[DMoriarty]

Back from uncledom, can't resist....

David, I've said several times I am more than willing to give them up.  Just give me a good reason regarding the very real issues that I've listed several times - that is, absent them this becomes a game for the rich, or alternatively, the expensive courses never get seen. - either way seems to me to make this prohibitive, that is, the new system is worse than the old.  What Dan K. suggested - that the magazines pay the freight - sounds great to me and would seem to solve all issues.  I just don't see any chance of that actually happening.  So do you think the end here - full impartiality - justifies the means - ridding the system of all but the rich - of making for such a system?  If so, then fine, reasonable minds will disagree, again.  Just please do clarify this, so I can finally say UNCLE and leave this in peace.

First, Tom there is absolutely no proof that what you fear would happen.  In fact the existing system argues against it.  You guys spend a ton of money the way it is-- as a group you are far from spending averse.  So you have to play less courses, or-- horror of horrors-- you have to play more courses that cost less money?  The ones who are truly doing it for the love of gca will still rate.  

Funny you say that, absent comps "this becomes a game for the rich, or alternatively, the expensive courses never get seen.  

When you say "the game" you are surely talking about the ratings game, arent you?  You arent humoring yourself, thinking that ratings are somehow making the game more affordable for the average joe, are you?   Everytime you guys fawn over an overpriced, overdone course, you encourage more of the same.  Meanwhile, the average Joe has no decent place to play.  

To hell with the overpriced courses.  Who cares if they dont get quite as much exposure?  Your readers cant afford to play them anyway.  And when you do rate them, you might have a different perspective on that grand waterfall, knowing the pretty premium you paid.

As for Dan's suggestion, I think it a great one and quite feasible, even if it causes the magazines to can 90% of the raters.  My guess is the ratings would improve with fewer raters.  In fact, I'd take a team of 10 Mike Cirbas over the whole lot of raters.  Certainly you could get improved results over what any of the magaines currently put out.  

[Gyrogolf]

Excuse me, but where did he impression come from that raters never pay? What nonsense!

This weekend, I am flying to a location with a friend and we are going to rate four golf courses. At two we are not being charged. At one we are paying full freight ($175.00). At the fourth we are getting a *discounted* rate of $125.00

The first words out of my mouth -unfailingly - when I contact a golf course is: "I want you to understand I am not looking for a freebie."

These courses were chosen on the basis of their supposed merit. No other reason.

And if they do not charge me - of course this applies only to  public access courses - you can bet that I patronize the restaurant or 19th hole with a generous tip.

That is how gentlemen operate.

Just like when a private course extends you a courtesy, I always make it a point to go into the pro shop and drop a few Jacksons.

If the Head Professional plays with me, which often happens, I always leave my card with an invitation to play with me at my club any time. As a matter of fact, occasionally golf professionals call me to play with a friend or member from their club.

That - in my opinion - is how one ought to behave when blessed with the charmed life we lead.

My opinion of the four courses I will be playing this weekend will not in any way, shape or form be influenced by whether I had to pay.

Two years ago I came upon Riverdale Dunes outside of Denver. It is a wonderful golf course, a treat for anyone who loves clever design.

They wanted to host me for free, but when I saw that the fees were under $40.00 I was too embarassed to accept. To do otherwise, in my mind, would have been pathetic. Like the city does not need the money?

Let's get away from this idea that becoming a rater is somehow a ticket to ride. In some ways it is, but in reality it is a cherished opportunity not only to study architecture as few can, but have a voice in expressing your likes and dislikes.

I have never once approached a storied course (read: PV, WF, Merion etc) for a free round. I intentionally try and see a Pt. Judith, a Stevinson Ranch, a Westhampton, a Barona or Rustic.

Most of us do not need the magic card to play the big dog tracks, because we are blessed with friends all over the nation.

The joy in this exercise is finding the needle in the haystack and knowing that you got there first . . . . . .

If that is not your goal, to see new things and learn and learn and learn, then what is the point?

 

[Gyrogolf]

BTW David,

Seeking out affordable gems that my readers just South of Nutville can afford is a job I take very seriously.

When they ask me what I recommend, if they do not like it or feel like they have been fleeced, I hear about it. In technicolor.

Unlike a lot of guys, I really do have to maintain journalistic integrity.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why don't those of you that are dissatisfied with the currrent rating/ranking system, devise your own system.

