Golfweek All-Star Raters...

« **Reply #25 on:** September 11, 2004, 02:27:25 PM »

Quote from: Tommy_Naccarato on September 11, 2004, 01:40:06 PM

I do have my biases and have worked hard at forming them!

Tommy - I believe this needs to be your new signature line ...

« **Reply #26 on:** September 11, 2004, 02:46:35 PM »

DMoriarty,
If you are channelling for Fortson then you may know what his thought process was, I only based my reply on his use of Huckaby's quote wherein he agreed wth Huckaby/Schmidt that the golfing public likes crap and that this board is out of touch with reality. Neither Huckaby or Schmidt or Fortson mentioned, implied or included raters, as I read it.

On topic, I'll take the opinion of most anyone who uses this board at face value if they also explain why they liked or didn't like a particular course.

« **Reply #27 on:** September 11, 2004, 09:01:23 PM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on September 11, 2004, 10:47:14 AM

I doubt either is a rater,being gentlemen they probably do not have to play the access card.

Mr. Hearst -

I am confused by the above quotation. Are you saying that being a rater and gaining access is not gentlemanly? Or are you saying that people who behave like gentlemen can get onto any course they wish?

I am also confused by your use of the word "access".

Which of the following is more bothersome to you?

1. A rater goes to a public course and does not pay the green fee because he has annouced himself as a rater.

2. A rater gains access to a private course because he has announced himself as a rater, and pays the unaccompanied guest fee.

Please respond.

« **Reply #28 on:** September 11, 2004, 09:56:36 PM »

Quote from: John B. Kavanaugh on September 11, 2004, 08:33:20 AM

Cirba,

Have you and redanman ever had a difference of opinion that he didn't eventually get you to come over to his side....and...don't worry about Morgan Hill...redanman didn't have the balls to do a write up on Cowboys either....

Oh yea....If a critic sees what no one else does...does it even exist as an architectural feature. Or in the case of redanman is it what he doesn't see that makes him an all-star..

Actually, John...

redanman is much too easy on the aesthetic sins of Rees Jones in my opinion.

« **Reply #29 on:** September 12, 2004, 06:49:03 AM »

MM,

Who has more to gain from the “rater” on their course?

1. A public course that generates revenue from public exposure.

2. A private course that already has a long list of people waiting to join?

« **Reply #30 on:** September 12, 2004, 09:01:54 AM »

It isn't so much as who says what, it's what they say.

Tom Huckaby- How does the "el Rauncho" fit into your accepting modus?

After reading this thread, there's only one thing I am sure of, Ham Hearst, is Pat Mucci.

« **Reply #31 on:** September 12, 2004, 09:45:50 AM »

DB -

The first one, I believe.

« **Reply #32 on:** September 12, 2004, 10:05:47 AM »

Mr. Moore

I will answer your question when you apologize to Pat Mucci. A few weeks ago you were critical of him in setting up a outing/architecture discussion at Hidden Creek. All your pals on this website defended you by saying you were a "good guy" and probably had not meant what you said, and that you probably were unaware you had offended Pat.

Please apologize.

« **Reply #33 on:** September 12, 2004, 10:21:12 AM »

MM- So making money off golf, takes precedence over global recognition? Don't those privat courses have enough tapable resources that money isn't the object?

In my final analysis, profit motive is at the root of what this site use to harp on. Namely, the under-appreciation of GCA as an art form.

When I golf a private course, that has no chance of ever breaking into the top 100 magazine rankings, I like to look at the people. How many, how friendly, how many walk, how they treat each other, how many have smiles on their faces, from the golf, not the booze. These intangibles are much more important, than the minutae that separates a top 500 from a top 100. in the minds of no more than 1000 people, on golf course architecture.

When a course never needs to be more than it is, and is somewhere, which has enough of the core principles that create interesting golf, round after round, who's to say it isn't better than all those clubs seeking "big money" members that provide all the luxury of a preverbial roman bath.

That film that came-out a few years back (A gentleman's Game?)which highlighted the fact that money doesn't buy class or integrity touched on what I'm trying to convey. The point of Reilly's "Missing Links" climaxed on this phenomenon.

« **Reply #34 on:** September 12, 2004, 10:54:19 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on September 12, 2004, 09:01:54 AM

Tom Huckaby- How does the "el Rauncho" fit into your accepting modus?

That course proves that the old adage that there is an exception to every rule.

« **Reply #35 on:** September 12, 2004, 11:53:08 AM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on September 12, 2004, 10:05:47 AM

Mr. Moore

I will answer your question when you apologize to Pat Mucci. A few weeks ago you were critical of him in setting up a outing/architecture discussion at Hidden Creek. All your pals on this website defended you by saying you were a "good guy" and probably had not meant what you said, and that you probably were unaware you had offended Pat.

Please apologize.

This is why I don't post in here much anymore. Everyone is so friggin' sensitive and people reputations and integrity get more airtime than simple discussions about golf and golf architecture.

