[RJ_Daley]

Dave, your points about blaming the facility for bad play is well taken, but still doesn't get to the issue of what constitutes "effective" rating practices or methodology, IMHO.

How is the argument that most raters who play bad rank courses low any different than the argument that most people who get into car accidents on a particular street think the paving stinks or that most people who go to Wrigley and watch the Cubs get trounced think that Wrigley is a crappy ballpark?

May I inject a concept into the above that may make my alternative point of why some of us take rankings and raters with a grain of salt...

How is the argument that most raters who play one course one time badly rank courses low any different than the argument that most people who get into one car accident(s) on a particular street think the paving stinks or that most people who go to Wrigley one time and watch the Cubs get trounced think that Wrigley is a crappy ballpark?

The notion that rating a course effectively by playing once, particularly a masterpiece of design, is bogus from the start. Set aside all the comp=bias arguements, but I don't care if you are Tiger Woods or Ben Crenshaw, you play a great course once in one singular set of conditions, and you aren't going to get a serious take on the quality or brilliance of a really great design, IMHO.  You may play a Sand Hills and get an inkling, but you need to play it many times to form the basis of saying it is a 10, I think.

Part of Geoff's Fireball sarcasm in the piece he wrote says to me that the whole process of magazine ratings is pretentious because it is inhierently flawed from many basic aspects, not the least of which is the whole comp issue.  Really getting to know a course first, before passing serious critique and judgement, can't be merely dismissed as some sort of extraneous idealistic issue.  

The ratings are something of a group think, herd mentality, just as the whole clambake at Grand Cypress is.  It is a conformist activity, lubricated by a certain social-economic benefit to the participants in the system to a large extent, I believe.  

As a perceptive consumer, I don't personally think I need a rating list when I blow into town to try and figure out which course to play.  I will ASK those who know, and seek out those courses that begin to have a great reputation from those that know from much exposure.  

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
For example, the notion that if raters paid for their rounds, all would be fine is just bunk.

First I never said raters should pay, I said of the three choices, having the course pay is by far the worst choice.  

But moving on:

Funny how other publications have to fit within journalistic guidelines. Either golf is such a special sport it doesn't need such guidelines, or golf rankers are such a special breed of cat that are beyond reproach.

Do you think courses comp rankers because they are incredibly stupid and have no idea of the integrity of the rater or are they doing it only as a public service?

The argument that raters paying is also flawed in that a rater who is ALWAYS comped does not even have an apparent conflict of interest.  If I get a free round at XYZ CC and a free round at ABC CC, where is the conflict?

Are you now a ranker? Have you ever not been comped? Rumor I hear is that some courses comp, some don't. We have all sorts of rankers reporting in this thread that sometimes they pay, sometimes they don't. Hence the conflict.

Even assuming they all comp, the system would still stink of a conflict of interest. Of the three choices to pay, the course is by far the poorest choice. I realize Golf Digest and the rest of the publications have a damn good thing going not bothering to pay all of you, but just because y'all are suckers doesn't make the system right.

Even assuming you got the rankings right, why should I believe a bunch of suckers so willing to sell themselves so cheaply. I'd think a lot more of you if your price was something higher than a greens fee.

Also, the argument that raters rate based on how they play has no basis in fact.  I have heard none stated.

Maybe you don't read what you write, but I do. First witness for the prosecution:
Shivas writes in reply No. 101 only a few posts beyond when he issues the challenge:
"But the point is that for every one of those there are 3-4-5 guys who admire a course for its ability to kick your ever lovin' ass in numerous ways, both blatantly and subtlely, foreseeable and unforeseeable!"

For a guy demanding proof that was a cool use of unsubstantiated numbers, but I'll let that slide for now.

Care to elaborate on who you mean by those above?

Just guessing here, but it seemed you were responding to Tom Huckaby who said in the post just before your response:
But there also are those for whom good play = good mood = good rating; bad play = it's not my fault, it's this crappy course = bad rating, and they exist on all panels.

But maybe words have some other meaning for you. Maybe your those are different those than Huckaby's.

If not, why are you answering your own challenge in this post? You could have given us a bit more time than that.

If I'm at all like the other raters out there, there simply is no correlation between paying/not paying and good rating/bad rating.  None whatsoever.  None has been stated.  None has been shown.  And certainly none has been proven.

