Who stands to gain the most from a GD Panelist summit?

[Mike_Young]

After reading the GD summit thread I was asking myself who had what to gain.  Well, from what I can see...it looked like the speakers were the architects that attract the largest real estate developers and the large real estate developers selling national properties are the ones that buy the ads in the national publications......now if most attendees get time with these speakers it is definitetly an edge for their courses.  
It sells ads.  

[Robert Thompson]

Mike: Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a relatively simplistic way of seeing it. Having been around editorial people in the media all my life, I can say most are absolutely opposed to having any degree of advertising encroachment in the business. Whether the individuals on this site like it or not, Rees, Jack, Tom and Pete are the four most recognizeable individuals in the design business. Maybe the aim was to try to get the biggest names to the conference in the hope of attracting the largest number of participants. Would it help Jack's ratings? I don't exactly see how -- but why don't you ask Bob Schultz. He was there and I'm just on the rating panel for the publication.

In my mind, one can read too much into these kinds of things. It is kind of like what one critic said of Alice in Wonderland: Some view it as a comment on drug culture, while others just view it as a charming children's book.

[Bill_McBride]

Robert, have you seen Links Magazine lately?  Or is that a one off?

[Mike_Young]

Robert,
while I agree that most editorial people do not like the crossover.....it happens....don't want to get to deeply into on this site but I think it may not be as simple as you see it.
Another example would be some of the development conferences that take place each year.  Ex:There is one where The only person gaining from this particular conference/development magazine business is the promoter.  
I could easily be blackballed by  a magazine just for stating these opinions but I quit worrying about that a few years back.   But I am still of the opinion that none of us really know how the final votes come to be by the different publications.  Golf Digest is around 1.55 million subscribers, Golf Magazine is around 1.4 million and Golf Week is about 165,000 subscribers.  Thats about 3 million golfers that receive the magazines.  So it stands to reason that most don't even know the ratings or care.  I am convinced that the ratings for two of the above magazines is nothing but real estate driven.  Because most rated courses can't make money without it.
JMO
Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  I don't know if I would agree who stands to gain the most from the GOLF DIGEST summit, but I am willing to bet that there has been more to learn about golf architecture here in the past two days, than at that esteemed and costly event.

And I disagree with your math.  Most golfing readers subscribe to GOLF and GOLF DIGEST and can't really tell the two apart, so I would put the total number of subscribers at around 2 million golfers all told.

[Mike_Young]

TD,
You win...2 million is more like it.
And 500,000 of those don't read the rankings.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,
You win...2 million is more like it.
And 500,000 of those don't read the rankings.

More like we are lucky if 500,000 DO read the rankings, I think......

[Mike Hendren]

Whoever can tell me they've never picked up a GD or Golf Magazine from a table can be the first one to disagree with me on this front -- we've all done it.  

Sorry Shivas, I go to Great Clips solely for the swell $12 haircut.

Mike
FOB

[Mike Hendren]

Gimme a break.  Hillbillies are too darned smart to fly through Atlanta.  Delta's never ready when you are.

Be well, brother.

[Jim Franklin]

I was at the Summit and glad I attended. Will any of the architects get a higher rating from me in the future because they were there....Not a chance. Do I rate courses higher with real estate to sell...you're kidding, right? I found it interesting to hear these guys explain what they do, why they do it, and how they try to accomplish their goal. I also found it interesting to see how other panelists rate a course. THAT was the eye opening event for me. Everyone played Grand Cypress and submitted a rating and we went over it the next day. All I can say is WOW.

[John_Cullum]

I was at the Summit and glad I attended. ..... Everyone played Grand Cypress and submitted a rating and we went over it the next day. All I can say is WOW.

Can you expand on that, please?

[Bill_McBride]

Mike Hendren, you are wise beyond your years!  Ever spend 7 hours in the Crown Room in Atlanta?  We did Monday -- after a ten hour flight from Zurich!  Man oh man.............

[Joel_Stewart]

I was at the Summit and glad I attended. ..... Everyone played Grand Cypress and submitted a rating and we went over it the next day. All I can say is WOW.

Can you expand on that, please?

I will because I know what Jim is refering to.  After we played the course we submitted our review/votes and Golf Digest tabulated them the next day.   I think everyone, including Golf Digest was surprised by the wide variety of votes.  As an example, a category, say shot values would receive votes from a 1 to 8.5.   As a result, I think everyone learned a great deal about the process and how to make it better.  

[Joel_Stewart]

After reading the GD summit thread I was asking myself who had what to gain.  

now if most attendees get time with these speakers it is definitetly an edge for their courses.  

I want to address the original question and the fact that the architects rubbed shoulders will have no effect on the rankings.   I would say 100% of the questions to the architects (during chit-chat at dinner, etc.) had to do with old courses and why they did this or that.  Fazio at this point doesn't care about say; Caves Valley, but at least had the chance to discuss why he did something.  

Furthermore, there where alot of panelists who belonged to clubs designed by the architects so they all got a chance to discuss their home clubs.

I would say Nicklaus, Palmer and especially Dye had virtually no serious interaction with panelists that could effect anything.   Fazio and Rees stayed most of the time although Fazio didn't play golf.  I personally was paired with Rees Jones for golf and he never discussed any golf course unless I asked.   We did discuss drainage and classic courses much like we discuss here, but rarely if anytime did we discuss his courses.  I did take the time to talk to him about his family, he has 2 daughters and is about to become a grandfather for the first time, we discussed his mother and father and of course his strained relationship with his brother.