People need to grow an extra layer of skin and suck it up. If you're looking for apologies and submission I suggest you call your local dominatrix. Otherwise, please stop wasting bandwidth with demands of apologies and the like.

Boo friggin' hoo.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #36 on:** September 12, 2004, 12:23:59 PM »

Quote

When a course never needs to be more than it is, and is somewhere, which has enough of the core principles that create interesting golf, round after round, who's to say it isn't better than all those clubs seeking "big money" members that provide all the luxury of a preverbial roman bath.

Well that might be the most succinct comment that reflects my feelings that I have read on here in a while.

The reason I picked Slag Bandoon as one whose recommendation I'd "put in a vault" is because I know he has the soul of a poet and the eye of an artist, and he just plain loves to play the game for "the core values". That means a heck of a lot to me. Yes, Adam and Tommy among several others have a high place in my esteem for their "rating" as well.

But, Slag isn't a rater. Slag pays and doesn't get access unless he is invited to great private golf clubs for who he is by a person recognising him for his perceptive postings. Slag isn't a highly skilled player either. But, when he sums up his experiences at interesting golf courses, he puts it in context of the pleasure of the round based on the presentation of the course as an entity that touches your spirit; not for such numeric quantities as the degree of difficulty of shot values, the demand for the "long ball" off tee, or the technicality of the rating game in assigning numbers to various criteria. So, Slag is as apt to write elequently about an off the beaten track little gem he has run into on a Jack London or Jack Kerouac sort of travel adventure as he would an opportunity to play a Sand Hills level venue. But, he gets it right from his own method of analysing and describing it. But, when Slag does give his stamp of approval, I don't have to think in terms of where the course stands in numeric rankings, I will just know it is worth the effort and cost to travel there and play there.

Much like Ran's narrative write-ups on courses found accompanying this website, which are the real value feature of GCA.com, the descriptive form from a person with a good eye and who has a feeling for those "core values" is the informational asset that is "bankable" to me.

I'm usually more interested in the anti-all star rater point of view perhaps as somewhat of a contrarian natured person.

« **Reply #37 on:** September 12, 2004, 02:30:27 PM »

Tuco and El Guappo!

« **Reply #38 on:** September 12, 2004, 08:40:53 PM »

If I were running a rating panel I would not give a hoot as to the rating a Mike Cirba or Bill Vostinak gave any particular course.

I would be far more interested in how many courses a generic rater has seen and how often a rater gets out to see new courses. The more the better!

Subjectivity aside, if there is any science to be gleened from this rating game it can be found in the numbers. I will put more credence in a ranked list if the courses that make up that list are based on many submitted ratings. Especially if these ratings come from the Matt Wards, Brad Kleins, Tommy Doaks and Bobby Fagans of the world. They have seen a wealth of courses and have the experiences to bounce their ratings off of. This makes them better armed to sense where a course should sit in a "Best-Of" world.

Sorry, but many of the rating stars are quiet guys you have never heard of like - Joe M. and Nick A. They and others take simple pleasure in seeing new courses, comparing them to other courses, and searching out new candidates.

They and others like them (all panels, not just GW) are not just All-Stars, but MVPs.

JC

« **Reply #39 on:** September 12, 2004, 10:04:45 PM »

Quote from: Jonathan on September 12, 2004, 08:40:53 PM

If I were running a rating panel I would not give a hoot as to the rating a Mike Cirba or Bill Vostinak gave any particular course.

I would be far more interested in how many courses a generic rater has seen and how often a rater gets out to see new courses. The more the better!

Subjectivity aside, if there is any science to be gleened from this rating game it can be found in the numbers. I will put more credence in a ranked list if the courses that make up that list are based on many submitted ratings. Especially if these ratings come from the Matt Wards, Brad Kleins, Tommy Doaks and Bobby Fagans of the world. They have seen a wealth of courses and have the experiences to bounce their ratings off of. This makes them better armed to sense where a course should sit in a "Best-Of" world.

Sorry, but many of the rating stars are quiet guys you have never heard of like - Joe M. and Nick A. They and others take simple pleasure in seeing new courses, comparing them to other courses, and searching out new candidates.

They and others like them (all panels, not just GW) are not just All-Stars, but MVPs.

JC

That's precious on so many levels..

« **Reply #40 on:** September 13, 2004, 09:56:14 AM »

And again, I remain solidly with you on this, Dave. The only difference is the people I play with tend to like conditions, visuals and eye candy WAY WAY WAY over subtlety. Difficulty matters to some, but conditions, visuals and the like rule the day. That's why I too would agree completely when you say that 5 to 1 golfers outside this board would prefer Pelican Hill to Rustic Canyon... And THIS is a very tough nut to crack also.

But yes, there is hope. Several of my buddies mentioned strategic choices as one of the fun parts of playing The Old Course last year.

The generally still all preferred Kingsbarns overall as a golf course, but a few did mention how cool it was to have different ways to play the same hole at TOC.

