The rating game, a personal story...

[Joe Hancock]

Ratings serve little or no purpose when they are applied to golf courses...am I suppose to believe that the number three rated course is "that" much better than the course rated fifty?

Perhaps it has to do with the "experience" one has playing the number three rated course....the ambviance, the "cache"...the wow factor of the surroundings?

Tom Doak...I find it difficult to believe that Pebble Beach...the golf course... could not be maintained on a $100 greens fee...

Craig,

A course rated at "50" might not be a lot different than the one rated "3" to you. But, it will be much better than the unrated butcher job just up the road.

PB gets the $$$ because people are willing to pay it. Did you buy gas this week?.......

Joe

[Jim Thompson]

I find it difficult to believe that Pebble Beach...the golf course... could not be maintained on a $100 greens fee...

Craig,

I can tell you if Pebble Beach were on the shores of Lake Michigan you could easily pay for the maint on the course at $100 a round, but at $200 a round you still be fighting to cover property tax and single business tax in the state of Michigan.  Just an example of the difference in locaation variables.

JT

[RJ_Daley]

John, the thing about your posts is that it never ceases to amaze me how completely different your view of things can be from what I see, yet there are many times I am glad for the new way of looking at something.

In this case, I don't see your point!

Are you declaring that Erin Hills has not gotten a similar run-up buzz from posters of this site that Rustic did and therefore won't succeed?

Well, first let's begin with the question of; did Rustic get a certain GCA.com buzz.  My view is yes.  Geoff Shack is an original participant here.  He has contributed enormous body of comment and knowledge to the ongoing discussions here and his own web site.  Say what you want, call him impetuous, or sarcastic about certain issues in his sometimes highly objected to humor (dumb and dumber) and yet, he is a player in the arena we all know, and I suspect, most root for.
So, when Geoff got involved in Rustic, had posted photos of the raw land, discussed the goals of the project and shared the progress everystep of the way, he did get a GCA buzz, IMHO.  

Same goes with Doak and Pac Dunes.  Doak was already rising like a meteor.  Yet, he kept everyone abreast of the progress, invited folks out during construction, soft opening, etc. and got a GCA.com buzz, IMHO.

Doak's Stone Eagle seems to rise above GCA buzz, because Doak has arrived, IMHO.  He may be the greatest living archie, also just MHO.  He earned the rep and buzz, and has not been conferred this mantel by GCA.com.  From here on out, Doak could crap on the land, and would get several passes before much negative comment, because of the status he has now entered.  Maybe, we at GCA can say we knew him when... or before he got too big for his pants (just kidding)  But, like it or not, Doak now goes up with Nicklaus, Dye, The Faz and so forth, because he is hot and getting hotter and bigger.  Any GCA buzz if it ever was is really in the rear view mirror now.

MARKETING!!!

Do you resent those efforts in the early days by Doak or Geoff Shack, John?  I don't.  I appreciate the efforts because I saw them as two fold.  They were honest sharing with a community of like-minded GCA fanatics to let them understand what the process is, and they just happened to be done by talented GCAs and semi-designer/golf gca commentators.  We afficianados got the benefit of living it vicariously.

Now, Erin Hills was not from that same lineage, IMO.  Hurdzan and Fry are not what one could arguably call GCA favorite sons.  Hurdzan has a separate esteemed reputation due to his tireless effort with gca instruction of construction, book writing, and turf knowledge.  He is much more popular at the GCSAA than he is at GCA.com, becasue some have pidgeon holed him here as not a great designer of great concepts. (I'm not declaring that as a fact, just impressions I get from the general run of the conversations about him)  Yet, ERrin Hills, with a ride-a-long semi GCA favorite doing limitted work (Rod Whitman) and a big name golf architecture writer got some mild curiosity and interest during construction.  Not so much from GCA.com as from other publications, and news articles, and the USGA folk.  Cripes, they are talking about an official event there before it opened!

John, we got a place here to chat, and we do have some limitted influence on opinion, I think.  But, we aren't big enough to be king makers and sometimes can't form a consensus on what logo to put on a golf bag.  this isn't a monolithic meeting of the minds here, nor a conspiracy to elevate certain archies over others.  Also JIMHO...

Yes, some courses get a GCA buzz, some don't.  Yet, that don't make'em or break'em.

