[Matt_Ward]

Mayday:

Everything in the "arrangement" works for those you mentioned -- save one party that should be paid the most attention -- the reader.

The issue is not about the quality of the gent you mentioned or his handicap or that everyone had a grand time.

The magazines don't want to do the heavy lifting and do the information in-house. I mentioned before the credibility of Consumer Reports because they don't take outside advertising. The reader then has a better sense that the information / assessments put forward are not conflicted with "arrangements."

Let me mention one other thing -- there is a clear bias IMHO with a bulk of raters to their own region or to those that are highly touted. The unknown courses and unknown architects rarely get the kind of exposure because too many raters are too busy trying to get on the Merions, Aroniminks, etc, etc of this world. I mean very few raters trek off the beaten trek to play the lesser known courses because too often the cherry-picking is for the high profile layouts. Such a pattern only serves to reinforce their position at the expense of other courses that don't have the pedigree / fanfare / name recognition of others.

[David Ober]

Wow! You QUOTED me!!!

That makes me very happy.  

[mike_malone]

 Dan,

     In the political world the benefits of abuse are more power and/or money. It makes the risk of getting caught worth it to some.  It is a big deal.

  But  how big a benefit is it for these rankers to gain access and/or free golf ? Couldn't it just be enough of a benefit to get people to do the work ; to make the system work?

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm trying to imagine a world in which golf course raters, or anybody else, insists on paying when offered free golf.

Visualize whirled peas...

[Matt_Ward]

A.G.

I nominate you for such a position.

Then maybe you could include Barefoot Resort / Love course to the top of the charts.

Gents:

Forgive me but the reader should not have to go through some sort of Columbo / CSI investigation thought process in terms of how the ratings info was assessed and if the people doing the gathering did or did not receive "consideration" when making their visits.

Frankly, the people running the publications should be thinking about the reader even if the reader is clueless on the subject. Just because something is convenient and workable for everyone doesn't make it appropriate or worthy of having the magazine's standing be called into question.

Far too often the people who scream the loudest in maintaining the system are the very beneficiaries that have been outlined already. It's often way too difficult for those folks to see the general interest if their self interest is jeopardized.

[THuckaby2]

AGC:

I believe you and I are copacetic on this.

The funny thing is, it does happen.  Hell I've done it myself, and I am as mercenary - and financially-challenged, let's say - as they come.

Understand why us "rankers" might perhaps take these critiques in here a little too personally?

 

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

   How is the reader hurt ? Is it that some courses miss the list that belong and others get listed that don't belong?

  I think that problem would exist regardless of how the lists are compiled.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I'd appreciate your take on this:

Also, say we do go to the one-man system.  I'd still be leery of one guy's take, but at least we'd know about him, know what to expect, take the rankings in that light.  I also think the potential for ass-kissing him and thus overly influencing his opinion would be HUGE.  Do you also so quickly give up the ANONYMOUS part of Basic Reviewing 101?

Also, careful with these slings and arrows, my friend.  When you say

 Far too often the people who scream the loudest in maintaining the system are the very beneficiaries that have been outlined already. It's often way too difficult for those folks to see the general interest if their self interest is jeopardized.

well there is certainly a grain of truth in that.  But do understand that many of also do understand the common good, and would support a better system.

But more importantly, take heart to the question AGC asked you.  It remains interesting to me YOUR interest in a one-man system.  Gee, who do we know who travels all over the place and sees a lot of golf courses and effectively compares and contrasts nationwide?

 

[Dan King]

mayday_malone writes:
In the political world the benefits of abuse are more power and/or money. It makes the risk of getting caught worth it to some.  It is a big deal.

But what I read on this thread is they have a perfectly good product so who cares how it is produced? We shouldn't worry about Golf Digest's lack of integrity, because the list is cool.

But  how big a benefit is it for these rankers to gain access and/or free golf ? Couldn't it just be enough of a benefit to get people to do the work ; to make the system work?

From what I've heard here, it doesn't matter to any of the rankers who pays the freight as long as it isn't themselves. So what is so terrible about questioning the publications integrity (as Geoff did in his column) and work toward convincing Golf Digest to grow some ethics. They will change when the world stops saying we don't care about the process only the results.