I hope Mike is not suggesting anything improper went on but it was just a chance for education for the panelists, Golf Digest (who probably learned the most) and the architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:  Do you want to reconsider that last line, or are you really saying that getting all that brain power of panelists together was a big help to GOLF DIGEST (who probably learned the most) and to the architects who were there?

What the disparity in ratings of "shot values" proves is either
a)  There are some panelists who have no idea what they're doing, or b) It is too nebulous a term to be the centerpiece of the rankings.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

Don't you think your participation on this site casts your courses in a better light if for no other reason than you become our buddy.  I know that it has made me more interested in your work than if you had never posted here or were not so open to discussion of any and all topics.  If I had the chance to play golf with Rees Jones or tea with Pete Dye..It just wouldn't hurt.   I let the fact that I am related to my brother influence my opinion of his work so why wouldn't being friends with one do the same...we all like to see our friends do better than a bunch of strangers.   And I've never been known as the compassionate type..

[Tom_Doak]

John:  Yes, absolutely.  The biggest single factor in the success of my career in the past few years is Golf Club Atlas   , or rather more likely, the wealth of contacts I've made over the past 26 years of traveling around and meeting people throughout the golf business, so when my work finally reached the forefront, a lot of people were eager to tout their good friend's success.

Most of the people calling us now about new jobs are someone I met 10 or 15 years ago, or a personal friend of one of those friends.

This is not just the secret to MY success.  Rees Jones met a lot of the most influential people in golf while he was still in cloth diapers.  Tom Fazio met them at Pine Valley.  Jack Nicklaus didn't even meet them all, but they think he did because they watched him on TV.  Still, I suspect that thinking they had a chance to come across as nice guys and influence the panelists indirectly is the main reason they went to the GOLF DIGEST Panelist summit ... not because they were going to learn something about Shot Values.

[Brent Hutto]

What the disparity in ratings of "shot values" proves is either
a)  There are some panelists who have no idea what they're doing, or b) It is too nebulous a term to be the centerpiece of the rankings.

A big part of my job is helping researchers design and validate surveys and other instruments for measuring behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions and so on. There are well defined standards for what constitutes a valid instrument (i.e. it measures what it claims to measure) and a reliable measure (i.e. it always produces close to the same measurement given the same referent). Researchers can get federal research grants to develop a new measurement instrument, demonstrate its validity and reliability and publish the results.

It is not at all uncommon for a new instrument to be evaluated and show poor validity which means that it is not in fact measuring what it claims to measure. What's amazing is how often the researchers will publish the findings of a "validity study" right there in the peer reviewed scientific literature which show the measure to be invalid and then publish the damned thing anyway for other researchers to use if they need to measure that construct. The truly amazing thing is that other people will start using the instrument that has been shown to be invalid and cite the "validity study" as proof that they're using a valid measure!

My point being that nobody ever really wants to know that the results from their scientific-sounding survey tool are no better than if they just made the data up arbitrarily. If folks with PhD's and appointments at prestigous universities refuse to see that the emporer has no clothes, why in the world would we think that a for-profit magazine cares whether their rankings have anything to do with reality?

[John Kavanaugh]

With that said and what I have gleaned from the tone of the conversations..I think the answer to the original question (from another architect buddy of mine that I always wish well) is...Rees Jones gained the most.

[Tom_Doak]

Brent:

That explains in great detail why you were NOT invited to the Golf Digest Summit!

[Brent Hutto]

Tom D:

Yeah, that and my golf game.

[Mike Hendren]

Brent,

Your post made my head hurt.

What I really want to know is will I be comfortable if I put one hand on the stove and the other in the fridge?

Mike

[Jim Franklin]

Tom -

The disparity in ratings was not in Shot Values alone. One panelist gave conditioning a 1.0 while another one gave it an 9.5. The one that gave it a 1.0 hates overseeding so that's why his came so low. There were huge disparities in Resistance to Scoring as well. I wondered what the person that gave it a 9.5 for RtS would give Oakmont or Shinnecock if they ever played there.

I was really surprised at these evaluations and firmly believe some of the panelists need to go through a training program. I certainly don't want everyone to agree with my opinions, but 9.5 is absurd. I was told when I became a panelist that if I played a course and thought it was perfect in one of the categories then it should get a 9.5 because I may play something better and need room to rate accordingly. I have only given one course a 9.5 or higher for anything. Grand Cypress is a nice resort course and serves its purpose well, but it DOES NOT deserve 9.5 in anything.

[Mike_Young]

Gee, But how do we know the different panelist ratings are even used if they don't say what they need to say....
Joel, Jim and any others that attended....this is not a slap at you guys....but the disparity in rating numbers says it all......OPINION.....and the only reason Mags have the rating is to help sell ads to developers and create talk.....and you see how much talk it starts on this site...
I will continue to think at the end of the day, the ratings are chosen as they need to be chosen in many cases by many different magazines.
Cheers

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,

Yes, you'll be comfortable. Except for your hands.

Jim,

What would you like to see as the basis of a training program? Do you think the magazine could come up with some criterion in each category and show that to the trainees? Is there a somewhat more objective or authoritative version of these ratings with which a trainee can be familiarized?

If not, then it's hard to see what they'd be trained on. If it really is up to each rater to interpret the words on the form for themselves then training is moot. Perhaps you were thinking of something more like education than training per se.

It could be argued that a rater who is well informed as to golf architecture and golf course operations has more useful subjective opinions in the magazine's several categories of evaluation than a less-educated rater.