have allowed their raters to contact  courses directly and have, evidently, encouraged them to play and rate as many as possible, some of the raters have made it their lives work to play every course of note in America. Others just think begin a rater makes them a member-for-a-day at any course they want to play, for free.

Lou, you could be the posterboy for rater professionalism. As a matter of fact, you would be the perfect candidate for a full-time rater for one of the national magazines. They should let you train raters on how to act before they let them out in the field.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

As for advertising dollars, not sure what the correlation to Mike Vegis is. Kiawah advertises seemingly every month, I know rankings matter to them, but I cannot believe this is the reason they pull out a full page glossy.

We may seem like we advertise a lot, but we don't.  Keep in mind that there are two entities on Kiawah Island, the resort and the real estate company.  It's the real estate company that has the deep pockets and which does most of the advertising.  We do some but not the the extent that they do.  We're on the resort side grew up on the other side of the tracks...

[David Wigler]

Why not build another NGLA?  Why not build a course short and wide?  Why not build greens that literally make you stop 50 yards short of the fringe, drop your jaw and just admire them?

And why give tacit approval and in many cases, overt praise, to thoughless garbage by rating it highly when WE ALL KNOW that it can be done better?  

Why do we continue to rate the latest whiz bang CCFAD or Giant Check Country Club by om Fazio or Jack course highly when WE ALL KNOW that they are capable of more (or in their cases, "less")?  

Shivas,

Above might sound great in print but IMO it is not one ounce about rating golf courses.  Why not build another NGLA?  Because you could not sustain a membership there today.  Furthermore, if you built NGLA (And it was built by anyone other than Doak, who always gets a free pass) all you would here is the same people bitching that it is manufactured and not what the land presented.  Remember, CBM and Raynor were the founders of the Fazio school of built what you want.  

Furthermore, to rate course against potential is subjective Bull Shit.  A course needs to be rated against its contemporaries and what exists in general.  Not your untrained opinion of what it could be.  Like them or not, Fazio and Nicklaus are extremely well trained in building courses.  For you to say it should be "x" and they built "y" is simply to impose your will.  I am sure the owner of the project looked at plans for "a" - "z" and picked what he wanted.  Fazio may spend a lot of money on projects but the end result is pretty damn good.  Bash what sucks "Falls at Reflections Bay" because it sucks not because of Weiskopf's budget for the project or because you think it should be more natural.

[THuckaby2]

Tom H

If you had ever taken the time to read any of my posts on "ratings" vs. "rankings" you would know that the "Michelin" system, for both restaurants and golf courses has the 5 categories that you hanker for.  It's just that two of them do not involve stars.......

........and, BTW, I stole the idea not only from M. Michelin, but also from the great Scottish golf writer, Sam McKinlay, who used to give out 1-3 Thistles to the Scottish courses he thought were the best.

Fair enough - it's been a long time since we batted that one around, my bad, I thought there were only three classifications period.  We need five.  So I'm with you bruthah, and bruthah McKinlay.  

As for you Dan Kelly, you continue to have a very fine sense of humor, something I sorely need these days.  Muchas gracias!  

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Thanks for the kind words, Jeff, Michael, and Bill.

I do take what is being said on this thread personally not because I consider myself to be the epitome of righteousness and enlightment (far from it), but as a member of a panel who I believe does excellent, useful work on behalf of a sport, no, more than that, a way of life, we all love.   I also hate to see this wonderful site, one that has brought together people from all stratas of life all over the world, become another internet channel of erroneous, generalized information which dilutes much of the interesting, important discussion that goes on here.

As a rater, I do take my responsibilities very seriously.  However, that I take notes has much less to do with careful study than that I have not been blessed with a very good memory.  Raters like Ward, Childs, Redanman and many others do the same thing, probably in greater detail, without the need for paper.  I am always amazed about how some people are able to recall the tiniest of detail as well as see the whole picture without notes or even much thought.  What I am trying to say is that if I am considered to be a good, diligent rater, I take that as a compliment, but in no way do I consider myself to be out of the norm.  Believe it or not, the vast majority of the guys I've encountered at numerous outings are dedicated, knowledgeable, and interested in doing exactly what they are asked to do- to render a thoughtful, balanced, informed opinion on a very subjective, multi-faceted topic.

I do agree with Shivas on the part that ratings are important to many people.  From time to time I'll get a call from a club asking for my input.  Acquaintances who know that I see a lot of courses often ask for recommendations.  And if one travels and sees the plaques in the clubhouses, it is  apparent that owners, members, and patrons seek and enjoy the recognition.

I totally disagree with Shivas on the bit about today's courses being a bunch of unimaginative crap.  I haven't seen NGLA, but there is no reason to believe that it is not what many of you think it is- one of the greatest courses in the world.  I do fully understand why Shivas likes width and difficult greens, and most would too if they saw him drive and putt the ball.