Dan King

In the United State today we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the 'hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.
 --Spiro Agnew, Sept. 11, 1970

[ForkaB]

God, do I miss Spiro.  Nobody could do alliteration like that guy, even though he was corrupt as a golf magazine r............

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.

I nominate you for such a position.

Then maybe you could include Barefoot Resort / Love course to the top of the charts.

Thanks, Matt, but totally unnecessary.  Not only do I not want the job, I actually realize I'm not qualified AND completely full of crap!

Besides, the Love Course at Barefoot is prospering in the current ranking system(s).  You're the one that would like to see that change, not me.  Just another reason to pick you as Czar of Rankings.

[ChasLawler]

Cabell:

You would expect all raters to always pay all of their own green fees?  Do restaurant raters do that?  Sorry my friend, that's just plain impractical, a standard that's far higher than ought to be expected.  The better answer is the magazines pay the fees their expenses, and at least in the real world outside of Dan King's fantasies, that's just not going to happen.  So what do you suggest be done?

Yes I would expect raters to pay their own green fees...and please explain to me how that is "plain impractical"...especially when (according to you and other raters on this site) you pay out of your own pocket for most of your rounds anyway.

[THuckaby2]

Cabell:

I believe you understand that a lot of the times, we do pay our own fees.

Sometimes we are assigned courses that are VERY expensive.  Some of the times these are courses we have no desire to play. We also have a lot of quantity to do, at times.

Forgive me then if I don't ascribe to us this standard, which would be so very higher standard than the restaurant reviewers.

Thus since no one is going to pay for us, well... if comps are offered, at times they are accepted.  Sure that might compromise our judgment, but I'd prefer to think we are honorable and/or intelligent enough to factor this in and not allow it to do so.

That's all I meant.

[Dan King]

Jason Blasberg writes:
I went through this with him already on the GCMC vs. Pebble thread.  He offers little substance and lots of arm chair criticism.

Now I remember you, and you are indeed a funny guy.

In that thread you mention you insulted people who disagreed with you, and then were so embarrassed by your posts you deleted them. Damn fine substance there Jason. When you going to delete what you write in this thread?

Dan King

I have known many an instance of a man writing a letter and forgetting to sign his name, but this is the only instance I have ever known of a man signing his name and forgetting to write the letter.
 --Henry Ward Beecher (on receiving a note containing the single word: "Fool".)

[ChasLawler]

Sometimes we are assigned courses that are VERY expensive.  Some of the times these are courses we have no desire to play. We also have a lot of quantity to do, at times.

well then...don't do it.

I'm sure there are plenty of Joes out there who would take on the job (and pay their own way) just for the potential perk of getting on at some of the exclusive private clubs.

[JESII]

Is there any way to get an estimate of the dollars involved in the process?

How many raters are there with GD?

How many courses do they play each year, or rating period (is that every two years)?

How much revenue do the lists generate?

[A.G._Crockett]

Sometimes we are assigned courses that are VERY expensive.  Some of the times these are courses we have no desire to play. We also have a lot of quantity to do, at times.

well then...don't do it.

I'm sure there are plenty of Joes out there who would take on the job (and pay their own way) just for the potential perk of getting on at some of the exclusive private clubs.

Which gains nothing, net.  Those who question the motives/conclusions of the rater playing for free would surely also do so for the rater playing (and paying) for access.

[THuckaby2]

Cabell:

You forget these courses are ASSIGNED.  There's little choice in the matter; not if you want to stay in good standing, that is.

I also understand your point re access to private clubs, also - it is a nice perk.

I'm just trying to explain a bit how this works.  To me, expecting us to pay all of our expenses is just too much to ask.  You might think that's what we ought to do, and hold us to this higher standard.  Fair enough.

But which of us actually does course ratings?

 

[JESII]

Sometimes we are assigned courses that are VERY expensive.  Some of the times these are courses we have no desire to play. We also have a lot of quantity to do, at times.

well then...don't do it.

I'm sure there are plenty of Joes out there who would take on the job (and pay their own way) just for the potential perk of getting on at some of the exclusive private clubs.

Which gains nothing, net.  Those who question the motives/conclusions of the rater playing for free would surely also do so for the rater playing (and paying) for access.