TH

« **Reply #41 on:** September 13, 2004, 11:03:13 AM »

Quote

And again, I remain solidly with you on this, Dave. The only difference is the people I play with tend to like conditions, visuals and eye candy WAY WAY WAY over subtlety. Difficulty matters to some, but conditions, visuals and the like rule the day. That's why I too would agree completely when you say that 5 to 1 golfers outside this board would prefer Pelican Hill to Rustic Canyon... And THIS is a very tough nut to crack also.

Tom, I think you are spot on. I took a bunch of friends to Pinehurst last April for 5 days. And to a man, they preferred the Pit to Southern Pines. Now, the Pit has some neat holes, and Southern Pines was not in great shape in spots, but....
Main comment was, "Great choice of courses, but maybe we could skip Southern Pines next time?"
For my group, I would say the nut is well nigh uncrackable

« **Reply #42 on:** September 13, 2004, 12:41:15 PM »

Tom, Shivas, etc.,

You guys are right.....

The world is full of clueless people.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #43 on:** September 13, 2004, 12:50:33 PM »

And everybody knows, the world is full of stupid people
Well I've got the pistol, so I'll keep the pesos
Yeah, and that seems fair

« **Reply #44 on:** September 13, 2004, 06:25:19 PM »

It's nice to see my pal Jeff F posting again (no Jeff, I haven't gotten any better at golf!). The rater side of the house was getting too much of an edge!

JC

« **Reply #45 on:** September 13, 2004, 06:30:45 PM »

Jeff Fortson,

I can't recall being called or categorized as "thin skinned"

And, I don't want an apology from Michael Moore.

Accountability, not immunity is a consequence of one's statements.

Putting together the GCA.com architectural symposiums takes a great deal of time and effort on my part, especially this past February's, and if Michael Moore wants to make a wiseguy remark, that's okay, but, then he, and other defenders of his, such as yourself, have to have the same "thick skin" you're requiring, to endure the slings and arrows from the site participants who objected to his remarks.

You can't demand a "thick skin" from others and expect an exemption for Michael Moore and yourself.

« **Reply #46 on:** September 13, 2004, 07:08:30 PM »

Pat-Sorry for getting you involved in this thread. I just resented the Micheal Moore hit and run attack on you a few months ago. Attacking someone for spending an inordinate amount of time setting up a forum to benefit us all. Pretty sad. Through all this he has displayed the class and decency of his more famous namesake.

« **Reply #47 on:** September 15, 2004, 01:38:35 PM »

Pat -

I see via your doppelganger Hamilton B. Hearst that all is not well, so let's clear the air.

Ae you familiar with the song "Another Brick in the Wall Part II", upon which my light-hearted jab rests? That was the number one smash by Pink Floyd from 1979. Based on our previous exchange regarding Van Halen, I thought for sure you would remember this song, which is still played ad nauseam on the radio. If you are unfamiliar with the song, the two lyrics germane to this discussion are the rousing chorus of "We don't need no education!" and the part at the end where the schoolmaster, against the backdrop of children at play, yells "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!" With the latter, I was gently poking fun at two of your tendencies, one loudly proclaimed and the other often exhibited.

Many times when the topic of GCA gatherings and green committees has come up, you have celebrated your role of benevolent dictator. This one tendency.

Another tendency you have shown is disdain for people who merely seek access for the sake of access without exhibiting intellectual curiousity regarding architecture.

So, in accordance with these beliefs, you mentioned that in order to play at Hidden Creek outing, one would be required to attend the lecture/slide show/panel discussion, etc.

That's the setup. Are you ready for the punchline?

According to the psychology of positive and negative reinforcement, if you make the lecture mandatory, you decrease its perceived value.

That's all.

« **Reply #48 on:** September 15, 2004, 02:31:47 PM »

What exactly is the point of constantly reiterating the supposedly ignorant opinion of the masses?

Here is the opening line of the homepage - a mission statement, if you will:

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses.

Do we need to constantly hear that everyone thinks Joe Six Pack has no taste and would prefer Course X (some icon of over value, as "we" see it) to Course Y (some paragon of everything "we" hold dear)?

If we stipulate to this (without necessarily personally agreeing with it), can we stop trotting it out every single day?

« **Reply #49 on:** September 15, 2004, 02:42:28 PM »

Some of us don't think Joe Six Pack is all that stupid or uneducated....The milk of a goat may be sweet....but I will quench my thirst from my mothers teat.

News:

Mike Benham

Jim_Kennedy

Michael Moore

Mike_Cirba

Donnie Beck

A_Clay_Man

Michael Moore

HamiltonBHearst

A_Clay_Man

THuckaby2

Jeff Fortson

RJ_Daley

Mike Nuzzo

Jonathan Cummings

JakaB

THuckaby2

Andy Hughes

Jeff Fortson

John_Conley

Jonathan Cummings

Patrick_Mucci

HamiltonBHearst

Michael Moore

George Pazin

JakaB