[David_Madison]

Sean

I couldn't get access to most of the candidate courses if I did everything anonymously. Not just the top 100 or so, but the candidates for the best in a given state. And even if I could get some access, it would be much rarer and less frequent. I can't help but believe that my ratings get better as I see a course a second or third time and play more of its regional and style competitors.

Couldn't the quality of the ratings might suffer if everything was done anonymously? We all believe that too many new whiz-bang courses get pushed too high in the ratings at the start. You could say that we are handing out "first impression roses", for you Bachelor fans. But then over a little time, they setle down to where they more appropriately belong. Raters play the course a few times over the course of that 5-10 years, and we can better see what's really there and what isn't, and also the course isn't being pushed condition-wise or in any other way by it's owner/developer in an effort to sell memberships or real estate, so we see it as it really will be in a more normal manner.

Perhaps the Michelin model would work well with public access courses; then you have a comparable with restaurants as they are public. And perhaps internationally, where access to practically any golf course is far more available than it is here. But not here.

[wsmorrison]

The first step in the rating process is to call a private club and ask for preferential treatment; something no one else can or would think of doing.  At a minimum, the magazine should encourage, but even better, insist that the rater play with a member and pay regular guest fees whether or not they are offered a comp round.  

The benefits of playing with a member and paying their way can be substantial, besides the glaring fact that is how all other guests have access to a course, it removes the possibility of conflicts of interest.  Playing with a member raises the possibility that the rater can learn about the course history, architectural evolution, variable weather conditions and a broader perspective of play.  If this impacts the number of raters, so be it.  The sense of entitlement or sacrifice by a number of raters can be irritating.  These mindsets are closely bound to the notion of comps and conflicts.

This argument has been repeated over and over.  The status quo is in place and the raters are content with it.  My point is that the magazines should not be and they should seek to make changes.  I don't buy golf magazines and this rating setup has a lot to do with that.

[Mark_Fine]

I would not be a big fan of indentifying all the panelists.  I would think that most panelists get enough emails as is.  

The free golf argument always fascinates me.  There will always be a few in any group that abuse a priviledge but you don't have to set policy (or develop a bias) based on a very small minority.  I just played a pretty decent private club the other day, was hosted by a friend who is a member and he wouldn't allow me to pay.  Maybe I should toss $150 out the window on the ride home so I don't feel a bias to rate the course any higher than it should be    

I'd like someone to explain to me (or better off to my wife) how paying for a $500 plane ticket, $90 for a rental car, $120 for a hotel,... to play XYZ golf course in some XYZ state is "free golf" just because a green fee happens to get comped

[wsmorrison]

First of all, Mark, did your friend pay for your round or did the club comp you?  If your friend paid for your round, then this example has no bearing on this discussion at all.  If your friend arranged for you to be comped by the club because you are a rater (you are, right?) then I have a problem with that.  You said you played with a friend.  What was subordinate, playing with a friend or rating the course?  Was rating the higher purpose and thus subordinated the value of playing with a friend?  You can't have it both ways.  You either played with a friend and either of you should have paid or you played as a rater and in that case you should pay as well.

What is free about paying for a plane ticket, rental car and hotel when playing a golf course as a rater is the will to do so.  You and other raters choose to do it so there is no entitlement for having done so.  That is a ludicrous argument and only serves to support the counter argument that there should be no comps by private clubs.  Period.  Special privileges allow conflicts of interest.  I would think even perceived and not just realized conflicts of interest ought to be avoided.

If a new private wants to bring in raters in order to raise the profile of the project or an existing club wants to do the same after a redesign or significant changes, allow raters and prospective members to all come in during a period of time as long as there aren't any special privileges to raters.  If members are going to buck up for raters (and I don't think they should), their money is better spent bucking up for prospective members as well and they should be able to bring in guests for free during that period.  In any case, it should be clearly spelled out to the members and approved by them under this limited circumstance for new or redesigned privates.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Earlier in the thread, someone asked if more obscure courses could get the names and then use them to further their marketing.  The thought was that some of them might rise in stature by having more rater visits.  

They don't have to contact the rater directly.  They simply need to contact the magazines and the magazine will notify the raters that the course is seeking visits.  Brad and GW send out a periodic newsletter with similar information.  I would assume that GD does the same.  

I suppose the magazines could suply us all with an email address and I could go in and delete the messages occasionally.  In my case, I'm going to play the new courses that are built locally and plan a certain number of excursions during the year to play in other areas.  The courses I choose are more likely going to come from the recommendations I read here rather than anywhere else.

