[Mike_Golden]

...I said that the Wrigley analogy makes the position that bad play=bad rating an equally stupid position to take.  To date, nobody has even tried to refute the stupidity of the bad play=bad rating position, but plently of folks (yourself included) have espoused and/or defended it.

Shivas,

Here's your refutation although it's the reciprocal-my guess is that hating a golf course very often leads to bad play, I know it does in my case-an example for me is Kapalua Plantation and I'm guessing for many others as well.  It's not universal, doesn't happen all the time, but does happen, and each and every one of us, if they are being honest, has to admit that they have walked away from a golf course knowing it.

So if that's true (and I doubt you could refute that), the inverse has to be true even if it's almost statistically insignficant relative to the total number of ratings used for an overall rating by a publication.

[Dan King]

Adam Clayman writes:
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.

Yes, it is cheaper for the course to comp a round (assuming it doesn't bump a paying customer) than it is for the ranker or the publication to pay for the round. I don't see why they makes it better or worse. It is still wrong. I haven't answered it because I agree with it and don't see the connection to the discussion.

Shivas writes:
Dan, I never said that you refuted my Wrigley analogy.  I said that the Wrigley analogy makes the position that bad play=bad rating an equally stupid position to take.  To date, nobody has even tried to refute the stupidity of the bad play=bad rating position, but plently of folks (yourself included) have espoused and/or defended it.

You consistently weaken your entire post by constantly saying this. Either quote me espousing or defending the position you have been giving to me or stop saying it. Come on, it should be easy. Click on my name, go to my profile, and you can get a list of my last 50 posts. Since you are so convinced at some point I said this, it should be easy enough to quote. If you fail to find it, post an apology.

Dan King

Ha, ha! what a fool Honesty is! and Trust his sworn brother, a very simple gentleman!
 --William Shakespeare (The Winter's Tale)

[John Goodman]

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

I don't have a dog in the fight, Dan, but the convincing you of 100% part does sound kind of like "espousing" to me . . .

[Dan King]

Shivas quotes me writing:
I think the opposite. Most people I have met can not get past their own game to honestly appraise a course.

That's it? You keep making your claim when I mentioned my circle of acquaintances? Guess what Shivas, the world is huge and most people are not rankers/raters.

Nice try, but you aren't even close, and I don't even need some crappy Columbus analogy to show that.

Dan King

Imagine the Lord talking French! Aside from a few odd words in Hebrew, I took it completely for granted that God had never spoken anything but the most dignified English.
 --Clarence Shepard Day (Life with Father)

[RJ_Daley]

Every time the ratings and rankings subject comes up here (frequently) a large % of the time it turns into a pissing match.  Grist for the mill in a sense that the controversy keeps the ratings game the magazines play on our lips and minds.   It becomes like a forensics debate club.  The winners are the magazines that get noticed and recognized by more folk due to controversy generated, and the loosers become us who express ideas to a tedium.  

This started out as recognition and commentary on whether Geoff Shackelford's article needling the rating game process was in bounds of good satirical humor, or overkill.  It is sort of like Saturday Night Live, you got to take the brilliant with the boorish.   It seems to me when evaluating a satirical piece, a lot of leeway must be given due to the genre.  

I for one find Geoff's piece pretty good.  I also have my notions of why ratings and rankings are a yawner and why I take them with a grain of salt.  This whole minute point of good play=good rating and vice versa is the least of in for me.  I wish I had more discipline and just avoided the ratings and rankings threads.  Because at some point it always comes down to a couple of really fine gentlemen whom I consider friends getting so dug into their point that all hell breaks loose.  

But like porn, or a train wreck, it just keeps attracting attention and it is hard to turn away, so I too get sucked in.

Dave, I take your point.  Mine was an add on to the bad play=bad rating.  Mine was one play equals flawed rating and many other rating criteria aspects including the high propensity to be unduly swayed by the perks that are thrown around.

But, unless someone further calls me a no good lying low down son of a seadog weasel, and Bush supporter... I'm outta this thread and hope I learnt my lesson this time...

[Gene Greco]

RJ:

  Sorry to drag you back in but I need to clarify a couple of things for you.

Sebonack is $1,000,000 to join as a founder member, not $200,000.