[Mike_Young]

I'm not saying you are entirely wrong but there is a lot more to your "buzz" theory.  What about a marketing campaign like you see in every magazine for Reynolds Plantation and other high profile new courses?  Do they influence?

Geoff,

I don't read any magazines...I only read Golfclubatlas so they do not influence me and I don't believe influence people on here in a positive way.

Geoff,
I look at any large ad in a national magazine as a RE ad....no golf course can absorb the cost of those ads....would you agree?....and Reynolds did not build any of those courses because they liked golf....
I think Jim is in a position where he has to cater to some idealism(raters) in a business that is paid for by realist (paying golfers).  We all are.
The majority of raters I have dealt with were fine.  But the biggest issue courses face in this business sometimes is perception from the golf public.  And much of that perception can come from volunteers to State golf associations, magazine course raters, members of dead guy groups etc.  And yet the barrier to entry for all of the above "positions" is almost nothing other than some dues.....as a matter of fact it is no different for becoming a golf architect...all you need is a business card.....no one says you have to do a course...it is sometimes amusing, the attitude of some of these guys.....
The majority of the owners I have designed for would not care if they were rated or not.....
Speaking of Reynolds Plantation....a friend of mine was the director of grounds/supt for all of the courses there for a long time...b4 that he was asst supt at ANGC.  He left in June and bought a golf course i designed/buiilt near Athens , Lane Creek, 12 years ago.  Owners had maintained it in poor condition for years...he turned it around in 3 months and opened to 350 rounds per weekend in Sept and still going strong....$45 green fee....he runs the shop, cooks and directs maintenance.....
Talk to him about this stuff...he can enlighten one....
Mike

[Geoffrey Childs]

Mike

I always enjoy and learn from your insight about the business of golf.

My post was to try at least to minimize the great powers that John seems to think (or I think he thinks   ) a few Golfweek raters might have about the untimate success or failure of "big ticket" courses such as Erin Hills or Stone Eagle. I've seen Stone Eagle ads in Magazines and they include those pretty Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus-like one liner quotes from Tom Doak (he has arrived hasn't he RJ   ).

The smaller budget courses can't do that kind of marketing of course.  They have to get really lucky as a Wild Horse or Rustic Canyon did to get John's "buzz".

[PThomas]

Golf course ratings are a ridiculous waste of time in my opinion....what should matter is do people play the course, and do they have fun...end of story....oh, and it would help if ALL golf courses were affordable (under $100 to play)and open to the public.

Craig,

I think ratings and raters and private courses closed to the public are all great and valuable things.  I think we could both be happy if raters had term limits of let's say 2 years.  That way we could get a better scope of opinion on the great courses in the world because of more rater turnover and eventually every serious golfer in the country would have a shot at being a rater and playing free (affordable with travel) golf at the private courses throughout the country for a short period of time... (Paul Thomas is proof that you can hit them all in 2 years or less) It's a win/win situation.  Wadda ya think.

I could settle for a 10 year term limit even though 6 might be perfect.

John :   stop stating things that aren't true about me, this is not the first one on this thread

[Mike_Young]

Mike

I always enjoy and learn from your insight about the business of golf.

My post was to try at least to minimize the great powers that John seems to think (or I think he thinks   ) a few Golfweek raters might have about the untimate success or failure of "big ticket" courses such as Erin Hills or Stone Eagle. I've seen Stone Eagle ads in Magazines and they include those pretty Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus-like one liner quotes from Tom Doak (he has arrived hasn't he RJ   ).

The smaller budget courses can't do that kind of marketing of course.  They have to get really lucky as a Wild Horse or Rustic Canyon did to get John's "buzz".

Geoff,
I understood.  Was just whining.
I will say though that JK says a lot and has a good insight on much of what he says....just hard to discuss it here when you are in the business and using your real name.....BTW I  IM'ed yesterday to see how you get one of the fake names but no reply as of yet....

[Mike_Cirba]

Mr. Huntley,

Most of the raters I know personally do not announce their presence upon visiting public accessible courses, and don't even think about getting comped.  They line up and pay their green fee like everyone else, only they often drive considerable distance for the pleasure.   I prefer not to have any fuss and would rather unload my own bag, toss it over my shoulder, and go see and play the course, even after a 4-hour or so drive each way.   Who needs to feel singled out for some type of uneasy special treatment.   I don't like making anyone feel they need to provide that.