Yeah, you convinced me, all that journalist integrity that other publications strive for is just so much hogwash. It isn't the threat of conflict of interest as long as all you hire is a few thousand rankers who are beyond reproach. Way to go Golf Digest. How about doing a better job in your hiring all you other publications.

So I guess the bottom line is:  prove it.

I don't have to. This isn't a court of law, it is a court of public opinion. If the reading public ever comes to realize that you guys are selling your rankings (cheaply I might add) then proof or no proof is going to be the least of your worries.

It stinks because, come to think of it, I have my doubts that Golf Digest goes through all that tough a screening process. I think there first question is probably something like "will you go where we say, do what we tell you, figure out your own access and never ask for anything from us?" If the answer is yes, you then pass the pre-employment screening.

Dan King

I'm so worried about what's hapenin' today,
in the Middle East, you know.
And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system
they've got at Heathrow.
I'm so worried about the fashions today,
I don't think they're good for your feet.
And I'm so worried about the shows on TV
that sometimes they want to repeat.
I'm so worried about what's happenin' today, you know.
And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system
they've got at Heathrow.
I'm so worried about my hair falling out
and the state of the world today.
And I'm so worried about bein' so full of doubt
about everything, anyway.
I'm so worried about modern technology.
I'm so worried about all the things
that they dump in the sea.
I'm so worried about it,
worried about it, worried, worried, worried.
 --Monty Python

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Can we please stay on topic instead of straying:

Okey dokey.

How is the argument that most raters who play bad rank courses low any different than the argument...

Wait a minute looks like a different question than:

Also, the argument that raters rate based on how they play has no basis in fact.  I have heard none stated.

Looks a bit like the old switcheroo. First you ask for any examples, now you want a majority. If I were to manage convincing you that a majority of rankers who play poorly on a course give poor rankings would you then ask for a higher percentage? Maybe 100 percent?

I have to run to a train...I figure it will take the whole weekend for somebody to concoct an even remotely plausible answer...

There's an idea. Why don't I go to all the trouble to answer your challenge so that when you return you can again change the parameters.

Dan King

I do not suggest for one moment that people are not entitled to express their opinions as what they like or dislike, but when they go to the length of saying that some particular feature is good or bad, they are more often than not influenced by some peculiarity of their own play.
 --Tom Simpson

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

I'm not going to get sucked back into this because it's truly going nowhere except to say that I've played horribly on courses I love and had some career rounds on courses that are truly lame.  

Actually, that's more often the case, because the more a course excites and intrigues me to play, the more often my adrenaline gets running, my swing gets quick, and it all goes to pot.

Except, at the end of the day, I'm still loving the course or not.  My game is immaterial, and like a grain of sand on a vast beach, a scant moment in time immemorial, and a mere neutrino on the vast plane of atomic matter.  

[Dan King]

Mike Cirba writes:
I'm not going to get sucked back into this because it's truly going nowhere except to say that I've played horribly on courses I love and had some career rounds on courses that are truly lame.

Cool.

I don't believe I ever said otherwise (but then I've been making far more posts than usual today and I'm too lazy to go back and look.) Personally I think I can judge a course better watching others play it, but I have no idea if I am in a minority or majority. In many ways it makes sense because you will see a large variety of games, rather than just those in your foursome, but I got no problem with people doing things differently than me. As John Prine says, "It's a big old goofy world."

Oops, just looked at what I wrote earlier today:
Most people I have met can not get past their own game to honestly appraise a course.

I'd have no problem putting you outside that most quote. And while we are making caveats, most people I know are not course rankers.

However you might have a problem with Tom Simpson.

I was responding to Shivas only because his challenge appears to be a moving target.

Dan King

Criticizing a golf course  is like going into a man's family. The fond mother trots up her children for admiration. Only a boor would express anything else than high opinion.
 --C.B. MacDonald (who still is missing from golf's Hall of Fame)

[ForkaB]

Methinks the raters doth protest too much.....

[A_Clay_Man]

Methinks the raters doth protest too much.....

Rihc- If we are to take Geoff litterally...
 

"We wannabe moochers can't be there,

... Isn't it the wannabe moocher who ist protesting?

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Dan, in reality, the switcheroo is you claiming that I'm offering a moving target.  