For many of the people who summer in the Hamptons, they just want a place to play and truly don't care what raters think of a particular golf course.

For years it didn't matter how much money one had - a membership in a golf club in the Hamptons was hard to come by.

 $550,000 for The Bridge, $450,000 - 1 mil for Sebonack, etc. - these numbers are just a C note to the powerful and mighty of New York.

It is my belief  The Bridge was bought and paid for by the owner and it doesn't matter much when the membership gets filled or what the number is to join. I believe the same goes for Sebonack.

All these courses out here will do well, fill their memberships and have happy golfers playing golf at THEIR golf club throughout the summer months.

[Andy Troeger]

   I think David is getting to the real matter here. Rating golf courses is very personal, and very subjective! One person likes Whistling Straits better, another Blackwolf Run. Why? Look at how all the magazines have very different methods and criteria for rating courses. As I've posted elsewhere I have my own (biased) system. It doesn't match any of them, but it works for me.

  There is no real possible way to have a rating system that everybody is going to agree on or that won't create a great deal of controversy, end of story. You can have 1 opinion or 1000, you can let the magazine, rater, or course pay for it, you can have a rater play good, bad, or mediocre. It comes down to personal preferences.  Again, David's point that certain courses favor certain players' games is vastly important to how those courses are seen. I putt better than I chip, so give me a course with big greens and wide fairways any day, because I figure if I can hit them I'll find a way to make my par. Narrow fairways and small greens, and I'm likely done on the 1st tee.

   With that said, most people can agree that a top 100 course is probably better than the local muni down the road. However to the guy who plays the local muni every Saturday morning with his buddies and loves every minute of it, who cares? I love lists as much as anybody, but I sure as heck wouldn't look at any of them as the end-all of what courses are the best in the world. They qualify as a good start in many cases though. Better yet, and as was mentioned by somebody, it creates interest in golf courses, GCA, and the wonderful game of golf.
 
    Oh yeah, and it gives us something very important to argue about!

[Andy Troeger]

  I love lists as much as anybody, but I sure as heck wouldn't look at any of them as the end-all of what courses are the best in the world. They qualify as a good start in many cases though.

Better amend this to better say what i meant...I should have said that I don't see any of them as the end-all as to the "ordering" of the best courses in the world. I don't see much difference between #37 and #44 on any of them.

[A_Clay_Man]

YA know David, You'd be right about everything in that post except for the fact that A comped green fee is not a substantial gratuity.  And 2) EVEN THOSE DIGEST RATERS PAID TWELVE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO ATTEND.

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
If 100 people on this board read that quote, 99 of them will take it to mean that you've made the argument.  The other is you.  Hey, YOU challenged ME to go find it, remember?  All I did was go find it.  It took all of 4 minutes.

Nice use of unsubstantiated numbers again. You get a judge to accept numbers you pull out of thin air?

I challenged you to find something supporting your argument not some random comment pulled from a post.

but you did make the point that most people you know can't get past their own games and analyze a course objectively.  That's the bad play = bad rating argument.

Only if you assume my acquaintances rate courses. Very few acquaintances of mine are raters. In other words, they don't rate courses. How can their play possible result in bad ratings when they don't rate courses? I know with a ranker mentality you can't get past the idea that people play courses without coming up with rankers numbers, but Shivas, you are a minority.

Unfortunately, I catch things like this.

Hehehehe

Huck says he knows a few raters who are subject to bad play=bad rating and you jump all over it as evidence of the point you're trying to make.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Considering you missed the point of the things you write, not really surprising you miss the point of things I write. Huck said he finds it better to rate a course by playing, I said I like to not be playing to analyze a course. Part of the reason I mentioned was in my experience many people I know can't analyze a course they are playing.

It is only you that takes Tom's and my experience and applying it to your ranking gang. Who knows why you decided to do that. Only you would be able to tell us. And I get a sneaking suspicion you won't.

But now you're backpeddaling from the exact same thing -- conclusions you've drawn from people you know as evidence of your point.

Nice try, but no parting gift for you.

The conclusion I draw from people I know is that many of them can not analyze a course without considering their own game.

I now see you could have mentioned:
Going out sans sticks allow a reviewer to visualize a variety of games beyond their own.

But that would have just been a misinterpretation, because all I was saying is there are others ways to review a course.