[Cabell Ackerly]

Isn't the solution pretty simple?

Make ALL raters pay their own way, and accept no freebies. If they are caught accepting anything for free, they lose their rater position.

I don't really buy the argument that it would be too expensive. For some maybe, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would be willing to fill in for the financially shorthanded. The nearly unrestricted access to private courses should be a big enough perk.

[Andy Troeger]

Wayne,

Private clubs already can do as you've suggested. They are under no requirement to allow panelist play at all, and may charge what they like and require the panelist to be a guest of a member. Many choose not to charge a fee, but I bet 90% of private clubs do require panelists to play with someone affiliated with the club whether it be a member or staff member. Panelists should not "ask" for a comped or reduced green fee in the first place.

Cabell,
Whatever view you take, the issue is far from simple.

If courses charged panelists every time there would be little change at the top most likely. Many top courses could care less about panelists as it is and do just fine. The problem created is that if a panelist has to pay for golf and has access anywhere why would they play anything but the very best? The top 100 list wouldn't suffer much, but the state lists (which I think are important, even if they have their own flaws) would be worse off for not having panelists see the courses. Sure you could assign courses, but is telling a panelist to go pay and play some course five hours away any more objective than the current system? There's challenges no matter how you do it.

[Mark_Fine]

Why do some think comped golf impacts course ratings    I don't get it because courses have no idea what rating a panelist gives their golf course.  A panelist could say one thing and do another.  

My recent situation is a good example.  I was invited as a guest not to rate the course, but to play golf with a friend.   Does that mean one can't draw an opinion of a course on an "unofficial" visit?  I sure hope not.  Many times, courses don't even know panelists are there.  Sometimes it is better that way.  

[Cabell Ackerly]

Andy,
I don't buy your logic. If a courses is worth playing, panelists will play it - especially if it is close to home. And any self respecting panelist should be making every effort to play any new golf course that opens up within 120 miles of him (free or not).

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, Fitting golf into other models does not work. Your game mind is showing.

I've had years where I played 225 rounds of golf. Most of those appear free because I pay for an annual pass. Playing 5 rounds as a panelist, where I may or not be comped a green fee is insignificant, even if it's $500. For full disclosure, I have only played one course with such a ridiculous fee and I was there as a guest of the GM/Pro who is a friend and had it written in his contract that friends (of his) could play for free.

There is no system other free markets at work here. Each Mag has their own wau of going things and people are free to try and "play the game", but in my eyes getting a free putter will not change the fact that the architect did a good job or a bad one.

http://www.hunter-pr.com/success-stories/

[Andy Troeger]

Cabell,
If you think that every panelist plays every candidate course (which should mean its worth playing or it wouldn't be a candidate) within 120 miles of them as is I think you probably are kidding yourself. I agree with your point, but reality tells me otherwise. Not every panelist has unlimited free time and money to go see every course; I benefit from being single and living in an area with reasonably priced everything to see more courses than I could in California or New York.

I've played 23 public courses in New Mexico since I moved here in January and have paid for at least one round at 21 of them. The other two? One was as assistant coach for a high school team and it wasn't a candidate course anyway. The other was brand new and allowed me to play prior to their official opening. Its a few hours away so once I get a chance I'll go back and visit. There's only one other course that I haven't seen, and that will be a priority next year.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

You didn't answer my question and your recent situation is not a good example.  If you went and played as a guest of your friend and he paid, this has nothing at all to do with the issue being discussed.  In fact it is an obfuscation.  If you chose to rate the course while a guest of your friend, then that is a secondary matter not related to the issue of charges, which were apparently covered by your friend and not the club (you never disclosed).

Andy,

I agree with you that private clubs have a right to decide these matters.  I think the magazines should be the ones that set the highest standard for their panelists to follow.  Besides, how many clubs have standardized practices tacit or clearly expressed in club governance documents?  If the number of private clubs that require panelists to play with a member is 90%, then I think the problem is less pronounced than I reasoned.  However, what percent of panelist rounds would you say is comped or deeply discounted below the going guest fees?

[Andy Troeger]

Wayne,
Many clubs have pretty set policies that they give me when I write or call asking about them, I obviously don't know if they are written or formalized. They are also pretty specific as to what they will charge and are upfront about that as well.