Jeez, Shivas, rather than writing your dissertation, just read what you wrote. I'll try again to walk you through it. You said in your first post:

Also, the argument that raters rate based on how they play has no basis in fact.  I have heard none stated.

Could be the problem is you wrote the word none but have no idea what it means.

Main Entry: none
Pronunciation: 'n&n
Function: pronoun, singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nAn, from ne not + An one -- more at NO, ONE
1 : not any
2 : not one : NOBODY
3 : not any such thing or person
4 : no part : NOTHING

Does that help?

Because a couple posts later you say these phantom rankers do exist, but just in a small percentage. So you answered your own challenge. Now if I were to prove to you there are more than a small percentage would you then challenge me to show they are in a majority?

Come up with something more than conjecture and speculation that comps have effect at all on the ratings.  That's pretty simple and straightforward, isn't it?

For someone who asked to stay on subject, you sure change it a lot. But go back and read what I've already written. Respond to those, don't keep pretending you have reading comprehension problems.

As to my 3-4-5 number, the difference between my numbers and your utterly baseless premise are that although not perfect or scientific, my numbers have a basis in fact and, as a result, ARE substantiated (contrary to your allegation that they are unsubstaniated).  

And what is my utterly baseless premise? My guess is you have no idea.

These are facts -- and they are from my own first hand knowledge.  And the fact is that out of my total rater universe, I can see a couple of guys maybe (maybe!) being swayed by bad play.

Argue that all you want. I've never once argued the reverse. Perhaps you should point your wrath elsewhere. All I'm saying is that first you said such raters don't exist (read above where you use the word none and then you said they do exist and now you say they may exist. I think you should next straighten it out in your own head before proceeding any further.

assuming I"m a total idiot

I don't think you are, because in other threads I've seen you post intelligent things. But this thread you are failing miserably.

then even if everything you are arguing is true

You need to first figure out my argument and then come back and argue against it. Creating my argument and then arguing against it is called creating a strawman. The rest of your post argues against your own strawman.

Dan, about all I can say is that your logic is so backwards it's forwards!!

Not my logic, that would be your very own strawman's logic.

Why are these principles in place?  What is their genesis?  Their genesis stems not from some high-minded principle or some perverse Catholic-guilt form of self-denial, but rather from the bottom line.  People don't buy newspapers if they think the paper is bought by the subjects of its reporting.

Jeez, I'm sitting at my computer drooling. That's what happens when people state the obvious like that, I salivate.

So, given the fact that the ratings -- despite all their purported flaws -- increase circulation, it's pretty silly to argue that the golf publications should impose rules, the function of which is to do what the ratings already do, ie, increase circulation!

Maybe you should read what I write rather than come up with someone else's argument.

Dan King

When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.
 --James Lileks

[RJ_Daley]

Richie G. says:

Methinks the raters doth protest too much.....

Siv says:

So, given the fact that the ratings -- despite all their purported flaws -- increase circulation, it's pretty silly to argue that the golf publications should impose rules, the function of which is to do what the ratings already do, ie, increase circulation!

I wonder, why do the raters so stridently defend their system, despite obvious evidence of flaws in the methodology.  Do they really believe they are doing some great public service - informing fellow golfers of the best places to play?  Well, most of the readers obviously will never have access to those top 100 that are rated so diligently and "fairly", particularly the private courses.  Who is the market for this product that these raters so generously devote their free time and weekends, scholging it out to travel to yet another GC in the hinterlands, to have one go and come up with an unbiased rating?  Is it so that the average golf magazine reader will know what is the best place to play and not waste their time searching or inquiring on their own?  

Or, is it the participation in a group think, peer group generated system that the marketting department of magazines know will boast their circulation? ($$$)  Is the system a service to readers, or a fortuitous scheme to sell magazines, while at the same time perpetuating a freeloading system of access to a grateful class of people that happen to have the inside tract on who you know and blow to become a rater, with the only requirement that you don't upset the applecart and criticise "the system".

Oh, it is the motive of having a rankings that promotes wide spread controversy of golfers arguing if the rankings are well founded, and that The ABC club deserves to be 12 slots ahead of the XYZ club?  Well, there is a noble cause!  It takes our minds off of war and peace, wealth and class devision...

Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic and critical here of folks I truly enjoy playing golf with, and participating in these discussions here on GCA.com.  But, I also have to be doubtful that any of you who doth protest too much really think you are bringing truth and understanding to the golf world.  You are part of a very fortuitous and beneficial system to get great golf at a great price, sometimes free!  And if not free, accessible...  And, you help sell magazines to boot.  It is a win-win- and win some more.


Copying the Dan King tradition just once...

Give me a break... John Stossel

[Brad Klein]

Gee, I didn't realize the magazines had such a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels doing the ratings - all of them self-serving pigs looking to oink out on the goodies.

I was of the impression that the magazines, or at least some (one) of them, strove to select decent ladies and gentlemen, and that while they monitored their behavior and had a code of behavior they didn't need to video tape and scrutinize all of their comings and goings. Looks like some of you folks have a mighty suspicious account of human nature. Good to know at least a few of you actually believe that some people are capable of acting honorably.

[Mike_Golden]

I find it really hard to believe that so much energy is being wasted on such an unimportant topic.  I'm guessing that GCA participants who have become raters over the years (mostly because of their participation on this site) form a skewed element of the overall rater population across all the magazines.

For the most part, with a few notable exceptions, those of you who are panelists and participate here do a completely fair and unbiased job of rating.  I've never heard one of my GCA buddies who is a rater offer an opinion that might be slanted or biased because of the treatment received at the golf course.  About 5 years ago I had the pleasure of sharing several rounds at PGA West with Messrs. Naccarato, Vostinak, and Vanderborgt where all the golf (and lunch) was comped, yet we all still hated the Norman course, appreciated the Stadium for what is was, and loved La Quinta Mountain.  

The fact that you receive comps some or all of the time doesn't mean squat to me, and the rest of you shouldn't care either.  I've been comped a few times when playing with raters, I'm guessing a bunch of others here have had the same, and I didn't hear any of us rushing up to the desk to offer to pay for our rounds, did we?  I've hosted lots of raters at my club (which doesn't comp raters), and never cared about what was sent in to the magazine nor even asked other than to find out if my guest had a good time.

The fact is that most of the golfing public has views about golf courses far different from those typically expoused on GCA.  And so does the majority of the rater population as well.  So why waste all this time bitching and moaning about it?  

[RJ_Daley]

BK, I assume most of that was shot at me...even though it seems to ascribe a more vitriolic sense of indignation through wording than my actual post utilized.  No one stated raters are pigs or dirty rotten scoundrels.  But a few posters here did call into consideration that perhaps some doth protest too much, followed by some conjecture of why that may be so.

BTW, it isn't exactly a secret among many pro-shop employees that a few raters from whichever magazine did infact sort of wear out their welcome with some rather "less than mannerly" freeloading behavior, also demanding free play for their companions.  I remember a few threads some years back on that issue, and vows by the powers that be (oh that's you and Whitten for the most part, isn't it) that such behavior would not be tolerated.  Were those reports wrong?

I'm very sure (no sarcasm here) that you do strive to engage very solid ladies and gentlemen to carry out the efforts to rank or rate courses.  But, maybe the efforts of those ladies and gentlemen are also more motivated by a self serving process than any truly valuable service to the world of golfers.  Maybe, when weighed and balanced, the value of the rankings process is to the magazine to sell publications and weighs a lot heavier than the service to steer golfers who read the rankings to all the right places.  Maybe the magazine sales and ad sales are a dominant factor.  Maybe, those that are part of the overall process do in deed have a very nice thing going for themselves, and that is far more important than even considering alternatives to improve the process and system they are a part of (even though a good argument has been made by many that the system is bias on some level with respect to the actual validity of what and how the product is measured).

I for one know many raters, and they are fully capable of acting honorably.  I know they try very hard to be fair and unbaised.  But, I also know not one of them have the wisdom to do a truly accurate job in one play (bad play=slanted rating or good play = the same).  I suspect that one play by even a 100 folks won't really get a complete view, because that 100 folks all come from the same system that rewards them in certain ways not to upset any conventional wisdom developed by the rest of the group.

No, you and your raters aren't bad folks.  But, others that don't necessarily buy into "the system" don't need to be characterised as saying nasty things they didn't say, just so you can defend your gig.

