Andy:

Gotcha, well said.  I guess my problem understanding this is that I do ALL of my golf on a "personal" basis - I am never there as part of a job... or at least I've never thought of it that way.  This too is food for thought.

TH

And then I insult the hell out of many hosts, for whom the money is nothing and it's the thought and graciousness that counts...

When you're a rater, it's business, not personal. You are doing a job for the public by discerning if the course is worth someone's hard earned money and/or valuable time.

Mike B:

I've been reviewing this thread but you're last post about simply "looking" at the course alone is absurd.

Do you review food by simply looking at it on the plate?

Do you simply review a movie by only viewing the trailer?

In both cases -- the answer is no.

To the group:

I've been involved with ratings for quite some time and let me point out what others have stated. If you demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of the prospective course you wish to visit (as Don M indicated) you will be in a much better position to accomplish your task and not inconvenience the course in anyway. Courtesy works wonders by those who consistently practice it.

One other thing -- people who are raters and who do travel frequently -- must pay their own expenses to get to the sites in question. I didn't receive an expense tab from GD when I rated for them for 17 years. They got "free" advice from
me -- in the business world they would call that a consultant and some sot of compensation would be involved.

Last thing -- if the magazines wanted to go strictly in-house instead of having panelists that would be one clear option. The key though would be to have in-house people cover as much, if not more, ground than the panels do now.  

P.S. If people on this thread actually believe I (or other dedicated panelists) will be swayed one way or the other by the fact that I payed for a green fee or was comped then you don't know me. I love the game and believe my credibility is worth more than that.

Scott Burroughs,

I have no problem with your perception of golf pro's if that is what it is.  I would agree that the stereotypes you are implying definitely do exist in my profession.  Ultimately, the difference lies in the fact that I have chosen a profession where I can enforce more change and create more enjoyment for the people that play the game than any other profession.  Can many of these "raters" say that?  If not, then what makes them so special as to expect special treatment?

I am on the front lines of trying to make this a better game in every aspect.  Just like thousands of other professionals, I have donated my life's work and soul to making this game more enjoyable and better.  I just can't understand how those that have been added to some panel, because their buddy put them on it, can have the balls to try to force a kid behind the couter (who's making minimum wage and dedicating his life to make your golfing experience better) to give him a break on the price at a course.  It's a joke.  Do I come to your place of business expecting or even asking for a break in price with nothing in return for trade?  No.  Yet, this is what I have been faced with at certain courses on a weekly if not daily basis.  And rudely, mind you!

Golf pros have a blown out of proportion reputation for being experts in the seedier things in life (i.e. booze, cigarettes, strip clubs, hookers, gambling)  .  If these stereotypes are true should I be entitled to free sex from the Bunny Ranch?  Or hey, how about just a free hand-job?  While the devil on my shoulder says yes, the answer is really no.

Don't get me wrong, many of the stereotypes you mentioned are true in some professionals, so go ahead and lay them on, because in the end I have earned my comped meal ticket onto many golf courses and I can sleep conscience free.

Plus, no one seems to want to answer the question of why there are not more golf professionals and course superintendents on these "rating" panels.  It seems like an obvious and systematic exclusion to me.


Shivas,

I agree that during a time when the course is empty that there is nothing wrong with an owner or pro letting a "rater" on the course for free or at a reduced rate.  You are absolutely right in your point about it being the owners choice.  In my experience, courses (especially resorts) are afraid to turn "raters" away for any reason and will bend over backward to get them out because they are afraid that they will get a bad rating if they don't accomodate them.  This is a problem that management companies and memberships need to iron out themselves, one which I am more than happy to help in.

My issue isn't necessarily about who's to blame.  My issue is that there are enough "bad seeds" out there ruining the image of the rater in the minds of golf pros which will do nothing but shut down comped golf in the long run.  If anything, I am trying to help "raters" keep their meal ticket by telling them to clean up their house.


Lou Duran,

Re: your comments on DoG's you have spoken with.  I agree with the comments they shared with you.  Many "raters" seem to be extremely poor golfers, which shouldn't be an issue, except that so MANY I have seen are really bad.  I think it's ok to have the occasional hack on a panel to broaden the opinions, but over 50% of "raters" that I watched tee off the first tee, at a very popular resort I used to work at, dribbled their tee shot.  Plus, many don't take notes, which is incomprehensible to me if you are there to "rate" it.  DoG's will get upset if "raters" don't like certain features of their course because it's that DoG's job to try to make everything right.  Wouldn't you be bummed if "raters" were criticizing work that you think is good?

I have reported "bad seeds" to management in the past but it goes no further than that.  The courses I experienced this at were too afraid of the consequences of reporting incidents would have on our course's rating.  

Let me make this clear for you and everyone else.....

My experience with the majority of "raters" has been very positive and I think there are plenty of guys out there that are doing the right thing as "raters".  Unfortunately, I have seen too MANY guys abuse the system in unbelievably improper ways that my view of "raters" is very sour presently.  I think rating panels should be more careful at who the bring on these panels and should weed out those that are abusing their privileges.