Giving a percent is difficult because I do not know when I pay something whether it is deeply discounted or not. Its not uncommon for a course to discount or comp the green free but ask the panelist to support their caddie program.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Maybe another way to look at this is who is doing a service for who?  Do you think it is possible that some clubs believe that the panelist is doing a service for them (and its not the other way around)?  Maybe the panelist is coming out of their way or taking a vacation day from work, ... to do something for them?  I think the sterotype some have of panelists is questionable.  

I'm curious, when you were doing field visits to clubs for work on your book, did you always pay for access to walk and/or play the golf course?  I recall a few clubs we visited together and don't recall having to pay and no one flashed there panelist credentials or PGA cards, etc.  Maybe they viewed us as doing a service for them or else they were just being generous hosts    There is ALWAYS a sincere offer to pay.  

[corey miller]

My experience at my club as far as policy for raters is: It depends on who picks up the phone.

[Forrest Richardson]

Joel — "All ski resorts are public." No, maybe a majority of ski mountains are public, but the resort components are certainly not in most instances.

Adam — But, what if the magazines and those in charge of ratings are not so inclined to push panelists to a particular course? What then?


Here is something to consider: What is the result if a  panelist who attends a retreat or meeting of other panelists gets a hold of a decent list of fellow panelists? Then, let's say this panelist uses that list to share with the developer of a new course in his area. The developer doesn't send shirts or customized bottles of California wine...just a simple letter inviting the area panelists to join in a round.  

Now, if the list was known to all — no foul, no advantage, etc.

But, when lists are private, opportunity exists for such "abuse"...even though the scenario I shared does not seem that out-of-bounds to me.

[wsmorrison]

Wayne,
Maybe another way to look at this is who is doing a service for who?  Do you think it is possible that some clubs believe that the panelist is doing a service for them (and its not the other way around)?  Maybe the panelist is coming out of their way or taking a vacation day from work, ... to do something for them?  I think the sterotype some have of panelists is questionable.  

I'm curious, when you were doing field visits to clubs for work on your book, did you always pay for access to walk and/or play the golf course?  I recall a few clubs we visited together and don't recall having to pay and no one flashed there panelist credentials or PGA cards, etc.  Maybe they viewed us as doing a service for them or else they were just being generous hosts    There is ALWAYS a sincere offer to pay.  

If the clubs didn't think the panelists were doing them a service, do you really think they would offer perks?  Of course they believe it is a quid pro quo situation. That goes without saying.  However, the leverage is on the side of the panelists for that very reason.  They can do something for the club and that's why conflicts can arise.  Surely this is readily understood by all.

When I visited a club to do research for my book, why would I pay to simply walk the course and study it?  Overwhelmingly I did more study than play.  If I did play, more often than not I paid.  I wasn't doing my work for a commercial concern but rather an at-a-loss book project.  Except for one or two courses where archival material did not exist, I provided the clubs with hard and digital copies of the Flynn drawings and provided a written architectural evolution report including sourcing aerial photographs (most courtesy of Craig Disher) and ground photographs and other information pertinent to the history of the courses.   In any case, do you equate this work with ranking a golf course?  I guess you do because you bring it up as some sort of validation point.

I don't remember visiting a course for the Flynn book with you to play where I didn't pay, but I may have.  I couldn't flash a panelist card or PGA card as I am not a member of either one.  If we happened to play a course where they allowed us to play without charge, I don't know what service they thought you were providing except maybe as another set of eyes to help me.  They knew that I was there primarily to do research.  

Do you think the primary reason raters do their thing is to provide a service that benefits golf or rather the access that they are granted?

[JESII]

If every course in the country was given one vote as to how to treat "raters", do we think the concensus would be to comp them based on the valuable service they are performing for the game of golf?

Also...is a rating formula from a panel a better method than a straight ranking from one very well traveled individual?

I'd be more interested in reading about Mike Young's top 25 than about seeing who's No. 1 Pine Valley or Cypress...

This format could also be regionalized very easily...Makr Fin could probably do a Tri-State top 25 and compare it against Matt Ward's and keep my interest...

You could also feature the same clubs that pay advertising dollars...

[Steve Lang]

[quote author=Wayne Morrison
Do you think the primary reason raters do their thing is to provide a service that benefits golf or rather the access that they are granted?