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
So, you see, Dan, these purported hard-and-fast strict rules of journalistic integrity are (1) based solely on driving cash to the bottom line and (2) are hardly hard or fast or strict.

I understand as a lawyer this might be a hard concept to grasp, but some professions have standards far beyond "what can we get away with." Yes, there are publications with low standards, and Golf Digest might not have the lowest standard of any publication. That's a hell of an award to accept. What do you say in your acceptance speech?

I've worked in journalism for a number of years. I've always worked places that had a higher standard than "what can we get away with." (except for a brief stint with PGATour.com.

Brad Klein writes:
Gee, I didn't realize the magazines had such a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels doing the ratings - all of them self-serving pigs looking to oink out on the goodies.

The government has lots of people working for them that are good people. I used to work in the government and I met lots of good people. But that isn't enough to overcome a broken system. When government has unethical practices, well it doesn't take many bad examples to ruin things for the good people.

The fundamental flaw with the rankings systems is it encourages those being reviewed to pay the freight. This results in skewed results.

Dan King

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
 --Barry Goldwater

[RJ_Daley]

Mike G., in the interest of full disclosure

I have been with raters who were being comped, and I got comped too!   In my defense, I had my money out, and did indeed buy some things in the pro shop I really didn't want or need to make up for it, and even bought stuff for the raters who got me comped. I'm no paragon of virtue.  Yet, whatever I thought of those comped round courses, also didn't mean squat other than to bias me and my personal views of those courses, because I am not a rater and don't effect rankings.  And, I admit that I came away from those times thinking that the fellow that got me access or a comp was a nice guy for including me in his rating gig.  I've also paid full freight at some great places, yet just the mere fact that I got access to otherwise unavailable courses to me, is a comp of sorts.

But again, I'm not a rater, so my bais doesn't matter on the integrity of the ranking and rating system.  Unless, it was a factor in the mind of the rater that got me in there, which is a sort of benefit in its own way of making that rater feel he got very nicely taken care of for himself and his buddies.

[Dan King]

Mike Golden writes:
The fact that you receive comps some or all of the time doesn't mean squat to me, and the rest of you shouldn't care either.

But I do care.

Oh, perhaps not as much worried about the ranking as I am worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow or worried about my hair falling out and the state of the world today. But if we only all decide on our No. 1 worry and only spend time worrying about that, the little things won't ever get taken care of.

So why waste all this time bitching and moaning about it?  

Why waste your time complaing about people bitching and moaning?

Dan King

The only thing a drunkard needs
is a suitcase and a trunk.
The only time he's satisfied
is when he's on a drunk.

Fills his glasses to the brim,
passes them around
only pleasure he gets out of life
is hoboin' from town to town.
 --Georgia Turner and Bert Martin

[Mike_Golden]

Dan,

You are certainly allowed to care about whatever you want, I'm just surprised by your passion about something so relatively unimportant.

All I did was give my opinion (once) with a post that I believe had a somewhat different perspective than most of the others.

I don't think that's a waste of my time...

[Dan King]

Mike Golden writes:
You are certainly allowed to care about whatever you want

Thanks Mike.

I'm just surprised by your passion about something so relatively unimportant.

I'm surprised you can read passion into my posts.

I started in this thread saying I enjoyed Geoff's column. I ended up arguing with some people I think very highly of about journalistic integrity. I am just surprised that some of these people so casually brush the whole issue aside. It's made me re-think my own position.

It has only crystalized my opinion that the rankings aren't just bad for golf but also poorly managed. I just keep coming up with I'm right and they are wrong. As they say in Paraguay, ce' la vie.

I'm spending more time on this than I normally would because GolfObserver, which I typically work on, has been down for going on three days with no idea when it will return. Hopefully the computer will be fixed soon and I can then return to doing my job.

Dan King

It is with passions as it is with fire and water, they are good servants, but bad masters.
 --Roger L'Estrange

[ForkaB]

Dna

Here's to hoping that the GO computer is permaneently damaged.  We need you here on GCA casting your pearls amongst us swine.

[Jerry Kluger]

Presuming raters do get comped and presuming it is universally so, then they would have no prejudice in their ratings as all courses have comped them.  The fact, however, is that not all courses comp raters and for that matter not all courses give access to their course for raters.  The shame would be if raters would only be willing to play courses where they are comped.  The courses which do not permit raters access without a member who invites them still seem to be way up there, at least a course like ANGC or Pine Valley.  I don't know which of the modern courses do not give access to their course without them going through a member.  

