[THuckaby2]

JK

Please note that I limited my commentary to the "magazine raters" corps. As a proud member of the BBGE, I am perfectly in tune with our totally altruistic purposes.

By the way Tom, thank you for this little debate opportunity, I have been watching Kyle Harris' numbers, and I have been fearing he would pass me any day now in posting, and he's only been around  for a month.

JC - my pleasure.  Yes, that Kyle is gonna pass ME if I don't watch it.

 

[THuckaby2]

Huck,

As someone who actually pays for a membership at a couple of the 1500 clubs on the Golfweek right to play list...let me assure you access is a comp.   Don't you have a tee time...

Huh?
That's all pops and whistles to me.  I don't understand that one.  Please explain in English I can understand.

TH

[Ted Kramer]

John,

I really don't think you are being fair to the raters of the BBGE...they are in it partially for the cool bag tag and the accompanied status.   Of course that's all you got...

What is the BBGE?

-Ted

[JakaB]

John,

I really don't think you are being fair to the raters of the BBGE...they are in it partially for the cool bag tag and the accompanied status.   Of course that's all you got...

Uhoh... I guess I should have asked my question better this morning... JK, are you a rater for something BESIDES the BBGE?

Because although that is the greatest of all in terms of prestige, status and cool bag tags, well...

That ain't gonna get you comped at Shadow.  

You really don't get it do you....everybody is a rater....some just support the greenskeepers, assistant pros and other related staff by paying their way..One thing I have learned...Only a magazine rater has the gall to ask.."Are you a rater.."  Thank god Golfweek came out with its rater gear and 8 by 10 billboard bag tags so us peons can tell who they are without having to ask..

[Kyle Harris]

Relax boys,

Just had an ill-timed lay off from my winter job...
Which was behind a computer...


I start March 15th at Talamore and I take two night classes, so my rate will drop a bit.

But you can still expect the highest of standards re: content...  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B,

Tell me how any rater could have gotten on Shadow Creek when it first opened, without being comped ?

It was impossible.

Comping was the ONLY way.

[THuckaby2]

JK:  well then touche, my friend.  OK, everyone is a rater.

You do have some very interesting ideas.

BTW, MANY of us magazine raters pay our way also, in support of the people you suggest, when it's appropriate to do so.  But of course you know this, and in your inflammatory style just want to poke another needle in.

Well this fish is spitting the hook.

 

And by the way, I only had the gall to ask you because it was pertinent to today's conversation.  I never have asked anyone before as I frankly don't care.

TH

[JakaB]

Pat,

If you would ask me to play Hidden Creek as your guest and then refused to let me pay....That is not a comp that is friendship.   One of my favorite Golf Digest raters played Shadow Creek back in the glory days as a gambler....if you thing gambling comps are comps you haven't gambled much...it is a quid pro quo.   Friars Head got rated without going the rater route.  You know golf is a close family and good people play good golf courses every day....The Shadow Creek example is probably the easiest...

[THuckaby2]

JC:

You make me sad.  Just what the hell did you think I meant?

TH

[John_Cullum]

TH

I just wanted to get the hook back in.

JC

[JakaB]

John,

Huck is not a member of a club and does not understand that people pay just for the right to access a course....he is an innocent child, let him go..

[JakaB]

Relax boys,

Just had an ill-timed lay off from my winter job...
Which was behind a computer...


I start March 15th at Talamore and I take two night classes, so my rate will drop a bit.

But you can still expect the highest of standards re: content...  

Kyle,

Was your ill timed lay off the result of your 500 some posts in the last month...I heard about some young wipper snapper while I was down in Florida posting like a mad man on every thread.  Perhaps your bosses were privy to the same information..

[THuckaby2]

Dammit.  Fish on.  You guys are good.
 

[THuckaby2]

shivas:  whew!  Thanks man.  As you saw I was dying there and needed the life preserve.  Much obliged.

Of course I know the first rule of this discussion group is "ignore JakaB."  Sometimes it's just too tempting, or too fun, NOT to do.

TH

[John_Cullum]

.... The ability to get into cool conversations/discussions and learn about the history/lineage/stories of the courses being rated is another (call this the curiosity factor).  

Shivas

Please expand on how Raters achieve this. Isn't this what we all come to this website for? Are there similar gathering spots for raters to discuss this stuff?

[THuckaby2]

Oh please JC.  Don't give them a chance to expound on their raters gatherings again....

You did know these occur, right?  GW has mandatory attendance at a certain number each year, and they're typically at some pretty great places.  Truth be known they sound like a hell of a lot of fun.

TH

[JakaB]

So shame on you   for ragging on the selfishness of raters when your ragging itself is nothing but an equally selfish act!  