Either people you know are good evidence of a point or they aren't.

They are evidence of a point, just not the one you have decided to applying to them.

And as to your main point (that comps create a damning conflict of interest), you've yet to provide any evidence of the negative impact of this purported flaw.

I have zero interest in discussing that with you.

1.  bad play = bad rating is an innane thing to think, argue or believe.  It's as dumb as Cubs suck = Wrigley is a bad ballpark.

Maybe you better clear it up. Are you saying this about rankers or all people? I was under the impression you were talking about rankers. But now you seem to be including the entire golf world. Which is it?

If you are applying it to the entire golf world, then going by my experience, yes there are many people who "bad play = bad rating" if they ever decided to rate a course. So yes, then I would disagree with you.

Everybody I've met will go out of their way to avoid either the natural negative feelings of bad play or the positive euphoria of excessively good play in doing their course rating.  

Everybody?

Do you ever play golf with people who are not ranking?

Dan King

Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you've been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that it's now or never
Everybody knows that it's me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you've done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows
 --Leonard Cohen

[ForkaB]

Do me a favor -- just come up with an example of the purported conflict actually affecting anything.  I'm willing to listen.  I'm not turning a deaf ear.  My ear is open.  

But the silence is deafening...  

I'll pipe up to shatter the sound of silence!

Shivas

Why oh why do you think that NIne Bridges GC managed to get onto the Golf Magazine Top 100 this year (which even your (and my) beloved Rye couldn't do)?  Could it have had anything to do with the fact that they flew so many raters and otherwise influential golfers (teams from existing "Top 100" clubs) over to play the club and fully comped them over the past 4-5 years?

Or, maybe the course is realy that good.....

[A_Clay_Man]

David, Do you actually believe a $50, $100, $200 $300 green fee is enough to infuence anybody of anything, to out-weigh their own personal preferences? Do you actually believe that? I swear I spend more on gas, just to get there. Which is an expense I likely wouldnt have, if I weren't interested in giving most of the courses I visit a rating, or if it wasnt assigned.

And what  about the costs they pay for the retreat?

[Dan King]

D Moriarty writes:
Defendant flies the judge to Vegas for an all expenses paid weekend of fun and frolic?  No conflict unless we can prove that the trip influenced the judge's decision to throw out the case.

Would that be anything like Justice Anthony Scalia going duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney after the Supremes took up the case of the VP's energy task force?

Dan King

A judge may have a friendship with a lawyer, and that's fine. But if the lawyer has a case before the judge, they don't socialize until it's over. That shows a proper respect for maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity of the process. I think Justice Scalia should have been cognizant of that and avoided contact with the vice president until this was over. And this is not like a dinner with 25 or 30 people. This is a hunting trip where you are together for a few days.
 --Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor and expert on legal ethics.

[A_Clay_Man]

If the benefit is so piddly, then you've solved the problem.  Pay the money.  I show-up, go to the desk, wallet in hand, when asked for renumeration I whip out the credit card. When I'm told the round is gratis am I instantly transported into the kingdom of WEASELS? Huck, said it best when he said, you criticisers need to join the world of the real.

You raters have to make up your minds.  Half the time you guys are telling us that you could never afford to rate without the freebies, the other half are telling me the freebies are inconsequential.   If you need the freebies, then they are certainly consequential.  If you dont need them, then dont take them and avoid the conflict.  You cant have it both ways. Yes, I can, and I do. All your words just sound like jealousy. Especially from someone who thinks a fifty dollar green fee is a substantial bribe.

I dont believe I ever commented on the retreat nor do I care to, nor do I understand your point.   Geoff's article was centered around that retreat. This post is about that article. ergo, It ain't about you.

[Jonathan Cummings]

You know raters from each panel enter course ratings from the privacy of their own office and computer.  There is no one looking over their shoulder as they enter their ratings.  I'll bet it is the exception rather than the rule that a rater enters his ratings soon (a day or so) after he/she rates a course.  It is more likely that ratings are collected in a folder and posted in bulk much like you pay your monthly bills.  In this light it seems improbably to me that raters can even remember if they were comped or not, much less being influenced by what it cost them to play.

JC

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Dan King now argues that raters are not people.  Either that or people are not raters.

