Dan:
OK, we're getting somewhere. At least we can how take it as assumed that as improved as it would make the system, the magazines are not going to have paid staffs of raters. That to me is progress here.
As for the rest, I guess I'm one of the ones you refer to as unable to do the job without identifying myself, as you state in the other thread. I can live with it. Why? Well let's get at this using a specific course we both know.
Rustic Canyon: oh sure, I too have played it several times since I first did the "rating" round; it is obviously not impossible to obtain a tee-time. It is, however, VERY difficult to obtain when one has a tight deadline, and the realities of life to deal with. Perhaps all raters ought to have no family or work commitments and do this full time; but I'm hoping you also acknowledge that that too is not reality. The reality is that we do have other commitments, tight time schedules, and well in the case of Rustic Canyon, I had one available morning, it was at a very busy time, and it was either do it then or not do the rating at all, getting myself in hot water with the magazine, as well as depriving the world of my views. I suppose you'd say I shouldn't have done it at all. Maybe so. I chose to ask a friend - Tommy Naccarato - to help me out and get me a tee time, which he did, through his tight connections with the management there. So in so doing, I identified myself as a rater. And yes, they did comp the round, a whole $35 or whatever. I actually didn't know they were going to do that; when offered, I just figured it was polite to accept. Dan please understand $35 is not going to change my life. But of course, in a perfect world, none of this happens. Can you begin to understand how the world is imperfect?
As for private clubs, come on man you are really reaching now. Oh yeah, I know tons of PGA pros. Just tons. I believe my count is one, and no way do I hit him up to get me on golf courses. Please. That's silly. Come on Dan, you just have to face it - if private clubs are to be rated/ranked, then we have to have a way to get on, and that's best done through the club. I gather you understand how asking a friend implies even MORE obligation? Or do I need to explain that?
This is the reality, Dan. Guys like John V. - who as an employee of the local golf association needs not the help that a guy like me does - and/or guys with umlimited amounts of free time and money - well perhaps they can live to up to your standards. I just have to believe there are a LOT of panelists like me who only have so much time and thus need the help. I guess the next question is should guys like me be panelists. We can discuss that later if you wish; I feel my real world experience makes me valuable, and I would question the worth of a panel made up with nothing but rich guys with nothing but time on their hands, to be honest. But that can be explored if you wish. I just want you to understand the reality of how this all works - you seem to be a little lost there.
In any case, you've rather sold me on the worth of Geoff's article a bit more - if he does get people thinking - or more importantly gets the magazines thinking - then that's great. I just really don't see him doing that, as much as he is just ripping on GD specifically. If this higher goal is his intent, then mea culpa - good for him.
In any case I also do like your bottom line summary. There are three ways to do this. #1 is the best, but it's not going to happen. Thus we are left with the choice between 2 and 3. In a perfect world choice 2 is followed. But man, that's a lot to ask. That would preserve the integrity of the system, but would also lead to many otherwise-worthy courses being ignored, as they were too expensive to do. Seriously, how many restaurant raters are going to review French Laundry if they have to pay their own way? Why are we expected to follow a HIGHER standard then they do?
TH