Let us know what the criteria are, the rules of engagement, the scoring methodology, how and who you select as raters, and publish your "PURE" version of your findings.

[Jonathan Cummings]

David - I know you're not going to believe me but the GW lists without comps would statistically be the same as the GW lists with comps.  Comps have no measurable impact on the published lists.  

JC

[THuckaby2]

David:

Fair enough, your position is now crystal clear.  I was somewhat unclear about what you were saying before, likely my fault.

One clarification, necessary to correct words you are putting in my mouth, again likely my fault due to my hasty posting here:

OF COURSE when I say "the game" I am talking about the ratings game.  

Re the rest, well, Uncle.  You can have the last word, vis-a-vis me anyway.  I agree with a lot of what you say, disagree with other parts (and would suggest you read Gib's latest post as to how this all really works - his way is FAR more the norm than the exception, as I understand all this, and from my experience).  

Bottom line I do admire the passion you have for all this.

Cheers.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Gyro

Who said GW raters never pay?  

Dont look at me.   Raters are the ones telling me that they just couldnt survive if they had to take money out of their own wallets to pay green fees.  My question back to them has been, 'wait a minute, arent you supposed to always be prepared to pay?'    

I dont doubt that you conduct yourself as a gentlemen.  But I also dont doubt that, with hundreds of raters, some might occassionally come to treat their perks as a bit of entitlement.  Posts from those associated with courses, on an earlier thread, seems to support this.  

Same with your reasons for rating and your willingness to seek out off-the-path courses.  Sure, your motivations and actions are pure, but you cant speak for the entire panel, can you?  

And again, even if all intentions are the best, I am not really accusing any intentionally unethical behavior on anyone's part.  Only pointing out that conflicts of interest do exist in the system and that they may have an influence on the outcome.   Noone even wants to admit that conflicts exist, despite that it is undisputed that courses provide raters with something of value.  

__________________________


Jonathan, I might believe it if I had access to the facts which draw you to reach this conclusion.  And like I said before, I'm no whiz with statistics, so I am not sure what you mean by "statistically the same."  

Do you also have proof that raters would visit the same courses without comps?  
_________________________

Patrick,

I dont get your "if you criticize it, you are compelled to start your own system" attitude.    

I assure you I have absolutely no desire to start anything like the magazine ratings.  But that surely doesnt mean I forfeit my concern about the influence these raters/ratings wield, or lose my voice to express my concern.  The magazines hold their ratings out to the public, and many in the industry are unfortunately influenced by these ratings.  Surely this opens them up for critical evaluation.  After all, livelyhoods are often at stake.  

If nothing else, my concern for the future of gca gives me standing to speak my mind.  
__________________________

Tom,  what an odd way to refer to the ratings . . . as a "game."

[JohnV]

The system isn't perfect but it does work.

Earlier today I was in a meeting for our Scholarship Committee.  Our lawyer had just saved $86,000+ from being sucked into a generic fund that the banks had created for trusts that were too much trouble to administer properly.  When someone asked him if we could do something about the fact that we had paid them for a job they hadn't done well, he pointed out that we had gotten the money out, but could still lose it if we rocked the boat and that we shouldn't "Let perfect get in the way of good."

If, in an attempt to make it "perfect", you take the enjoyment of the gatherings and the minimal fringe benefits out of rating, you'll lose many of the people and the results won't be as good.

[Gyrogolf]

David,

First off, we are friends, so you know that I know the difference between right and wrong.


I do not speak for anyone but Gyro.

[THuckaby2]

David:

It may be odd to you.  To me it's kind of lighthearted and fun.

 

And I believe all of us are prepared to pay, like we are supposed to, and actually do pay a large percentage of the time.  Or at least I do, and Gyro makes a good point - in the end we can only speak for ourselves.  Again, the issue I see is take this away and you remove possibility of seeing a great many courses for at least some raters, which I continue to think is not a good thing.  But, reasonable minds can and do differ.

But in any case, we do know the difference between right and wrong.  Gyro remains wise.  God it's good to have him back here.  Let's hope he stays awhile.

[Rick Shefchik]

I wish there was a way to make you raters understand that we are not accusing you of being unethical. There's isn't enough time in the day for me to bother conversing with fellow golfers that I considered to be on the take. I don't need to read one more post from a rater who assures me that a free round will not influence their rating. I'm convinced, fellas -- in fact, I've never thought otherwise of anyone in this discussion group.