Wow, amazing you can swing and miss so poorly. I just thought maybe your ranking status was blinding you to the ethical dilemma you are in, but maybe you just aren't as smart as I thought you were.

I have no idea how I can make it clearer that many people I golf with are not rankers. I don't know how you can argue otherwise without knowing the people I have golfed with. Shivas, you are a minority. Most people are not rankings courses.

It's called the "I traveled this whole f**king way to play here so it's going to be good, Goddamn it!" theory.

So rankers are only super-human when it comes to their own play, not to their own travel? oh and when they get comped? They can't let their play influence their game or getting a free round, but they do let travel influence them?

Dan King

Education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
 --George Macaulay Trevelyan

[Mike_Young]

you know after reading this post for a few days now......and being one that believes opinions are worth what you pay for them....I have come to the conclusion that raters should definitely be comped.....

[Dan Kelly]

{Deleted to avoid further commentary -- with or without smileys.}

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Dan, I understand that the people you know are not raters.  But are you familiar with the 2nd-grade mathematical concept of sets and subsets.  Unless the golf mags are sending out baboons or something, all raters are people.  In other words, raters are a subset of a larger set called people.

They are even a subset of people I have golfed with (though I don't know if any where doing actual ranking while golfing with me.) But that doesn't mean they apply to the entire group. You are taking this small minority and applying it to the entire group. If I said everyone I've ever played with has trouble getting past their own game, you would then have an argument. Unfortunately for you, it isn't what I said.

You made reference to the inability of people to objectively analyze a course because their play gets in the way.

I made a point about people I know. If you want to believe it is somehow a larger group then I can't do anything to convince you otherwise. You are stuck with your own misinterpretation.

Unless you were making a point solely about your friends

Hey, you did understand it.

(which nobody would ever believe because nobody makes a point about their personal experience with a given topic unless they're trying to make a larger point about that topic as a whole), you were trying to make a point about people, generally.

What kind of law is it you practice?

I'll try my best to clear it up, but I'm fairly sure you won't understand since it isn't in your best interest you understand.

I have many people I golf with. In talking to some of them after rounds and many times I believe their analyst of the course was heavily influenced by their own play.

Realizing I could also have the same influence for myself, when I review a course I do it without clubs. I've found that works best for me. If you read the post without your defensive ranker glasses on you would see that. Perhaps I don't have the super-strength of the typical ranker who only let travel influence their rankings.

Huck:  "People hit it at least 250 with the driver"

Dan: "I disagree, Huck.  Most people I know hit it less than 250."

Dan King

If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.
 --William Shakespeare (Twelfth Night)

[George Pazin]

As for Shivas' demand for proof, that really goes to the heart of the matter.   Proof is likely impossible in part because those being unduly influenced may not even know they have been unduly influenceds.   This is often the case in conflict of interest situations, and IN FACT, THIS IS A LARGE PART OF WHY CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES EXIST.  Because in a conflict situation, often no one-- not even the conflicted person--   really knows whether they have been unduly influenced.  

There is a lot of wisdom in this statement, and it also explains why many or most don't understand conflict of interest rules/guidelines.

If you don't want the appearance of impropriety, you simply don't put yourself in the position of having to explain yourself.

This is largely why many think (rightly) that Ron Whitten has a conflict when he writes for GD and also does design consulting. My own opinion is that it's a conflict, but it's GD's and Ron's problem. They are the ones putting their reputations on the line.

As for the old "I don't let my play influence me", we certainly read that all the time on here, and I am quite certain that most people who say this would pass a polygraph. That doesn't mean it's not occuring. As I said earlier, read what people write when they review courses, and you can't help but notice that they are influenced by their play, regardless of what they say.

The same goes for the money issue, though to a far lesser degree, imho. People can scream to the ends of the earth that it doesn't matter if they're comped, but it probably does have some sort of subconscious effect. Maybe positive, maybe even negative, but an effect nonetheless.

Huck, the simple solution is that the magazine's pay, and the raters remain anonymous. Aside from Augusta, I don't see that many courses that are that difficult to get on, if one is so motivated. As I said (or at least implied, can't remember exactly what I said), it will not happen because nobody outside of a handful of people on this site care that much about the integrity of the process. These individuals seem to care more than the folks compiling the rankings, or said folks might actually do something about the complaints.

