A better rating system would utilise paid raters who visited courses anonymously, pay the full whack and get reimbursed later.  Of course, this is not possible due to both economics and the fact that the exclusivity of many great courses requires that raters have to "out" themselves to get on.

This lack of anonymity, however, leads to a serious problem which I don't think has been mentioned above.  I would be surprised (even astonished!) if a course which knew that a "rater" was coming didn't do their damnedest to "tune up" the maintenance meld, as well as make sure that all the staff was on their very best behavior.  I doubt if raters always get to see how a course plays day in day out, but maybe I am just too cynical......

Jeff Fortson,
I'm with you. Enough bad apples to cast a shadow on the whole process from an operators view. I'm not talking about how the rankings come out, but how some go about it. In Arizona, a busy Saturday morning in Feb and some guy slaps some bullshit card on the counter claiming some special treatment because he's a "rater" for god knows who and he and his wife are ready to go to the first tee....happens a lot more then people think.

How come there are no superintendents/PGA guys on any of the rating panels?

Dave Moriarty:

I think you are headed in the right direction, but I would go even further and pretty much ban course raters from playing the courses they rate. The freebie nonsense would then become a non issue.

David, I do like your point but i do not think it is correct. I would no more say a $250 green fee course is better than any other course whether I paid for it or not. I would be pissed if I did pay to play a course at that price that was bad like most people would. PGA National is such a course. I played it before I was a rater as a guest rate of the PGA Tour at $50.00 instead of the normal $275.00 at that time. My exact quote was that was worth about 50 to 75 dollars and really is at best an ok golf course. And I would never recommend someone to pay that kind of money to play this course. If I had payed $275.00, then I would have felt the same way and said the same thing just felt a little worse for the financial wear. I pay to see plenty of courses now and often just walk or ride the course rather than play. Rating courses to me is alot more than just getting to play at some really nice places. It is an opportunity to see different courses, take the time to understand what the course has to offer different types of players, the architecture, the routing, different types of holes in many settings, how land forms are used, strategy and try to fit the course into some order as to how it rates compared to its peers. As much as I like to play, I really from a rating point of view would rather walk the course and take a detailed look at the holes and maybe play 2 or 3 holes and hit some shots here and there.

David M.:

For a guy who said yesterday he doesn't care a bit about any magazine ratings, you sure seem to think about it a lot.

This whole premise - aimed at me, based on the fact I said I gave a favorable rating to a course you hate - seems to be to be very silly and mean-spirited.

In my own defense, given this was aimed at me:

Dave, how do you know where I've paid and where I haven't?  I'd have to guess I've paid to play golf WAY WAY WAY more than you think... I'd say my ratio is 30 paid rounds for every one "freebie", and that's just since I've started as a rater, a year and a half ago.  Even at the course in question, that Satan of all Golf called Moorpark - I PAID MY FEE, as did my family.  They were nice to give us a reduced fee, which I sure didn't turn down when they insisted... so sue me.  I do have a limited budget for these things - I am a man of limited means.

The rules for GD raters, anyway, is that we are to expect to pay, but if gratis is offered, we can take it.  At least for me, it's never any part of why I do a rating, and it is REALLY never a part of what my assessment comes out as.  

I find this whole thing pretty damn insulting.  Sure, there are bad raters who likely abuse this - but you've aimed this at ME, and you know a whole bunch of others, David.  I know I can speak for all the rest I know, and none of them are causing this "problem" you see.  Nor am I.

One more thing:  the assumption in your post that I don't have the perspective of the real world golfer is ludicrous.  The thought that I don't seek out hidden gems is even more ludicrous.  Maybe some raters act this way - I sure as hell do not.

Enough said.  You've gone way too far this time.

TH

The problems with the ratings are not due to any conflict of interest, they are due to flaws in the methodology. GM has too few raters on whom they have placed too great a burden. Given their system, a rater effectively needs to have seen 300 of the 400 best courses in the world to have valid input.

GD asks questions that are biased toward harder courses over sportier ones, and the Tradition category allows their editors to manipulate the final rankings. They also have the statistical problems I have discussed previously.

GW artificially divides into the two categories that I, for one, reject. I play golf courses. I don't care when they were built. I want them to be good either way. The GW panelists seem to run the gamut of playing ability, which has its plusses and minuses, but clearly Dr. Klein seems to manipulate these results a bit as well.

At the end of the day, number 10 vs. number 15 is impossible to determine. But what all of these do, in general, is point out courses worthy of play. And that is not such a bad thing, is it.

