Please tell me how a top private club benefits from the ranking process.  

Increased sales of logo wear in the pro shop.    

Wayne,

              Is a ranker a kind of a rater/wanker hybrid?    

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion.  If courses don't want ranking panelists they tell the Magazine and we go only as guests of others.  We don't expect the honor of playing a course, we are asked by the club to come either explicitly or implicitly.

Many of us have played a great many of the top 100 courses before we became panelist.  I had played 45 of them.  

There are courses that do want panelists to come and many panelists could not play them f they had to pay greens fees.  Not everyone has deep pockets.

Not too many years ago Oakmont explicitly asked for panelists to play.  Winged Foot did  even two years ago.  I didn't go because I have played them because I know members.  Why they want it I'm not really ceertain, but it is important to come movers and shakers in the clubs.

I'll go to a course and hear "we don't care about the rankings." and then get complaints that such and such a course is ranked higher.

I have been a panelist for almost 15 years.  I always feel honored and privileged to play courses whether they are public or private, top 100 or not.

This has nothing to do with money or access.  It is about the power unqualified people have over qualified opinions.

Tom,

Deal!  Thanks, and I offer you my cyber hand for you to shake.

Tommy,

"There are courses that do want panelists to come and many panelists could not play them f they had to pay greens fees.  Not everyone has deep pockets."

This is true of non-panelists as well.  The difference is, non-panelists that can't pay don't play and don't expect to.  That can be a big difference.

Gib,

I don't know why that is.  However, I'd be shocked if it was always the case as you suggest.  If so, I guess you are wrong a lot  As for your upcoming rant, thanks for the warning.  I'll be sure to avoid it as I have better things to do.  Now that Tom H and I are at a draw, I have no further issues to consider on this thread.  Have at it without me.

Craig,

I distinguish rankers (magazine panelists) from raters (those that rate courses for rating and slope).  I can see how the term rankles rankers so I'll go with Huck's nomenclature and call them magazine panelists, it is less abrasive.  But a combination rater/wanker works for some  

Gentlemen,

Please read Mr. Erdmann's post. This is a club issue, not a rater issue.
Course owners have the right to do what they want.
Why does anyone have a problem with a club, public or private, doing what they think is best for their business, customers or membership?
People talk about a sense of entitlement coming from raters.
I think it's awfully bold for folks to step out and tell owners how to operate their businesses.
Again, that argument has nothing to do with the magazines or the raters.
Mr. Warne has had some issues with raters. He and the club made what they believed was the right choice.
How can I say that decision is wrong?
Mr. Doak and others have stated that ratings matter for some courses and their management and membership take it very seriously.
They chose to get involved with the process so, what they do is really none of your business.
What I find really interesting is Mr. Morrison's comment on "perceived leverage".
I can see it now, some pro on the phone sweating and screaming to his staff , "Bob, the rating dentist from Cincinnati wants a time next week, let's go to DEFCON 5!! "
Please.
If a club is not interested in being part of the process, why would it worry about telling a rater no?
I think any club would weigh the good and bad of inviting raters and act appropiately.
If you don't like their answer, utilize your right to choose.
 

It is quite simple.  In the mind of many clubs and courses, rankings mean quite a lot.  There can be a lot on the line for new courses, second or third-tier courses, publics and resorts....

...In general rankers seek privileges and entitlements for a service that is valueless.

Wayne, in the same post you refer to both the importance of the ratings to many courses and also refer to the service of providing those ratings as "valueless."

I don't have a side to take in this discussion, other than being a person who occasionally peruses these lists, but I just wondered if you see the logical disconnect there. I freely admit that I may be missing something.

Question - to whom are the ratings most important?

Older, famous clubs that want to cement their place in the pantheon of greats?

New clubs, who want to join the party?

Magazines, who sell more copies of the ratings issues?

Magazine Panelists, who use the cachet of being a rater to get to play a bunch of courses that they couldn't access any other way?

Golfers, who might not know about some of the great private courses of the world without a set of rankings (hopefully with pictures) to show them the way?

Craig,
I think Michael H can attest to the fact that in Germany the rater/wanker hybrid is called  a Weinershaven.

Mike

I am unwilling to wax poetically or otherwise on the subject.

Now can we have the guys name and magazine affiliation? I am finding this hard to believe, did this guy produce some sort of identification?