What you have to understand, however, is that as long as some of your rounds are comped and some are not, the ratings you produce are not pure enough to withstand skepticism. If you don't care, fine -- but if you don't believe that, you're deluding yourselves.

You are not corrupt -- the system is flawed, and can inspire accusations of corruption. It behooves you to advocate for a better system, even if you don't believe it will ever come to pass.

By the way, I should make it clear that my pay-as-you-go, don't-ask-don't-tell advocacy pertains only to public facilities. I frankly have no idea how to get around the access issue on private courses -- but then again, they are not generally the courses that need the Top 100 rankings to improve their bottom line.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just thought it was worth noting that those who bet on the "over" 11 page wager on this thread should call in to collect.    

[THuckaby2]

Rick:

Thanks for that.  You can understand how it's difficult to separate out attacks on the system from attacks on us personally though, right?  As much as you say "it's the system", well.... a bunch of us here are a part of it, proudly so, and thus it's human nature to defend it from attacks by outsiders.

But your words remain powerful to me... I do think the perfect rating system would have many of the elements you and Dan and David suggest.  There just remain two insurmountable hurdles, which cause the whole idea to fail, by my reckoning:

1. No way to do for private clubs - you said it yourself.  Sure, some of these don't "need" the perception help that a ranking might give, but many do.  And given it's going to be impossible to do under your system, well... make this apply just to a separate list of public courses, and I am right there with you - it's a good way to go and that would make for a list free from any perceptions of impropriety, which is a good thing.  But the worth of this list would be limited, and one would always wonder how the best publics stack up to the best privates, something very much worth assessing... and it doesn't also solve the next problem, which is:

2. It's just gonna cost too much damn money to do.  No magazine is going to want to pay this, it's just not in their interest to do so - for them, the ratings are a huge success as it is!  I also can't imagine any other organization that has such altruism as to make this happen... who cares enough for "pure," "uncompromised" ratings to go to this expense and trouble?  Wishing won't make it so.  So then the answer might be make raters pay for everything themselves, and I have said several times why I see that as an overall negative, which I gather you understand.  If not, I'll be happy to explain it again.  I know David doesn't buy it, but I think you and Dan do and that's good enough for me.

So in the end, for me, all these ideas are wonderful, but these two definite problems are insurmountable and make the idea fail.

It's tough to crusade for ideas doomed to failure.  Come up with a solution to #1 above though, and maybe it starts to be worth the effort.  Of course you're also gonna need to make #2 seem more viable, but at least we'd have a start.

TH

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

To all of those who think the entire rater/ranker thing is a scam, the alternative would be just to have a system like Golf Digest's "Places to Play" where magazine subscribers rate the courses.  That way we'll have nothing but Augusta-style green carpet fairways, flowers, fountains and waterfalls, greens that stimp into the 20s, tree-lined fairways and spectacular clubhouses with the best hotdogs and burgers around as America's top courses.  Screw the old classics.  Places like Bandon, Sandhills and Kiawah would be ranked right up there with courses like Belgrade Lakes Golf Club in Belgrade Lakes, Maine, Grand View Lodge (The Pines) in Breeze Point Township, Minn. and Timber Ridge Golf Club in East Lansing, Michigan -- all course that rated 5 stars in the last Golf Digest Places to Play...

BTW, Bandon only got 4 1/2 stars, Pacfic didn't have enough people to rate it and Sandhills, as a private course, doesn't  make the list.  Other 5-star courses include Blackwolf Run (River), Bulle Rock (South), The Broadmoor), Casa de Campo, The Challenge at Manele, Ocean Coruse, Pebble Beach, Pinehurst No. 2, and Whistling Straits (Straits).

[John_Conley]

Mr. Gyro

Who said GW raters never pay?  

Dont look at me.   Raters are the ones telling me that they just couldnt survive if they had to take money out of their own wallets to pay green fees.  

Who said that?

[Dan Kelly]

To all of those who think the entire rater/ranker thing is a scam, the alternative would be just to have a system like Golf Digest's "Places to Play" where magazine subscribers rate the courses.