The situation with private courses is more difficult, just by their nature.   Last week, I had the privilege of playing a private course at the invite of a member and paid guest fees, and stayed for a nice lunch before shopping in the pro shop.  Unfortunately, the grace of an invite from a member you know is not always feasible if one wants to see and play a private course somewhere some hours drive away.   At those times, I introduce myself via a letter prior, asking for the possibility of playing there at a time that would be convenient to members and staff.   Depending on their rater policy, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.   And, depending on their rater policy, sometimes they are kind enough to offer a comped round, and I follow their policy.  

Personally, I think it would be bad manners to insist on paying, especially since I'm not looking to call attention to myself and just looking to get in and out without a lot of undue "service" and fuss.   I'm there to see the golf course, and often travel significant distances to do so.  I'll normally show my appreciation by visiting the pro shop and picking up some items.  

I should mention that my ratio of public vs private courses played is about 3 or 4 to 1 the former.  Growing up playing ramshackle farmland public courses in NE PA, I think most golf is far better off without all of the extravagant trappings, and I still mourn the demise of the pull cart.

[Geoffrey Childs]

link=board=1;threadid=26565;start=70#msg498412 date=1163298445]
I understood.  Was just whining.
I will say though that JK says a lot and has a good insight on much of what he says....just hard to discuss it here when you are in the business and using your real name.....BTW I  IM'ed yesterday to see how you get one of the fake names but no reply as of yet....

Mike - I think we all appreciate some of John's opinions and insight. I also think many believe he has some chip on his shoulder about Golfweek and Golfweek raters.

I think you do a great job of educating us about some aspects of the golf business.  I can only imagine the unfiltered edition   You should come back as Curious JJ.  I think Ran should make an exception to the rule.

I always thought you were Curious JJ.  

[John Kavanaugh]

They line up and pay their green fee like everyone else, only they often drive considerable distance for the pleasure.

Mike,

Is it hard to get a seatbelt on when you tie your sweater around your neck.  The thing I love about not being a rater is that I never have to drive where I am going to play...they send the double secret non-rater limo.

[Mike_Cirba]

John :   stop stating things that aren't true about me, this is not the first one on this thread

Paul,

You're in good company.   John can't help himself, and he obviously has some personal issues with Golfweek Magazine and its raters that he tries to mask with so much bullsh*t and bluster on this board.

Did you ever wonder why he only personally insults me, you, redanman, Geoffrey, or others from Golfweek?  

Methinks that he feels that something or someone he holds near and dear has been seriously slighted.  I'm not going to try to delve into his head, but I do draw the line when he tells or infers outright lies and I'm going to call him on it every single time.

[Mike_Young]

I always thought you were Curious JJ.  

I only know one guy in this business that goes by the name JJ.

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul Thomas,

Why don't you name the courses you have played in the last two years and we shall see who is making things up.  Put up or rate up I always say...You have been on an access frenzy my friend that would make any golfer blush.

[PThomas]

Paul Thomas,

Why don't you name the courses you have played in the last two years and we shall see who is making things up.  Put up or rate up I always say...You have been on an access frenzy my friend that would make any golfer blush.

don't call me your friend...and it'll be a cold day in hell before I feel I need to answer to you about anything, you goofball

[Jim Thompson]

This is how good threads that start out trying to talk about criteria and methods get side tracked and turned into personal battles that people give up on following or reading.  Remember people turn off threads just like they change the channel on the TV after a bad commercial.

I think we were on to discussing some good things here.  I wish I could copy and post the almost 50IM and emails I've gotten about this thread.  It really is a case study in how people interpret messages based upon their needs or personalities.  I wish I were better at writing out my questions and comments in a more clear fashion that communicated my positions as well.  Apparently, I’m not very good at it.  If I were good it, I’d be really tempted to turn this into an exercise in open communication and its benefits, but many of you asked me not to out you.  

It is so sad when human nature beats us.

Don’t worry though , I’m sure we’ll try again later.

Cheers!

JT

[PThomas]

Jim:  blame Mr. Kavanaugh for turning this into a thread full of his stupid comments...he started in on me

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul Thomas,

Cypress Point, Sand Hills, Five Farms...do I have to go on..Why don't you fess up and save me the trouble..

[Mike_Young]

You guys can slam JK all you wish but I got to go with the guy that puts his name out there.....not judging the ones that choose not to do so

[Chris Cupit]

Sorry if this rant takes the topic even further OT but as an owner/operatoer of a modest private club I am surrounded by golfers who really don't give a rip about any rankings.