Agreed, wouldn't it stand to reason then that a "ranking czar" might make sense?

[THuckaby2]

JES:

Yes, that MIGHT make sense.

But let's go back to the questions/issues I raised with Matt Ward about that.  IE,

I'd still be leery of one guy's take, but at least we'd know about him, know what to expect, take the rankings in that light.  I also think the potential for ass-kissing him and thus overly influencing his opinion would be HUGE.  Do you also so quickly give up the ANONYMOUS part of Basic Reviewing 101?

Thoughts?

[George Pazin]

If there was one single thing I thought everyone agreed on, it was that Matt Ward is the ranking czar.

 

Dan-O, I admire your battle, but if integrity is lost in most of the world where it has tangible and often devastating results - and I think that it is - then what chance do you or Geoff have in rediscovering it in the area of golf course rankings, where the results really only matter to a few? It's an interesting intellectual argument, but it has a surprisingly simple solution. The only problem is the parties involved have no reason to implement that solution.

[JESII]

Many interesting points on both sides.

First issue is - Nobody argues the fact that the magazine should probably foot the bill. Noone in this conversation has argued with that idea.

Second - One person would be more difficult to corrupt than a large group because that one person will know that it's his ass if the ranking list somehow blows up.

Third - (as you Tom, and others, have said) What would the net result of a totally revamped system be. Is there anyway to suggest it would sell more magazines? I doubt it.

I like the idea of a clean operation, that's the reason for my first point. If that is done (magazine pays all expenses), then the logistics of finding one person to review however many courses you guys review (over 1000 I assume) would be pretty tough, but would provide the most controlled product. Not necessarily the best though.

[THuckaby2]

George:

What is the surprisingly simple solution?  I think I know, but please do confirm.  And yes, in any case the issue remains not the solution, but the implementation/effecting of such.  

JES:

Perfect summation of this, well done.  And good questions, also.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

The key courses would be covered -- in any given year you have a number of "must visit" courses and if someone occupying the key critic chair is really on top of their job they should easily be able to provide updates / assessments as needed. The likely number is closer to 50-75 courses.

In todays information age the key candidates would easily be seen / reviewed as needed. Frankly, the idea of the invisible fishing hole that produces quality fish is long gone because of today's 24/7 information age we live.

George:

Now finally there is a position you stated that I can agree upon.

Huck said:

"I also think the potential for ass-kissing him and thus overly influencing his opinion would be HUGE.  Do you also so quickly give up the ANONYMOUS part of Basic Reviewing 101?"

C'mon good buddy -- the reality is far different than you suggest. The ass-kissing / hand-holding routines are going on NOW fast and furious. With just one person or a select team of inside people from a publication you would likely have far less if any at all. Why?

The people doing this would access courses without briefing people as to their visit. Raters today make it a point to contact a facility IN ADVANCE before going -- particularly private clubs and the like. This sets in motion two things -- the facility then makes itself "available" for the rater and the opportunity to schmooze can be scheduled so that everything is handled as the host club wishes.

Blind visits work because no one -- accept for the person going -- knows when they will be there. You also detach all the pomp and circumstance that comes from having an official welcoming party and all the other non-related course agenda items.

The failure of ratings through consensus is that it simply throws different numbers together and often is nothing more than some sort of group assessment. I like the idea of one person -- warts and all -- because you would then get the kind of cross comparisons often neglected when the standing of a course is considered versus that of others of the same quality.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Good stuff, well-reasoned.

Just understand that you would NOT be following "Basic Reviewing 101."  You simply can't do it anonymously.  But you do make a convincing argument that it could be done to good effect.  Still, if they know you're there - and they will do so - the ass-kissing would occur, and Basic Reviewing 101 tenets would not be followed.

I remain unconvinced that this would be a net improvement though, at least on this issue.  Say what you will, it's still a hell of a lot easier for the courses to impress/influence one guy that it is a multitude - and come on, you don't think they'll try, knowing the POWER that one guy has?

If he's not anonymous, this is fraught for abuse.  And I don't see how he could possibly remain anonymous.

BTW, side point - what makes you think the current course raters get pomp/circumstance/special treatment?  I know I sure as hell never have.  But then I'm not Matt Ward.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()