Raters and Freebies.

« **on:** December 08, 2003, 05:55:46 PM »

I am tiring of raters finding the positive in over-priced, crappy courses that are bad for golf and should have never been built.

A suggestion for Brad Klein and Ron Whitten which is sure to be less than popular with your raters. Why not make your raters start paying green fees and guest fees so they learn to appreciate the perspective of real world golfers?

I'll bet at the very least you'd get a few more raters bothering to try and seek out the hidden gems.

« **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:07:06 PM »

If courses charged raters they wouldnt give them as good a rating as course who dont charge. We see this problem quite often, 75% of the raters that play our course are looking for a free round of golf for them and their buddy. The system is full of freebies and politcs, and a new way of rating needs to be developed.

« **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:20:46 PM »

Quote from: Shivas on December 08, 2003, 06:05:32 PM

I'lll give a straight answer to what I will assume is a straight question....

because giving the raters power to make value judgments on top of straight course quality judgments puts even more power in the hands of the raters and further subjectifies an already subjective process and they have enough faith in the reader to think for himself and make his own "value" judgments once they're told what the raters think is good and not good based on purely course related criteria?

You arent seriously contending that there is a difference between what you call a "value judgment" and what you call a "straight course quality judgment" are you?

Look at it this way. Ron Whitten reviewed TPC at Valencia and I cant help but wonder whether he was less than forthcoming about the course's hideousness.

I forked over $110 bucks to play there only leave feeling like I had been bent over my mandatory cart. Now if Ron had payed for the round on his own dime, I cant help but think that perhaps his review might have reflect a little bit more of the rub and burn of experience . . . .

« **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:21:22 PM »

Its the way it will always be, and it isn't going to change. Anyways writers get far more freebees than raters, and we read their travel articles continuously. Most pay nothing for golf, travel, stay, and even meals. Throw in some gifts and its a pretty nice deal. Again this is called promotion for the clubs. Whether we like it or not, this is the way the game is played. I don't rate or write, but I actually have no great problem with the way either works. I would love a reviewer who reviews after paying the whole ticket, wait you can get that here!

........we have a local guy here known as the bogeyman. He pays for his golf, and the paper he writes for pays for his expenses (green fees only is the deal-no fee for writing). His reviews can be strange, but he does speak for the everyday player.

« **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:22:27 PM »

Quote from: kygolfer on December 08, 2003, 06:07:06 PM

If courses charged raters they wouldnt give them as good a rating as course who dont charge. We see this problem quite often, 75% of the raters that play our course are looking for a free round of golf for them and their buddy. The system is full of freebies and politcs, and a new way of rating needs to be developed.

I am suggesting a rule that bars raters from taking freebies. How this all isnt exposed as payola is beyond me. Of course then youd need something like a magazine expose on the corruptness of the ratings system.

« **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:23:28 PM »

I ask myself the question, why on earth would a private, as opposed to a for profit club, submit themselves to a hoard of people for the purposes of rating? They may allow a regional golf association access for purposes of assisting in setting handicap numbers, but why else?

Does anyone think that LACC., Cypress or San Francisco give a fig about what some magazine's staff think of their position in the world of golf... they already know!

« **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:26:55 PM »

David- I dont think the panel chiefs have anything to do with it. Brad has stated he tells course to charge raters, but it's up to them if they do or don't. Effecting ones rating is not really an issue since green fees are slightly less than ones arm or offspring. As far as being free, that is false. Assignments require travel to places I would never consider and the costs associated with it are not cheap.

I think any operator could tell the difference between the guy who is fishing for a foursome abusing his rater status and the respectful rater who insists on mid-week off peak hours, so there is no impact on the tee sheet. But maybe I'm wrong and some have it down to science and operators aren't as smart as I thought.

« **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:27:55 PM »

You forgot to add Friars Head in there Bob!

« **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:30:22 PM »

Quote from: A_Clay_Man on December 08, 2003, 06:26:55 PM

David- I dont think the panel chiefs have anything to do with it. Brad has stated he tells course to charge raters, but it's up to them if they do or don't. Effecting ones rating is not really an issue since green fees are slightly less than ones arm or offspring. As far as being free, that is false. Assignments require travel to places I would never consider and the costs associated with it are not cheap.