If one is rating a course and their game is not up to snuff then I  don't see why they can't still do a good job rating the course.  Course conditions on the other hand, could make rating the course very difficult.  Say the wind is blowing 20 MPH in the opposite direction from the normal prevailing wind.  You are now playing the holes which were designed to be played downwind into a strong headwind and vice versa on the short holes.  Not only will play be difficult but trying to evaluate how a shot plays into a green, etc. will be very difficult - not impossible, but difficult.  I played Shinnecock under those conditions and it was very difficult to appreciate the course, and I would guess that Bethpage Black or the Ocean Course would be other examples where wind conditions could make the challenge of evaluating the course extremely difficult.

[A_Clay_Man]

The fact is that most of the golfing public has views about golf courses far different from those typically expoused on GCA.  And so does the majority of the rater population as well.  So why waste all this time bitching and moaning about it?  

Mike, this needs its own bandwith. But here goes anyway.
I believe the majority of golfers grew up on penal and/or dictatorial designs, born of the post WWII RTJones era, with few ever having been exposed to other design styles. Most of what was considered good had to have the word "Championship" in it's name, or it just wasn't worth the effort to play. This constant diet of one type or style of course design therefore has inherent bias to that majoriy of which you speak. Probably an example of Ameircan ego why "we" didn't adapt back to a more core principled approach to design, sooner. But, it is better late than never.

I for one, was hoping to share what I have learned, from decades of being one of those public majority types.  Hopefully influencing someone that "Championship" lay-outs, don't fit their game, and therefore is not a good design for them to seek out, and plunk down thier hard earned money and their time on. Call me naive but that was the lure.

[RJ_Daley]

For some reason, I'm feeling a little "Barneyesque" today.  So, I may piss a few more folks off with my inconsequential contrarianism, but here goes.  Maybe I will end up way off track, but what the heck... there is one round in the cylinder and I'm spinning the wheel...

I skimmed for a moment while at the Dentist office in some golf magazine, and saw a list of estimated membership intitiation fees of some of those hot new L.I. courses that are all our darlings here.  I think I saw the Bridge at about 200K and Friars Head up there somewhere and a conjecture that Sebonack is coming in at $500K.  Now I wonder...

Anyone that can afford that (let's focus on Sebonack) really don't give a crap what I as an individual think  Yet they must have some very strong motivation to buy what they think is the best, and pay for the prestiqe that comes with such a membership.  Anyone that endeavors to develop and create such a project must have a very stong will to create the best, and have all those people that are of great import in this golf and social world and can run in those circles, express desire to be a member of this dream project by paying such a sum.  

So, what must occur to make this fly?  The developer has to have someone to design and build this project with credibility and reputation to have unquestionably been the best player and have done the best in golf course design.  So, Mr P., hedges his bet and not only gets a fellow to fit one of these prestige catagories, but gets two people to cover the best name in golf and arguably the best or hottest of the newest archies.  

So, the saga begins.  The very fact that not one but two big names are in the deal is preliminary hype onto itself.  Lots of excited anticipation to build upon in order to sell those memberships.  Now, we get a managed process during design construction to build the legend before it is even a legend.  All sorts of things in play, not the least of which is the neighborhood that this course is going to exist in, and the cost of developing it and thus what it will cost those descerning folk that will throw their cake in to join the club.

So, what happens if it is panned by critics?  What if it is a clinker of a design, doesn't really excite, doesn't have that certain something that places it unquestionably in the finest designs in the country?  I mean it isn't open yet.  That is theoretically possible, isn't it?  JN didn't win every major he entered, and TD won't have all his course in the top 100.

What must then occur if the project just doesn't meet the advanced expectations?  

Perhaps, the greatest hype and buy-off and peer pressure campaign in history to encourage the rating and ranking movers and shakers to tout the course.  Am I wrong?  Would the people with so much at stake not do everything, including putting on a very lavish campaign of perks and access to
"raters" to very lofty social circles to make sure that the course is placed in a position of prestiqe?  