As a non-rater, interested by the thread.. Great question..  IMHO.. has to include both, but more of the "access"

for full disclosure.. transpearency.. ms sheila & i have been comp'd once while with another rater..  after the first drive, desperately not wanting to top one, and being successful.. we really didn't think about the free fee again, till our conclusion and consideration of whether we'd pay to play there again.. no different than thoughts at any other place we play.. we'll try anything once..

oh yeh , btw.. eliminate ratings of private courses.. I don't see any public value to that exercise!

[Bart Bradley]

I am truly not sure where I stand on this overall thread issue.  But, the notion that comped rounds would not affect rater bias seems ludicrous.  I am a physician and I hear all the time that drug company freebies do not affect my colleagues behavior.  I say "baloney"....Drug companies are too big, too smart, too powerful to not be quite clear that giving free lunches, pens with company logos, etc must change physician prescribing behavior.  Likewise, I believe it does impact the ratings for comped golf, food, etc...I also believe that the quality of the course may far outweigh the effects of the freebies, but when courses are only marginally different the freebies might just make the difference.  There might be good reasons for allowing comped rounds, BUT the raters need to be ever conscious of the truth...free just might sway their opinion, if only a little bit.

I am not a course rater.  Full disclosure.

Bart

[Mark_Fine]

Bart,
You make good points, however, the one big difference is that in your analogy, a salesman providing free samples/gifts, etc. to a physician will be able to determine if the physician is prescribing their drug of choice.  In golf course ratings, a club will never know what rating an individual panelist gives their golf course.  

Also remember that most of the other top courses would laugh at the thought of providing a panelist a free round of golf.  They just don't do it (at least I don't think they do) yet it doesn't seem to impact their status in the rankings.  

Getting back to Forrest's question; the problem with identifying all the panelists is that I don't think most would want to be identified.  As I said earlier, sometimes it is better to go to a club under the radar and many panelists do just that.  You often get a better appreciation of the course and how it is normally prepared in this situation.  

Wayne,
To answer your question which is a good one, I do think the majority of panelists (at least the most active ones) do this because they believe that they can make a difference (hopefully in a positive way).  I know and have met dozens and dozens of panelists and have yet to have one tell me that they are in it for the free golf.  Frankly if they did or I felt that they didn't take what they are doing seriously, I'd let the powers to be know about it.  Panelists like that only hurt the perception of everyone else.  

[JESII]

Mark,

Make a positive difference for who? Or what?

I don't care one way or another about the process, I just don't think it can be equated to a Consumer Reports type survey...

[Sean_A]

Many people keep saying they won't get a chance to rate some courses if there wasn't a system that is in place like the one we have.  I say, then perhaps some folks on the rating panel should be dropped if they can't get the job done.  Its more important to have integrity in the system then to allow comped (ie potentially compromised ratings) golf.

I don't think you lot are getting it yet.  It doesn't matter a damn if one guy can be influenced by free golf or whatever.  The problem is that the system allows for these kickbacks and that CANNOT possibly be deemed as a positive factor where integrity of the system is concerned.  Its amazing to me that folks can pick out very similar conflicts of interest in other aspects of life, yet turn a blind eye for golfers.  I wonder if these guys who believe golfers are holier than thou also believe that drug testing is a waste of time.  It could well be a waste of time for almost all golfers, but perceptions are important whether or not people think there is a problem or not.  These sorts of things, when they work best, have to be cleaner than clean.  What is the point of starting out with a flawed system and trying to make do when the lack of controls are obviously missing?

Ciao

[JESII]

Sean,

I think you might not get my point...I don't care if a course is 58 or 93 so the guy that got comped and gave a higher review because of it didn't effect my life at all...I also don't think that rating effects anyone other than the club itself.

I would be interested in hearing an indivuduals personal list with explanations.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
I wish this was black and white.  It's not.  But I do believe that if any of the magazines believed that an "uncomped" system yielded a better ranking, they would try to do it (though I'm not sure it is possible even if they tried).  Clubs will do what they want and one can only push so hard to pay without embarrassing yourself and your host.

JES II,
How can someone influence golf in a positive manner; let’s put it this way, at GD, a new course might only get 10, 20 or 30 votes give or take.  One vote can make a big difference and most take that very serious.  If for example a panelist thinks XYZ’s latest new course is superb, they can vote it up and also tell 40 of their “closest friends” what they think about it.  On the other hand, if they think it is too much like the last one he or she did or that the architect is spreading themselves too thin,… they can do the opposite.  Panelists can make a difference and they need to understand that.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()