I think any operator could tell the difference between the guy who is fishing for a foursome abusing his rater status and the respectful rater who insists on mid-week off peak hours, so there is no impact on the tee sheet. But maybe I'm wrong and some have it down to science and operators aren't as smart as I thought.

Adam, simple rule. Accept payola and you are off the panel. Turn in receipts with your reviews.

« **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:34:09 PM »

And adam, if these guys can be expected to pay travel expenses etc. then all the more reason they shouldnt accept freebie green fees. It just stands out as a bribe.

Put it this way, offer 99% of people a free round at a 300$ course or a free round at a 25$ course, and which will they take? This bias will eventually show up in the ratings.

« **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:37:46 PM »

Life is a bitch and so unfair! So much disatisfaction. But while we are on this egalitarian kick, let's make sure that entertainment lawyers, litigators, and the whole Hollywood crowd are only allowed to make the median income. That way they can really empathize with the rest of us (instead of just talking on our behalf).

No golf course is required to give raters freebies. I don't believe that a rater would give a course a worse rating because a green fee was required. It might, however, limit the number of raters visiting outlying and less known courses as raters have the cost of lodging, transportation, and time away from work to cover out of their own pockets.

The ratings are to identify the best golf courses, not the best values. Personally, I would like to see such a list. GD does a most affordable (under $50) new course survey, but a top 100 best values could be interesting.

I was under the impression that Rustic Canyon was the answer to most people's yearnings in SoCal (I wanted to say prayers, but it would exclude too many folks in the everything-goes la-la land).

« **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:39:01 PM »

But wouldn't this work the inverse, i.e. a poor rating for a fabulously overpriced fabulous course, simply because the rater is now $300 poorer? How does this cure the problem? Why not make every rater pay $100 regardless of whether the course charges the everyday golfer $30 or $300? That might even the scales some (although there probably might be some backlash from the raters for being forced to pay $100 for what they would pay $30 if not in a ratings capacity).

Do clubs like Cypress, SFGC really allow raters on their courses on an annual basis? I can understand if the club underwent a renovation that vastly improved the course, a la Newport. But why, if there hasn't been a substantive change to the course must raters come in every 1-2 yrs?

Tommy - my example doesn't apply to FH now, but in 5-7 yrs, it would.

« **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:48:48 PM »

Dave - I know a rater or two.... My sense is that collectively their passion for the game drives them like the EverReady bunny. Charge them or don't charge them greens fees - it will make no difference in their votes. As Adam points out (and I have a budget to prove!) raters will spend more money annually on golf then they would if they were not raters.

I believe rater's votes are far more impacted by peer review ("hey, did you play xxx yet...") and what courses are currently being excitedly talked about in publications (and on gca!) then the cost of greens fees.

JC

« **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on December 08, 2003, 06:23:28 PM

Does anyone think that LACC., Cypress or San Francisco give a fig about what some magazine's staff think of their position in the world of golf... they already know!

Try telling this to Pat Mucci!

He probably thinks Geoff's book was okayed by CPC to boost their rating into the #1 position!

« **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:53:29 PM »

Shivas,
You didn't follow it through to completion. flat fee balances the scales, although its not without its pitfalls (e.g. "i'm so excited, I just played Pelican Hills for 90% off retail!!!"). Nevertheless, its the closest thing to an internalization of the costs (and subjectivity) as you can get.

« **Reply #15 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:54:11 PM »

David- I know i'm fortunate, but believe me getting a green fee 'on the house' for ME, will not alter one iota my rating of that course. One would hope that enough scrutiny upon consideration for inclusion on the panel would design out the practices you are describing. It must be a hell of alot harder with 700 than 200.

A better solution would be for internal controls to weed out raters who's ratings seem out of line or abuse the position. But, that would be like having the word 'cheat' in the rule book.

« **Reply #16 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:59:34 PM »

George,
Of course they already know, they're position in the golf world has been repeated by the mags ad nauseam since the 60s. I think that has more to do with these clubs "already know[ing]" their clubs place in the world of golf, than their own subjective view of the course (since many members of these clubs wouldn't know the difference between a prominent club and a prominent golf course, unless it were printed on the scorecard and their monthly statement).