This thread is getting a little haywire because I would defend the Childs, Freemans and Cirbas of the rating world but really have to laugh about some of these stories.

Quote from: corey_miller on October 08, 2007, 04:19:09 PM

Now can we have the guys name and magazine affiliation? I am finding this hard to believe, did this guy produce some sort of identification?

This thread is getting a little haywire because I would defend the Childs, Freemans and Cirbas of the rating world but really have to laugh about some of these stories.

I find the story (the last part in particular) very hard to believe too.  If someone felt up the staff, the magazine shouldn't be called....the police would be a better choice.  

CPS

I can't believe it took so long for the accuser to become the accused.

And after all this time, it suddenly occurs to me:

What are the RULES that govern Ranker Behavior?

Are there any?

What are they?

I would love to have the panelists for the various publications post the rules that govern them.

Mike et al.,

Broaching the subject of college football has put me in a foul humor, understandably as the Court Jester somehow managed to slink into the King's bedroom and foul his bed.

My dyspeptic condition was exacerbated immeasurably by another humorless debate starring Wayne Morrison and my favorite leprechaun, who was left to fend for himself at the hands of a particularly morose resident of our Treehouse.

Evidently, possessing a club tie with a wicker basket anoints those with the power of omnipotent wisdom, or perhaps that is part of the membership ceremony.

I've wonderful friend whose home was adjacent to the West Course who takes an opposite view; every club has its share of each.

No matter, the entire stream of this thread is nauseatingly offensive to the vast majority of us who comport ourselves with the highest decorum as raters, and only in the rarest circumstances darken the door of one of America's "trophy clubs" in an "official capacity."

The simple truth is that 90% of the time, we are thoughtfully rating new offerings or remodeled clubs proud to show their makeovers to a panel of experts.

I have never once - marching under either flag - pulled out my card and tried to two-step onto a Top 100 golf course. Not once. The truth is - and this is a liberating condition as I am not intimidated to wrestle with anyone on this board - "getting on" to most any golf course is a simple matter of making a call or two.

That is not arrogance, just fact. Most "raters" - as we are often derisively dismissed - are blessed with friends all over the nation and do not consider their seat on the panel to be an entitlement program.

To me, it is an opportunity to learn.

Now, do I use that card to investigate hidden gems? Absolutely. When not battling this damned arthritis, I am ruthless about seeking out experiences off the beaten path; the most I ever do is inquire of a "rater or industry rate."

As for  the argument that we are afforded more access than the members with guests, I scream poppycock. I ALWAYS leave it to the Pro to decide on the time; if it is a private club, my preference is to play with a member - hopefully the club historian or even an assistant professional.

Because of my business travel, I am usually alone. However, I have never run into a situation where a "playing partner" was not welcomed; it is naturally understood that the rate for the "friend" will be higher.

That stated, we all know that the "unaccompanied rate" at many private clubs is a merciless rip job, so to make the specious argument that raters ought to peel off three or four C-notes ignores that the panel is comprised of men and women with an eye for history and architecture.

One might as well ask for a personal balance sheet to go with the rater's application if we are going to pretend that money should never be an issue. I always used to sneer at the GM panel, because with one notable exception (Ran), people like Bryant Gumbel are comp'ed wherever they go. Even if they were not, three hundred dollars against an annual salary of 10 million is a pittance.

To suggest that a conga-line of panelists are responsible for monopolizing the tee at courses like NGLA or Merion is preposterous. Unless the golf course has been specifically assigned, I cannot imagine there would be more than a trickle of panelist traffic at the Top 100.

Further, panelists invariably leave the grounds in better condition than they found it - and move along faster than the tottering club-yuppies who crawl around the golf course at the brisk clip of an Arab Caravan.

Every club has the option either welcome panelists or not. One golf course in the San Joaquin Valley went through a remodel that came out superb, and yet withdrew their name from consideration and asked that no panelists be extended the courtesy of play.

Fair enough. No harm, no foul and no offense taken.

Personally, I can think of two-dozen times when there were no tee times available at a given course, and instead of spinning the dial trying to find an alternative, I was granted permission to walk and photograph the golf course.

I think how an individual views the concept of "rating panels" speaks directly to their personal beliefs in the integrity of their fellow golfer - and also perhaps to their selfish unwillingness to share their home with a few fellow students of the game.