[A_Clay_Man]

I'd say the ratings game needs MORE golfers and less architecture enthusiasts

Tom, With all due respect, this statement is gobeldygook. Since no one, I am aware of, ever became an enthusiast without first being a golfer.

The future of architecture could be riding on this game, as you call it.

Do you really want to leave it in the hands of fickle individuals who have never invested any time to learn more than swing mechanics? Or to those who think they inherently know the best place to plant a tree, inorder to make a hole more challenging and difficult? I'd hope not.

[Dan King]

Robert Thompson writes:
May I retort? When am I getting paid by the golf course if I happen to be one of GD's raters? Come on, I might be partially with this crazy puritanical notion up until this point, but golf courses aren't paying raters. I'm not even sure what you mean by this Dan.

If they are comping your round, they are paying your way. If they aren't comping your round, you still are working for a publication that doesn't discourage the practice, putting the entire rankings in a bad light.

When does one stop fighting windmills, Dan, and understand the system isn't going away, but can be improved?

If you mean improved by getting rid of the ethical dilemma of courses paying for rankings, cool. If you are talking about hiding that rankings are paid for, then I disagree.

Tom Huckaby writes:
My point here is that if one takes this architectural enthusiasm too far - to the extent that he no longer plays the game - then he loses sight of what's most important about the game, the playing.

I think the opposite. Most people I have met can not get past their own game to honestly appraise a course. Going out sans sticks allow a reviewer to visualize a variety of games beyond their own. Watching on a busy day and seeing how others deal with the course is even better. I gained much more knowledge of the 13th hole at the Villages sitting out there watching group after group go by than I ever did playing the hole.

Dan King

Maintenance is more important than design, and visual aspects are more important than playability. As an example, several of the Golf Digest top-rated courses are unplayable but have great views. But that's what we have to deal with.
 --Michael Hurdzan

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby writes:
My point here is that if one takes this architectural enthusiasm too far - to the extent that he no longer plays the game - then he loses sight of what's most important about the game, the playing.

I think the opposite.

Most people I have met can not get past their own game to honestly appraise a course.

I'd agree 100 %.
Years ago I proposed that raters walk the golf course first, then play it.

Logistically, this may create a problem, but, if one is MORE serious about rating a course than having a ticket to play it, they'll engage in that process.[/color]

Going out sans sticks allow a reviewer to visualize a variety of games beyond their own.

Agreed, but, playing it subsequently would give the rater the  best of both worlds.[/color]

Watching on a busy day and seeing how others deal with the course is even better. I gained much more knowledge of the 13th hole at the Villages sitting out there watching group after group go by than I ever did playing the hole.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Why play at all?  Perhaps the four hours would be best spent studying the course and wacthing other play.

[Mike_Young]

The truth is raters are just a pawn in the game.  Housing is what pays for large golf magazine ads.  The magazines have the ratings as a filler for their publications and the people that do the marketing for the real estate developers recommend advertising and promoting for ratings in these publications.  It is not uncommon as an architect for a developer to say" sorry but I need a signature even it cost another 5 million".  
Funny but the top of the food chain(developers) could care less if they give a rater free golf, shirts, balls whatever. they don't care if one is qualified as long as he can show up on his own.  It's a hell of a deal for a developer.  
 And the magazine is indirectly making $$$ off of this rating business.  There is a correlation between money spent on advertising and rating for some magazines.  Developers know it.  There is a segment of  guys that  make a living getting raters to a course and hyping it.
And the last few years have proven , in most cases, that the developer could care less about the architecture.  He wants to sell houses or resort property and he wants perfect conditioning and press.  So you raters, seems to me you are getting underpaid.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike I agree with you to a point. Tom, The GD guys in Louisiana are all very good golfers and have minimal interest in architecture. I am not saying that is 100% the case nationwide for there are a number of GD guys on here with both a love and intellectual appreciation and understading of how architecture fits into the equation. I still thought geoff was funny and would love to be at the orlando meeting to hear the discussions even if they proved a waist of time after an hour or so.

[ForkaB]

Tom Huckaby writes:
My point here is that if one takes this architectural enthusiasm too far - to the extent that he no longer plays the game - then he loses sight of what's most important about the game, the playing.

I think the opposite.

Most people I have met can not get past their own game to honestly appraise a course.

I'd agree 100 %.
Years ago I proposed that raters walk the golf course first, then play it.