Silly aside question: Is it better to have a panel of individuals with diverse thoughts on gca, or people with similar, educated positions?

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck, the simple solution is that the magazine's pay, and the raters remain anonymous. Aside from Augusta, I don't see that many courses that are that difficult to get on, if one is so motivated. As I said (or at least implied, can't remember exactly what I said), it will not happen because nobody outside of a handful of people on this site care that much about the integrity of the process. These individuals seem to care more than the folks compiling the rankings, or said folks might actually do something about the complaints.

Silly aside question: Is it better to have a panel of individuals with diverse thoughts on gca, or people with similar, educated positions?

Dammit George, why the hell drag me into this again?  I thought I had successfully removed myself, letting the lawyers and Dan haggle.  

But anyway, well said, I agree with every word, and I don't think I ever disagreed with any of that - but I don't fault you for skipping the massive verbosity in this thread.

Hell yes the best way to do this is to have the magazines pay the green fees.  My position all along has been that that has zero chance of happening, so that being the case, let's discuss how best to do it in the real world.  The closest real-world recommendation so far is Matt's "Super-Rater" idea.  And to that end, well... I personally prefer a consensus and fear the power that one guy would have.  But at least that does have some practical possibilities.

So you can also guess my answer to your second question:  long live panels of inviduals with diverse thoughts!  But that is a tough question.

TH

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Dan, what happened to the "hitting it 250" analogy?

I removed a single word to make it more appropriate.

Dan King

When a diplomat says yes, he means perhaps. When he says perhaps he means no. When he says no, he is not a dipomat. When a lady says no, she means perhaps. When she says perhaps, she means yes. But when she says yes, she is no lady.
 --Lord Denning

[George Pazin]

I'm sure there are literally thousands of pages of lawyerly minutaie (sp?) when it comes to conflicts of interests - how else would you guys stay employed at such outrageous rates?

However, at the heart of each "solution" to this problem is that you simply don't put yourself in a position where someone can legitimately claim a conflict.

As I have said repeatedly, though, the problems with rating are relatively minor and most don't see the need to address them, especially the powers that be, the various rankings boards.

I do like Dan's line that we're dealing with the court of public opinion here, not a legal court, where the evidence bar is set higher (if not the ethics bar - sorry, can't pass up a chance to pick on lawyers). This is a discussion site. It is 100% my inference through reading thousands of posts that most golfers, raters and non-raters alike, take their own play into account when ranking a course. I could be wrong in this inference, but I don't think so, and it's my opinion that matters most to me.

I forgot to check - has Huck caught me in number of posts yet? The only reason I dragged you back in, Huck, is that you asked me what the simple solution was a few pages ago. I thought it was clear enough from my previous posts that I didn't need to post it when I first mentioned it, but I thought I'd do so just in case you thought I was ignoring you.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Aha.  Many thanks, very courteous.  I do the same thing and try like heck never to fail to respond to a direct question.  I just had forgotten I asked you that!

And yes, that is a simple solution, but no, it will not be implemented.  So I don't see what the worth is of even discussing it... but discussion is what this place is all about, so what the hell.

One more thing:  it's very interesting to me that the non-raters all say raters' assessments are effected by rater play, and the raters themselves all disagree.  Draw whatever inference or conclusions from that that you wish.  Mine is it's very interesting how you know us better than we know ourselves.  Can you also help me deal with my meddling mother this week?

 

BTW, re number of posts, it's also kinda funny in that I have Ran working with the YaBB folks to get my 12,000 back... Tom Paul is begging to get his count back to zero!  Again, draw whatever inferences you wish.

[George Pazin]

One more thing:  it's very interesting to me that the non-raters all say raters' assessments are effected by rater play, and the raters themselves all disagree.  Draw whatever inference or conclusions from that that you wish.  Mine is it's very interesting how you know us better than we know ourselves.

How many people are honest enough to admit their shortcomings? Or forget honest enough to admit them, how many are even cognizant of their own shortcomings?

I'd guess that even single rankings/ratings/recognition board out there understands that human beings' shortcomings are inherent to any subjective ranking system. It's only the rankers themselves that are suffering from self delusion.

Heck, I pride myself on being aware of my own faults, but Matt Ward is constantly finding new ones that I didn't even know about.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()