Jeff Fortson:

As far as not crying for people because of the expenses they rack up, I'm not sure if you read my reply or if I didn't make myself clear.

I am always willing to pay for something that I normally don't pay for because I ENJOY the rating process. I incur these expenses because I like to have a reason to go visit golf courses. I don't want people to feel sorry for me having to spend money. I just want it to be clear that we spend money on the process voluntarily because it's fun!!!

You probably understand where I'm coming from more than most people. As a PGA Professional, I could play golf without paying as often as I'd like if I wanted to impose on fellow members, but I choose to spend money seeking out courses on the ballot because I enjoy the process!!!!

Regards,

Doug

Mike,
I have no problem with comp golf for raters, writers, PGA, GCSAA if they simply call ahead and realize that I'm not going to give them a time I can sell. I have plenty of open times in non-peak periods to get anyone out. My beef is with the guy who makes a tee time with no mention of a comp, then walks in and throws his card on the counter and expects us to honor it. I told my staff in AZ, where it happened a lot in the winter, and my staff here in TX, where it never happens, to not honor any comps not approved by me. Simple curtesy is all I ask, and to be fair most understand and try and follow protocol. But, it's a bummer when you have a confrontaion at the counter on a busy day. I don't honor any comps from PGA or GCSAA that will not comp my staff. Again, it happened a lot in AZ with PGA guys who made a time without ID who they were and just showing up and dropping the card on the counter. Sadly, they know better but still try it and it can be an embarrasing situation and not at all fair to the guy behind the counter. The folks who abuse the system are in the minority, but it does happen often enough to be an issue that every course has to have a plan in place to handle.
No one ever admits to slapping the card on the counter or pulling the pro aside "btw I'm a .....", but then in 10 years I've never met a slow golfer.

BillV/redanman
That elite group would be out of my league. I'll be in charge of counting. You could be in charge of monitoring the committee's behavior--to insure they act in a gracious and courteous manner. I don't think you'll have much problem with them.

(I may have to forgo the super short shorts idea for panelists, but of course you'll be required to wear them on all official business)

To once again prove that golf is a business, let's do the numbers. I just received a Golf Magazine Top US 100 plaque from a friend, which is $150. If they sell 10,000 per 2 year period (seems reasonable for 100 people per 100 courses, the gross is $1.5 million. My guess is it cost them $20 to make and ship it. Lets assume the expenses of part time staff and some expenses of their "Advisory Panel" are $300,000. They net $1.0 mm. Now add in the Top 100 World list for additional sales and advertising dollars (see Mike Vegas @ Kiawah).

Those are nice round numbers, but unless they are accurate they do nothing to lead me to think otherwise. The number of people that would have played 10 courses on the top 100 (I assume the minimum before you would make the purchase is already small. Secondly, I know a number of people would make the criteria of 10 rounds and they do not have the plaques.

As for advertising dollars, not sure what the correlation to Mike Vegis is. Kiawah advertises seemingly every month, I know rankings matter to them, but I cannot believe this is the reason they pull out a full page glossy.

Mike Young,
"If someone doesn't think it is a money maker for mags...which issue is the biggest seller each year....."

IS it the biggest selling issue for Golf Digest or GOLF, or are you assuming, I do not know for sure. Why I am suspect is it seems that devoting three pages to it - as GOLF and Golf Digest seem to do - doesn't really fit with the biggest magazine of the year.

Readership is continuously more interested in equipment and instruction than courses/travel. Since this is the case, I would imagine the person who is not interested in reading about courses does not really care whether Pine Valley is number one or not.

BillV/redanman
Why?

If I were in charge of course analysis, I would require "my" raters to tour the entire course before playing it, write a preliminary report without subjectivity, and then get a signature from the greenkeeper that this had been done.
Then, "my" rater would be allowed to play. This would assure a more objective look at the course, and the analysis would be more thorough.

Robert,

Touring a course before playing would limit the number of courses raters could rate severely, as 2 in a day wouldn't be possible, and one in a day would often not be possible, with the added 2 hours or whatever it takes to tour.  Not everyone has 6+ hours to kill at one facility, especially in the late afternoons.   I've never played a course as a rater, but I  know I never have extra time to do anything like that.  So often, I finish courses at sunset, when if I toured the place first, I'd only get a few holes in of actual play.

In terms of a preliminary report, do you really want a rater to make quick, first impression judgements, perhaps after just spending "quality" time with the DOG, pro, or GM breathing down their neck?  I believe raters are encouraged to take a course in after playing to fully think about every hole and feature, not to rate after the initial high (and club personnel lobbying) might cloud their judgment.