Logistically, this may create a problem, but, if one is MORE serious about rating a course than having a ticket to play it, they'll engage in that process.[/color]

Going out sans sticks allow a reviewer to visualize a variety of games beyond their own.

Agreed, but, playing it subsequently would give the rater the  best of both worlds.[/color]

Watching on a busy day and seeing how others deal with the course is even better. I gained much more knowledge of the 13th hole at the Villages sitting out there watching group after group go by than I ever did playing the hole.

Pat

You nailed it with this post.

1.  Raters should be required to walk any course (preferably on a busy day, ideally at a competition) before they rate it
2.  If, after walking it, the club offers a free round, the rater should refuse the comp, pay the going rate and get reimbursed by whatever magazine he is working for.

The ratings would be much more informed and the process would be far less corruptible. Win-Win, I would say.

[THuckaby2]

Well I certainly didn't expect my Islam to be accepted in this hotbed of Christianity.

 

Listen guys, don't take this too far.  I'm not saying architectural knowledge does anything but help.  I'd concur that walking a course first before playing it could only help the process - and in fact, many of us do that if it can be done.

My sole and only point here is that if one goes too far to the extreme, his views get lost.  That is, IF ALL HE EVER DOES IS STUDY ARCHITECTURE, TO THE EXTENT HE NEVER PLAYS THE GAME, well then his views aren't to be trusted.

Capice?

TH

ps Rich - re comps, sure that's how it SHOULD go -but don't tell me you too are in Dan King's fantasy world where you think that has any chance of happening?  Please.  Go tell me next we should end world hunger.  I'm right with you brother.  

[Robert Thompson]

2.  If, after walking it, the club offers a free round, the rater should refuse the comp, pay the going rate and get reimbursed by whatever magazine he is working for.

The ratings would be much more informed and the process would be far less corruptible. Win-Win, I would say.

This is a great utopian ideal, but I often wonder if people think the golf media business is sort of like the oil industry -- so much money floating around that they can pay for the wildest extravagances. Magazines cannot afford to pay for golfers to play the courses. That's really the end of this debate in my mind. You are welcome to ignore or disagree with the way the ratings panels are set up, but let's not kid ourselves.
And this isn't just a Golf Digest deal. I doubt very much that Golf Week, or Golf Magazine raters ever pay for their rounds. At what point does this simply become an industry standard?

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Robert.

The degree of fantasy on this issue, from otherwise very practical, very intelligent folks is rather dumbfounding to me.

Let's just say it's quite a role-reversal for starry-eyed me and real-world business veteran Rich.  Dan King?  I expect utopian ideals from him.  But Rich really surprises me here.

 

[ForkaB]

Robert and Tom

Please don't tell me that the golf magazines cannot afford to pay for rater green fees.  They are big boys with very big budgets.  They just choose not to pay because they know that there is a system in place which makes the ratee pay, and they really do not care too much about the concomitant implied lack of integrity. IMVHO, of course....

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

I didn't say they can't afford it - I don't know that one way or the other.

I just said they AREN'T GOING TO DO IT, for exactly the reasons you state.

What makes you think they will?

Or is this more just "I wish we'd end world hunger" thinking?

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

So, the magazines are going to pay $1.5-3 million off their bottom line to fund this?  Not to mention another couple hundred thousand to employ folks and setup expense/voucher software to administer the system?

Think about it...talk about a system with the potential for fraud and abuse!!

What about the course that stamps the voucher as "paid", yet comps the round anyway?  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Robert, I rated two courses last weekend. I paid for one and compted on the other. I did not asked to compted at either. Both were courses of the same stature and in the same community. I would not assume all raters get a free pass by saying they are raters. Naturally I am such a chump in the proshop that I have to buy a shirt or two everywhere I go.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Robert said they couldn't afford it and you said "Well said, Robert."

What's wrong, BTW, with Pat's idea that a rater should be required to walk the course first?  Even if it might be your only chance to see the track, I guarantee you that 99+% of all raters will learn more walking a new than playing it.  Isn't that (learning) the object, or is it just getting access to play the great tracks......?

[Mike_Young]

Rich,
Well said. post #63

Now take this scenario.....would a devloper be willing to spend more advertising dollars with a magazine if he thought he would have a higher rating.....this could possibly help pay for the raters green fees.....
And while on the subject.....does anyone think that architecture comes before conditioning for most people that play a golf course.....I just can't think it does....

[Michael Hayes]

does anyone think that architecture comes before conditioning for most people that play a golf course.....I just can't think it does....