Mike --

Forgive me for repeating myself, but that is NOT the only "alternative": "I will hold out my slim hope that, someday, some publication will decide to do these rankings the way I'd do them: with a small, statistically insignificant group of extremely well-qualified, articulately opinionated and systematically reimbursed raters, rather than with these faceless, humongous panels that lead to so many ethically dicey situations."

[John_Conley]

To all of those who think the entire rater/ranker thing is a scam, the alternative would be just to have a system like Golf Digest's "Places to Play" where magazine subscribers rate the courses.  

Mike:

I think this is the golf equivalent of the quote democracy is the worst form of government... except for everything else that's been tried.

[THuckaby2]

JC:  Of course none of us ever said that, in any sense of what that means.  However, each of Mike Cirba and I have said that take away the opportunity for comps and make us pay for everything, and it either becomes open only to the rich, or alternatively we start to pick and choose based on price - which David seems to think is a good thing.  I don't think it would be that bad, but I question the overall net positive when a large group of raters never gets to see any of the great private clubs, with very high guest fees, or other worthwhile too expensive public/resort courses.

I would love to see a list based on "bang for the buck" though... of course this would be quite different from assessing the raw greatness of courses, but it would have a definite value.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

As to 100% pay-to-play raters

Once again, because memories are so short and research is in such short supply, does anyone really want a group of very wealthy people only to make up any list of raters?

No, Redanman!

I want a small group of very *knowledgeable* people -- paying full freight for their rounds, and reimbursed by the magazine -- to make up the list of raters.

Are you telling me that there isn't *already* a rich-guy bias on these panels?

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

I thought you said "Uncle."

But since you're back, I've given more thought to your proposal.  Hey, I spend an hour in the car every morning, there's lots of time to think.

I see another danger:

This small group needs necessarily to be diverse.  A small group of zealots only gives the zealot point of view... I'd want all sorts of different views represented.   Manage this, and you really have something.

I still think it's never gonna happen, as you know, and the very real issue of it not working for private clubs remains. But yes, dare to dream.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

........ lead to so many ethically dicey situations."

emphasis mine

Back this up with FACTS. (Now I sound like Mucci, Jr.)

The whole *system* is ethically dicey. That's what I meant. I will not discuss, because I have no knowledge of them, any specific circumstances involving specific raters or specific courses.

[Dan Kelly]

I thought you said "Uncle."

I come from a family of lawyers. I guess some of it rubbed off.

This small group needs necessarily to be diverse.  A small group of zealots only gives the zealot point of view... I'd want all sorts of different views represented.   Manage this, and you really have something.

It's the *editor's* job to manage this. If he (or, of course, she) does a good job of choosing the panel, the panel will have diverse viewpoints. If he puts together a single-minded panel of zealots, he'll be repudiated in the marketplace (of circulation, and of ideas).

I still think it's never gonna happen, as you know, and the very real issue of it not working for private clubs remains. But yes, dare to dream.

I don't think there's a perfect answer to the private-club problem. You can't just show up uninvited and unrevealed, the way a rater certainly can (and should, IMO) at a public course.

So perhaps, in the case of private courses, my proposal will have to bend. The small band of raters will have to tell the private courses that they are raters, and we'll have to risk the possibility that the raters will therefore get better treatment than the average guest of a member. (Of course, we'll note this possibility in our coverage, when we explain our modus operandi.)

Let me paraphrase something I've read here recently: Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the better.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

I find that all to be perfectly reasonable and to me it sounds like a hell of a proposal.  And talk about being honored to be a part of it... I'm sure many here, but particularly me, would kill to be a part of such a panel.  Well reasoned, well done.  Just do make sure the editor/manager is VERY careful about the diversity part.  

Now you know we have to face the real $128,000 question:  how do you make this happen?

There is no financial interest for anyone to do this.  Is it as simple as finding an angel golf-loving investor?  

TH

[HamiltonBHearst]

Are there any rules that dissuade raters from publicizing their individual lists?  It seems everyone on this site is a rater and all that happens is questions arise about the compilation.  Yet when questioned we only get "it's the method".  Why can't we have more Matt Ward's?

[Dan Kelly]

Redanman --

All of this is so *obviously* my opinion that I couldn't imagine *anyone's* needing me to say so. Apparently I was wrong.

BTW (by the way): Those *s are not a substitute for quotation marks. They are to indicate EMPHASIS (emphasis added -- though not, in this case, by way of *s). Consider them the equivalent of *italics*.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()