But golf is a big game, and as much as I hate to agree with Michigander Wigler, I concur with his comments.  It never ceases to amaze me how many great courses are being built.  Compared to what was available to J.P. in the 1970s, we are indeed very blessed.

One final comment, it is clear to me that many of the complaintants are not very familiar with the rating process nor the significance of the results.  Making broad, generalized, vitriolic statements about something that is supposedly insignificant does not make a lot of sense.  Maybe about as much as another Michagander, though in geography only, Mike Vegis when he describes his resort as being the poor boy from the wrong side of the tracks.  Should I be so lucky to occupy but a small space at the station house.    

[David Wigler]

Perhaps, then, the truth is that there just aren't enough fun courses out there.  The bar is too low and the exceptional client pleasers like Fazio and Nicklaus, whose businesses are premised on the notion that fun from the ownership's perspective, is the fast sale of 1/4 acre tracts overlooking fake boulders so the mezz loan can be paid down on time, are doing their jobs.   But are they building great golf courses that are fun, or are they performing a different function as conduits to balance sheet enhancement?        

Shiv,

Good points except for two.  NGLA exists today because it is one of the most prestigious clubs in the country and Long Island is nothing if not about prestige (Not meant to minimize NGLA, which is a special place but to highligh how well a reincarnation of it would do if it was built on a landfill in Monroe, MI).  If a designer manufactured a 6,400-yard course that looked like NGLA today, IMO it would be bankrupt.

As for your second point, I simply cannot disagree more.  Fazio is not famous for real estate courses (Frankly that title goes to Art Hills).  Fazio builds the most fun courses on the planet.  That is his specialty and frankly, why he gets bashed so much on GCA.  Fazio's courses make you smile, they are fair, they are forgiving; they typically have fantastic features that insure fun.  The legit criticism is that they do not incorporate as many strategically compelling features as some of his contemporaries and as we both know, the vast majority of the golfing public could not give a rats ass about strategically compelling features.  I believe that Fazio dominates the ratings exactly because of what you wrote above and the vast majority of raters probably subconsciously do just what you said.

[George Pazin]

NGLA exists today because it is one of the most prestigious clubs in the country and Long Island is nothing if not about prestige (Not meant to minimize NGLA, which is a special place but to highligh how well a reincarnation of it would do if it was built on a landfill in Monroe, MI).  If a designer manufactured a 6,400-yard course that looked like NGLA today, IMO it would be bankrupt.

This is a joke - I hope.

How do you explain the existence of Black Creek in TN? How do you explain that Silva (not exactly the bulletproof architect on here you mistakenly claim TD to be) has resurrected some of the CBM holes?

How do you explain George Bahto's course?

Did you note how many people listed NGLA as the #1 or 2 course in the country? Do you think it's solely because of the prestige of the club and its location?

CBM & Raynor are the original Fazio? Good God are you missing the point of most of the discussion on this site.

Guess it's the same kind of logic that led you to conclude C&C would never take the 3rd course at Bandon.

If this post wasn't buried on the raters thread, some of the biggest heavyweights on the site would be laughing their asses off right now. Or shaking their heads in disbelief.

[David Wigler]

NGLA exists today because it is one of the most prestigious clubs in the country and Long Island is nothing if not about prestige (Not meant to minimize NGLA, which is a special place but to highligh how well a reincarnation of it would do if it was built on a landfill in Monroe, MI).  If a designer manufactured a 6,400-yard course that looked like NGLA today, IMO it would be bankrupt.

This is a joke - I hope.

How do you explain the existence of Black Creek in TN? How do you explain that Silva (not exactly the bulletproof architect on here you mistakenly claim TD to be) has resurrected some of the CBM holes?

How do you explain George Bahto's course?

Did you note how many people listed NGLA as the #1 or 2 course in the country? Do you think it's solely because of the prestige of the club and its location?

CBM & Raynor are the original Fazio? Good God are you missing the point of most of the discussion on this site.

George,

Congratulations on proving Brad Klein's point that so many on GCA only read what they write.  Black Creek is your point?  Black Creek is a wonderful course.  It also happens to be 7,000+ from the tips and public.  How does it relate to my point about 6,400 yard private clubs?

George Bahto's course?  Well you have got me.  I have never played a George Bahto golf course.  Did George build a 6,400 yard private golf club in the last several years that is thriving.  If so, where is it because I would love to see it.  

Apparently you are struggling today with english.  I said "Not meant to minimize NGLA, which is a special place but to highligh how well a reincarnation of it would do if it was built on a landfill in Monroe, MI"  All of which was prefaced by an IMO.  IMO it is true that a replication of NGLA built today on a landfill in Monroe, MI would go bankrupt.  I love NGLA as a concept and a course.  I took no shots at it (Not even subtle shots).  