As for the KPIII, I hope to be there partnering with you once again.  My wife is due with our first child in mid-January so we'll see if I get the green light to do it.  As of right now, I'm in.  I will be probably more rusty this time than I was last year as I will be in NY the entire winter with my wife because of the pregnancy.  If parenthood is as time consuming as I have heard I'm sure I want have many oportunities to play much golf over the winter.  We'll still kick butt though, don't worry.


Jeff F.

Dan K:

Again, the general thought is a good one, but the presumptions are wrong, the focus is misplaced, and it's really much ado about nothing.  Read all my other crap on this, if you care to.  

TH

Tom --

Questions:

1. What presumptions are wrong?

2. How is the focus misplaced?

3. Is it possible I'm not talking about YOU, but about the SYSTEM?

Dan

Tom H-

We are probably talking about the same thing, though perhaps you misunderstood what I said.  Believe me, the DoG was not trying to cozy up to me.  He too was puzzled about the rating process (his course had dropped in the ratings despite numerous improvements), and was concerned that perhaps raters didn't possess the requisite playing skills which would enable then to evaluate the course properly (e.g. how can someone opine on certain shot values if they can't execute the shots?).  I've had this thrown in my face in another sport in high school after I called a fifth foul on my coach during an alumni game I was refereeing.  This authority figure didn't take kindly to leaving the stage and refused to do so for awhile.  When I  wouldn't restart the game until he sat down (to the applause of the student body and visitors), he remarked something to the effect that those who can't play can't ref (amazing how sometimes little insignificant incidences leave a indelible mark).  Personally, just as some very fine teachers are not good players, I have no reason to believe that one has to be scratch to be an effective rater.

Tom, you don't need to apologize for having been selected as a rater and receiving the few courtesies that come along with it.  It is nice that you patronize the pro shop, something that I have seen repeatedly by numerous raters.  Personally, I have enough hats, shirts, vests, etc. and I must say that I feel uncomfortable when I have more than a couple of logos on.  Anyways that's my excuse for being cheap and I am sticking to it.


 

Lou:

Understood.  Re the course in question, it was more funny to me and a curiosity that the very nice DoG would tell us both the same thing!

Re buying stuff, well... usually I want to... but there are times where I just feel I should - if they've been very nice to me, could use the business, you know.  But I too try to stick to the one logo at a time mode, and it is tough given all the stuff I have!

TH

Tom,

Patrick:

I understand that, and I don't doubt your experiences.

My question is then, what exactly would you change?  Just make all gratis rounds absolutely prohibited?  You obviously know how problematic that would be, logistically, in terms of etiquette, and otherwise..  

I guess my point is this is really much ado about nothing.

Perhaps,

But, perhaps it might not be a bad idea to get feedback from the club with respect to the rater, a quality control element.

And, perhaps the magazines could re-evaluate their raters from time to time.

I'm suggesting fine tuning, not overhauling

Patrick:

Fair enough.  Reading all this, it seems to me that would be a hell of an idea... My naive experiences are isolated to the fine gentlemen participating on hear who are also raters, so it's harder for me to see the problem.  But the more I hear about all the bad apples out there, well... Your thoughts seem to make great sense to me.

TH

As a former rater, I can no longer restrain myself from participating in this discussion. In my three years as a GD rater, I did not inform the club that I was a rater, except for a handful of instances. I always sent a thank you note to my host or to the professional. I always bought something in the pro shop and almost always paid my own green fees. I took the view that I wanted to be like the NY times restaurant reviewer. Stealth had to be better for the process.

The best way to remove conflict of interest is for the panelists to be paid some small stipend for expenses by the magazine, and to be forbidden from revealing themselves in any way to the host club.

Shivas,
Forgive me, I haven't read this entire thread. Are you a rater for any of the magazines?

Raters shouldn't get comped. Period. They should pay the green fees and be reimbursed by their employer

Dan K, raters are not employed by the magazines, they don't get any payments whatsoever.  It is the magazines that get the so-called 'valuable' service of the raters' immense time, money, and efforts to provide ratings for them to sell magazines.


Jeff F,

My stereotype of PGA pros was intended to show how portraying some as all blemishes everyone, as I know you are not one of those stereotypes based on your posts.

You ask whether the raters' contributions are worthy of special treatment.  The service they provide is read and followed (for better or worse) by millions of golfers who use them as a guide as where they choose to play - creating desire to play more places and hence pariticipate/spend more in the game.  I know I used GD's various lists as gospel (mostly - until I found this site) and as a guide on where I chose to play.  I once made an entire northeast trip based solely on the Top 75 Affordable Public list when it was a regular feature.  That doesn't mean special treatment, necessarily, but there is a service provided that I used religiously for many years, while I've never once used a PGA professional's service for lessons in the past 30 years (although I know now that I need it!  )

Quote

Raters shouldn't get comped. Period. They should pay the green fees and be reimbursed by their employer

Dan K, raters are not employed by the magazines, they don't get any payments whatsoever.  It is the magazines that get the so-called 'valuable' service of the raters' immense time, money, and efforts to provide ratings for them to sell magazines.

Scott --

I know they're not employees of the magazines and don't get payments. I was using "employer" broadly.

They are certainly acting as agents of the magazines, if not as their employees.

My stand remains: Raters should get no comped rounds. They should pay the full freight, get a receipt, and send it to their magazine for reimbursement.