I think this is a very valid statement, the vast majority of golfers "rate" a golf course based on green speed and color, in addition to how well they played.  I can't help but think that these factors color all but the most unbiased and impartial rankers

[THuckaby2]

Tom

Robert said they couldn't afford it and you said "Well said, Robert."

What's wrong, BTW, with Pat's idea that a rater should be required to walk the course first?  Even if it might be your only chance to see the track, I guarantee you that 99+% of all raters will learn more walking a new than playing it.  Isn't that (learning) the object, or is it just getting access to play the great tracks......?

Rich - you took my "well said" too far.  But my fault, I should have been more specific.  As I say, I have no clue whether the magazines can afford it or not; I just think there's no incentive for them to do this whatsoever, so asking for it is completely pointless.

As for walking courses before rating, if you will read what I wrote, you will notice I said earlier:

"I'd concur that walking a course first before playing it could only help the process - and in fact, many of us do that if it can be done."

There are instances where courses are too crowded to allow for it, or the courses themselves won't allow you to do so for liability reasons.  Don't dount that - it has happened to me.  But yes, if it can be done, it should be done.

As long as we're discussing though, my experience in REAL course rating (you know, the kind that helps for our US handicap system that you love so much) has shown me that I at least learn a LOT more playing than walking.  I think it's fantasy that it goes the other way around, at least for the astute.  For those consumed by their own games, yes they would learn more walking.  Perhaps that's what you meant.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree they could afford it, but given the relative lack of importance to the magazine, they would more likely just drop the whole thing.  Personally, while I agree with the ideal of magazines paying full freight, since no one gets hurt in this relatively unimportant excersizs, I think the system is fine.

Theoretical questions -

First, have any of you in the press (or others) critquing the high standards ever accepted a free buffet, golf or other gifts from potential suppliers or vendors?  Then you are just a "line drawer" telling others to be perfect, no?

Second - As opposed to a restaurant critic, who simply gives thumbs up or down (hey, did Siskel or Ebert ever attend a studio party with free food, etc?  I'll be they have) and could be influenced, can a rater, who, after all can only rank one course best new, one second, etc. and is only a small part of the process, be influenced unduly if all courses comp him/her?

Even after the free round, how does the club know what there secret ballot is?  And, how that dragged them up or down the ratings?  That is probably enough cover for a conscientious rater to avoid pressure.  At least, it would be for me.

The raters for various mags started out doing this thinking they were doing something good for golf that was also fun for them.  I am sure there are some rankers out there who can be compromised.  I suspect most cannot.  I also know that the magazines have removed rankers who have been compromised, which is a pretty good check and balance.

(Imaginary Interview with God:)

Interviewer: If you could do it all over, what would you change about the Universe?

God: Well, I really let that golf course ranking thing get out of hand!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

You're absolutely correct.

Even if magazines paid, who would police it and wouldn't that system be doubly at risk for abuse?

In the case of Golf Digest, they have somewhere around 800 raters playing probably somewhere around 20-100 courses each year, at rates ranging from what...$30 - $300?  

Who is going to monitor that?

Who is going to administer that?

Who is going to followup?

When we wonder why large, bloated, wasteful bureaucracies exist, we should all remember this lesson:

Someone, somewhere, decided that something that worked in 90% of the cases decided to spend 90% of their energy "fixing" the other 10%.  

The result is usually that the other 90% gets screwed up, as well.  

[A.G._Crockett]

So if I can learn more by walking a golf course than by playing it...

Could I learn more about sex by watching it than having it?

[Mike_Cirba]

A.G.,

That depends.  

[Mike Benham]

Second - As opposed to a restaurant critic, who simply gives thumbs up or down (hey, did Siskel or Ebert ever attend a studio party with free food, etc?  I'll be they have) and could be influenced, can a rater, who, after all can only rank one course best new, one second, etc. and is only a small part of the process, be influenced unduly if all courses comp him/her?

Can someone enlighten me.  

Do magazine raters rank courses?

Or do they play a course, rate it based on the criteria given, and send their results to the home office?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

A.G.,

While you're on the subject of sex and learning I thought you might benefit from a little wisdom from Willie Nelson,

If you're gonna have sex with an animal it might as well be a horse that way if things don't work out you still have a ride home!

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

While you're on the subject of sex and learning I thought you might benefit from a little wisdom from Willie Nelson,

If you're gonna have sex with an animal it might as well be a horse that way if things don't work out you still have a ride home!

Words to live by!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()