[George Pazin]

So 600 yards is the difference between a successful modern course & a course that's reputation is built on one of a prestigious location?

Did you read the rest of my points?

I read your post. I just can't believe you wrote it.

NGLA exists today because it is one of the most prestigious clubs in the country and Long Island is nothing if not about prestige (Not meant to minimize NGLA, which is a special place...

That qualifier hardly excuses the first part of the statement.

I'd venture to guess quite a few private clubs have the member tees closer to 6400 yards than 7000. Not everyone is obsessed with distance.

Is your point so narrow that it requires a distinction between a private and public course? I would think public courses would have a much greater need for length than private courses.

[David Wigler]

So 600 yards is the difference between a successful modern course & a course that's reputation is built on one of a prestigious location?

Did you read the rest of my points?

I read your post. I just can't believe you wrote it.

George - Obviously, you are still struggling with English.  Where did I write that NGLA's reputation is strictly because of its location?  All I can find myself writing is praise for NGLA.  Ask a working architect today about the importance of 600 yards.  I think they will agree it is very important.  

Try to follow me here; it is a very tricky point.

I said that IMO (You do know what an opinion is) NGLA (Which was chosen because it is an awesome course and therefore able to highlight the point) would go bankrupt if it was built today on a landfill in Monroe, MI.  You said

1. Black Creek proves me wrong
2. George Bahto's course proves me wrong
3. Everyone loves NGLA.  Do I think it is just because it is in Long Island?
4. CMB and Raynor are not the fathers of Fazio's design school
5. I was wrong about C&C and Bandon
6. Tom Paul would laugh at me if he read this.

Have I proven that unlike you I actually read what other write?

Point 1.  Already discussed.  Black Creek is a 7,000+ public course.  It has nothing to do with a 6,400-yard private courses chances for success in Monroe, MI.

Point 2.  I sincerely did not know George Bahto built a 6,400-yard private golf club that was thriving.  If he did, I wanted to know about it so I could go see it.

Point 3.  I think NGLA is beloved because it is that good.  I have said that repeatedly and apparently it is inconvenient for your argument to accept that.

Point 4.  CBM and Raynor are the fathers of Fazio's create holes where they are not design school.  Feel free to disagree.  I thought there maverick reputations were well documented.

Point 5.  You are correct that I was wrong on C&C.  What does this have to do with anything?  I have it on good sources that you once put 5 for the answer to 2+2 on a 1st grade math test.

Point 6.  Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't.  I like Tom and value his opinion.  One thing for sure, Tom would read my post before inventing my positions.



 

[Mike Nuzzo]

I have only read the last page of this thread....I don't know why.  
I feel compelled to come to the defense of the "Land of Enchantment raters".

I coordinated with the club whether they wanted to comp any* or all raters that were in the group.  I pulled the few (5, didn't even know a couple were) raters over to the "left" and had them sign in.  Some may have even paid, that was their choice.  It was my orchestration, please laugh at me, not them.

*I was trying to convince them how all one of the Golf Digest raters weren't really worth it...

[George Pazin]

Well, at least you addressed my points this time. I didn't invent anything. You stated and I quoted:

NGLA exists today because it is one of the most prestigious clubs in the country and Long Island is nothing if not about prestige (Not meant to minimize NGLA, which is a special place...

I'm going way out on a limb and saying my comparison of your mythical landfill to a public course built in the CBM/Raynor mold makes a lot more sense than your position re: the existence of NGLA.

Similarly, I asked how does one explain Silva's other efforts at replicating CBM/Raynor features and GB's effort (Stonebridge Golf Links on LI - for the record, I dont' recall if it's public or private - I suspect public - and again, if that is the fine line between success and failure as it relates to your point, then I will gladly say I'm wrong in not providing exact enough examples).

I would say my examples in the real world are a lot more reasonable and tenable then your comparison to a hypothetical course is Monroe, MI. A course built on a landfill in Monroe, MI would likely be a success or failure for other reason well ahead of any decision to replicate NGLA.

CBM/Raynor were certainly mavericks of a sort, but I doubt many on here would agree with your assertion that they manufactured whatever they felt, irrespective of the site, except obviously in the instance of the Lido. Plenty of architects today find their template holes in the terrain offered and that doesn't necessarily make them Fazios. Fazio is plenty successful in his own right, but I don't think it's at all reasonable to call CBM/Raynor the founders of his style.

I did get a good laugh at your zinger re: my 1st grade math tests, but I'd say my point about your logic is again on firmer ground. Heck, I never missed questions on my early arithmetic tests.

I didn't invent anything re: your feelings on NGLA. You made the statement, I just said I hoped it was a joke. I still do.

I'll try to work on my English. As I've only been speaking it for about 33 years, it is indeed not always perfect, or even comprehensible by some.