Shivas,

You are probably correct...because if I am successful in eliminating the rater core of its comp whores...I will be welcomed with open arms at every great course in the country.   I suspect after Jonathan found out so many of his minions were stretching the rules at the top 50 classics....my work is almost done..

[John_Cullum]

TH

I apologize. You see, this whole rater culture is a rather new thing for me. Until about  a year or so ago, I had no idea that these ratings were turned over to ordinary boneheads like me, and there was all of this comp golf and access available to my own kind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you would ask me to play Hidden Creek as your guest and then refused to let me pay....That is not a comp that is friendship.

That's a flawed analogy because I don't own Hidden Creek, limit access to a golden few and you're not a rater.

Do you think Steve Wynn had a lot of friends that were raters ?
[/color]

One of my favorite Golf Digest raters played Shadow Creek back in the glory days as a gambler....if you thing gambling comps are comps you haven't gambled much...it is a quid pro quo.  

I'm infinitely familiar with casino comps.
TIME X average wager = degree of comp.

Shadow Creek went through several stages of access, with an assist from the IRS.  I doubt, when it first opened, that any rater played the golf course based on his rating, as a gambler.[/color]

Friars Head got rated without going the rater route.
You don't really believe that, do you ?[/color]  

You know golf is a close family and good people play good golf courses every day....The Shadow Creek example is probably the easiest...

If you understood the minimum ballot requirement, you would then understand that Shadow Creek could never be rated without comps, especially in it's early years.[/color]

[Kyle Harris]

Relax boys,

Just had an ill-timed lay off from my winter job...
Which was behind a computer...


I start March 15th at Talamore and I take two night classes, so my rate will drop a bit.

But you can still expect the highest of standards re: content...  

Kyle,

Was your ill timed lay off the result of your 500 some posts in the last month...I heard about some young wipper snapper while I was down in Florida posting like a mad man on every thread.  Perhaps your bosses were privy to the same information..

Haha, nope, I actually joined here after I found out I'd be leaving - but you better believe that last week there was one of the more unproductive ones of my life ;-).

I worked in a Foreclosure Law office, they just ran out of work for me to do (apparently its somewhat seasonal...)

Be good to get back to real work, you know, under the sun on a golf course.  

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  I do believe Steve Wynn had a number of raters as friends ... his brother Ken was, and probably still is, a GOLF DIGEST panelist.

That is probably the biggest problem I have with the ratings game ... all the behind-the-scenes conflicts of interest.  There are tons of "panelists" at all the magazines who have something to do with the development or promotion of a course in their local area.  Not only do they get to vote on those courses, they bring their friends in to vote as well.  

JC will say something about statistical insignificance of this because they average so many numbers, but trust me, a handful of undeserved 9's and 10's can make a big difference in a system where the placings are determined by the third decimal place.

At least architects are forbidden to vote on their own courses [but not on those they consult at].

[Michael Moore]

The yearly golf course rankings are a barometer of what is in fashion right now.  Fashion changes.  Orange is so LAST year, and so are certain architects.

Is this a problem?

Buildings, clothing, literature, film, automoblies . . . everything is subject to the whims of fashion.

This seems perfectly normal to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

It would seem that Ken Wynn should have recused himself rather then subject himself and Steve to a conflict of interest situation.

You have to give Steve Wynn credit, he did something in golf, not attempted since Lido, did it successfully, and as you say, began a new era in golf in Vegas, and elsewhere.

For better or worse, Arthur Goldberg, Donald Trump and others followed in his footsteps.

Michael Moore,

Do architectural values and strategic design fluctuate like fashion ?
Does the rating criteria fluctuate ?
Or is it more the "style" of the golf course that is subject to fleeting whims ?

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

1. Yes. For example, the risk/reward driveable par four is very much a "must have" on new courses today.

2. Yes, I think that the criteria and weight are tweaked every now and then.

3. Yes, surely the look of golf courses is subject to the fashion of the day. Behold Tom MacWood's supremely interesting essay on the Arts and Crafts movement.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom Doak - I agree that a spurious high (or low) ranking will change an average rating and associated ranking.  This is especially true if you throw one in if you have a low number of samples.

But there is an easy and widely accepted practice on how you recognize and address your outliers - delete them!  

Assume that your ratings for a given course are distributed around a median number in Bell-curve fashion (a Guassian distribution).  A histogram of these number would quickly expose your high or low ratings.  Take the highest and lowest ratings and delete them.  Or, if you have lots of samples, delete the highest and lowest two ratings.

With modern databases this can be done automatically and is completely blind to the course.

JC  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()