Just read a good quote from Cardozo, applicable here:

Quote

The half truths of one generation tend at times to perpetuate themselves in the law as the whole truth of another, when constant repetition brings it about that qualifications, taken once for granted, are disregarded or forgotten.

« **Reply #17 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:00:13 PM »

Being so new to the rates, I find the detailed rate scorecard filled out on a course I have played, to be very informative. Why did they stop that?

Sean- That last quote sounds like the DNC policy platform.

« **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:01:40 PM »

Shivas -

If you're referring to me, i'll answer it this way. Obviously some people (Dave, notable among them) are concerned with the conflicts of the current scheme, so why not cure it some reasonable way, e.g. my way

« **Reply #19 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:07:46 PM »

Sean -

Remind of that quote next time I get into a political argument with someone.

-----
I think removing $ from the picture helps the raters with their thankless efforts, but the fees should be paid by the mags. Wonder how long it would take to kill the ratings by magazines with this approach?

Considering everyone feels ratings sell magazines, has anyone bothered to check and see whether ratings issues sell any better or worse than the other issues? My money is on neglible incremental sales. I think the magazines do the ratings to: 1) appear thoughtful with regard to the game and 2) to torture all of us.

« **Reply #20 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:09:06 PM »

Sean,
Are you implying that Friars Head will be actively seeking raters in 5-7 years to charge them a fee for play? If so, then in 5-7 years, you'll be wrong again!

« **Reply #21 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:19:24 PM »

It would help to know if there are classes of raters that only pay zero. I suspect there probably aren't. It should be a policy that $100 will be paid. Granted that may be tokenary in some instances, but at least it will be a blanket policy, and not subject to the various policies of certain clubs, many of which may be banking on the freebie policy to curry favor with the rater.

Tommy - You misread my post. I said annual ratings have little value at a course that has in its current condition been rated to death. FH hasn't been rated, so it doesn't have the ability to point to its last year's rating (or last decade, if the course hasn't changed).

Your advocacy of the subjective states of mind of each FH member is admirable, but its not convincing me.

« **Reply #22 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:20:55 PM »

I don't know exactly how raters work, but how about this alternative?

A course must first request a rating from the magazine. If they do not request a rating, the course gets no rating.

The magazine assigns a number of particular raters to play a course. The assignments are random and done by the editor(s). The raters, can play for free since they are "under assignment" from the magazine and since they can only play a course they are assigned to, it cuts down on the sucking up factor since they would have to pay to play the course again.

« **Reply #23 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:25:49 PM »

Shivas-

This may have to do more with green, and I don't mean the color of money, as well as with grapes which do not taste all too sweet.

Bob Huntley-

Those courses you name and several others benefit from reputations that may have been earned in part when guest access was not as difficult. If I was a member of CPC or SFGC I would be protective of my club, but I would not have objections to limited outside play so long as it does not diminish my enjoyment of the club. Exclusivity and deriving enjoyment from the mere act of whitholding the same from others may be important to some folks. It is not for me, and it has been my experience that it is not as well for most people whom I've met on this site. Sharing something really good, be it a golf course, a single-malt scotch, a meal, or a witty story with others who can appreciate them is much more meaningful. BTW, I do think that many of the members at those hallowed clubs know quite well where they stand on GD's list, and care to the extent that they take pride in belonging to the best clubs and owning the finest things. Consumption is not done in a vacumn, nor necessarily for its own sake.

« **Reply #24 on:** December 08, 2003, 07:26:23 PM »

Quote

Your advocacy of the subjective states of mind of each FH member is admirable, but its not convincing me.

Sean, That's the beauty of it all, It doesn't have to! I just wanted you to know I was aware of your implication, if indeed that is what it was refering to.

News:

DMoriarty

Nick Pozaric

DMoriarty

ian

DMoriarty

Bob_Huntley

A_Clay_Man

Tommy_Naccarato

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

Lou_Duran

SPDB

Jonathan Cummings

George Pazin

SPDB

A_Clay_Man

SPDB

A_Clay_Man

SPDB

George Pazin

Tommy_Naccarato

SPDB

Andy_Lipschultz

Lou_Duran

Tommy_Naccarato