What sort of independent critique and ethic would it take for the group of raters from both major rating and ranking "organizations" to break with the pack and declare the place a clinker?  Would they have that much independence?

There is no actual situation in reality here because it probably is not the case that the design of that project has been screwed up.  Although, there is always that possibility that it doesn't live up to the advance hype.  

But, will the group as a whole of raters and their oversight publications tell you if it were a mediocre course, with a full court press on if that were the case?  Should it shape up that way will the pressure be on to taut the prestige factor up?

When a lot of dough is on the line, people have hyped and tauted stocks that didn't deserve the high analyst ratings haven't they?  There are even laws that are supposed to curtail such over hyping in the markets.  But, it gets done anyway.  What makes you think that a voluntary system of rating and rankings governed only from the desk of a magazine editor can enforce a code of conduct can't be manipulated to meet certain needs?

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
I didn't say that there are no raters (as in "none") who allow bad play to influence their votes.  What I said was that I've heard no basis in fact for the claim.

Huh?

You know raters that let bad play influence their ratings and others know raters who let bad play influence their rating, yet there is no basis in fact for the claim that there are raters letting bad play influence their ratings? You must be using some sort of logic that has never been tried before.

Seriously, will one of this dynamic duo of raterhaters please explain to me:

Who pray tell would that be?

exactly how bad play=bad rating actually happens?  What is the basis in fact for this conclusion you've drawn?

Why don't you tell us since you are the one that admits it happens once every 3-4-5 guys.

Dan King

I could eat alphabet soup and sh&# better lyrics.
 --Johnny Mercer (describing a British musical)

[Dan King]

I need some help here. Anybody still reading this pissing contest between Shivas and I please chime in. I'm more than wiling to admit I'm wrong, I just don't see it right now. But I will admit it is possible I can't get past my original interpretation of what I thought Shivas was saying. I'm trying, but it just isn't happening. But if others, besides Shivas, will tell me I am misunderstanding, then I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong, apologize and move on. I just don't see it.

Shivas wrote:
"Nobody has ever shown any basis in fact that raters allow bad play to affect their rankings"

and Shivas later says he knows of raters who allow bad play to affect their play:
But the point is that for every one of those there are 3-4-5 guys who admire a course for its ability to kick your ever lovin' ass in numerous ways, both blatantly and subtlely, foreseeable and unforeseeable!

What is the glaring misinterpretation I'm missing.

But the thing that's pissing me off more than anything is the fact that you still refuse to address the utter stupidity of the position you're taking in the first place!  You still refuse to address how the position that raters rating poorly based on poor play is different than people rating Wrigley poorly based on the Cubs' poor play.

Please before you say this again, go back through my posts and find where I ever took any such position. I know it is more fun to constantly repeat this without proof, but maybe that is why I have such a hard time understanding your earlier point, because you are so dishonest with this allegation.

In this thread I have been against rankers taking comp. I've never once said what you think I said. The closest I ever came was that I know people who play poorly and then judge a course poorly. Obviously, since rankers are super-beings they wouldn't have the same foible as many of the people I know.

Dan King

True and False are attributes of speech, not of thing. And where speech is not, their is neither Truth or Falsehood.
 --Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan)

[A_Clay_Man]

Dan, I think you are both right and wrong.

It does appear you caught the counselor backpeddeling on his own words, re people who evaluate courses too subjecively. I know its true for non-raters to do so. So, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the assertion raters do it too. If Shivas wants proof, he's just wasting bandwidth argung semantics.

However Daniel I still believe you have an inherent flaw in your thinking re comped fees. That flaw is the apparent high cost you place on that round. Firstly, the price of the green fee, is not the cost of the round. If we cannot agree on that, I'll have to stop there. I will wait for a response before continuing.

[Jerry Kluger]

Dan: Regarding your concern that raters not be comped I played NGLA, Shinnecock and Maidstone this year on consecutive days as an unaccompanied guest - it cost me more than $1,500.  If a rater had to pay a similar fee at all the private courses that they rated there would be very few who could afford it. Mind you, I think it was the best $1500 I ever spent on golf but it is still a lot of money and those are very special courses.  I know that if I were a rater and had to pay those kinds of fees I wouldn't be able to afford it.

To repear my earlier post, I think you can get by bad playing much easier than bad conditions in trying to evaluate a course.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()