Most of the golfers I know as well as golf "customers" all over have a fairly healthy skepticism about "rated courses".  Many just groan when they hear that someone selected a trip to a newly rated course since they just assume that means it's expensive! I think we might be underestimating the intelligence of people if we think that people are scanning lists to see which courses are "must plays".

Many people look at the lists as nothing more than marketing ploys and in some cases deserveadely so.  Also, there are so many rankings out there, they have begun to lose meaning--Golf Magazine, Golf Digest, GolfWeek, Links Magazine, Top 100, Best new Classic, Best New Modern, Best new Private, Best New Daily Fee, Best Affordable Daily Fee, Best Resort...ad nausiam.

I am even sadder to say that when my guys are planning their February golf trip, the last thing they care about is how someone may have rated a course architecturally.  They want to know about PRICE, accomodations, (are the rooms decent and reasonable) is a casino or something for the wife nearby and the CONDITION of the course--are the greens good.  Oh, and of course, "do they overseed?!"

If it's a good deal, the greens are good and they can gamble a little and keep the wife happy, it was a good trip.  90% plus of golfers don't know C.B. McDonald from Old Macdonald--sad to say.

I would appreciate wanting to know what "the rules are engagement are" if I was trying to get my course rated--I just am not sure how valuable ratings are?  Also, ratings seem to change so often with so many new courses being added each year that it's rare that a new course can do much other than get rated and watch as they slowly move down the list to newcomers.

The greatest benefit of the lists may be for the perennial ranked courses always in the top 50 or so.  Their elite status and the pressure of staying in the top 50 or so, pretty much guarrantees that no new committee or board would dare do anything siginificant to their design on a lark or whim.

Aside from that and the fact that lists and rankings can provoke enjoyable and sometimes constructive conversations about the golf industry, I don't see the grassroots golfer doing much other than scanning the list(s) with the same cursory glance they give the SI pre-season rankings.

[John Kavanaugh]

It may have had "some" influence but there are what some 300 or so GW raters.  How many tune in here on GCA?  What % of the votes come from here on GCA?  

I think this is a good question relevant to the topic. I believe that 100% of Golfweek raters know about Golfclubatlas.  I would then say that 99% have logged in at least once and looked around.  I would guess 66% lurk on a regular basis and 33% of the votes are influenced by what is discussed on GCA or carried onto discussions at your rater camps....

sidenote:  I love you guys and I think you love me.

[Brad Klein]

Jim, this has been a very helpful exercise overall. Far too few owners volunteer their perspective.

Whenever I get a call or email from an owner asking about rater policy, I tell them that they should treat raters as they would any other unaccompanied guest, and I urge them to charge full freight. In the case of private clubs that don't allow unaccompanied play, no problem, as raters must comply with all club rules, and they can either go as the guest of a member or with a staff member or simply not at all -- which quite a few private clubs do, by refusing to accommodate any raters.

Most of the owners/operators at daily-fees I hear from want to offer some sort of comped or discounted rate, at which point I let them know that while it's okay for a rater to accept such hospitality, they can't ask for it; nor can they ask for their "friends" to be similarly treated. Most raters I hear about return the favor of a comped round with a shopping session in the pro shop, usually a hat or shirt, sometimes a sweater. It doesn't usually add up to the price of a green fee, but I know the gesture has some import nonetheless.

I understand that most owners are on the generous side, not so much because the rater makes it a condition of their showing up but because they (the owners) are simply being gracious, or because they fear that if they are not overly generous, their ratings will suffer. All I can do as a rater baby sitter is let owners know that they should charge full freight, and they should immediately report to the respective magazine whenever a rater is out of line. In the case of the rater Jim refers to, I can't help wondering why he didn't simply say "no."

As for needing multiple trips properly to evaluate a golf course, that's lame. If a rater can't get a reasonable sense of how a course plays and sets up with one careful visit, they have no business being a rater.

In anticipation of a Pat Mucci-style salvo about nuances, strategic variety, different conditions and different weather, I would simply say that the objection is true but irrelevant. One-time visitors will miss something, but that's why you need different raters seeing the courses over time. The law of averages works out. The alternative is also unbearable -- namely sanctioning multiple visits by the same rater over a short period of time. No rater needs to re-rate a golf course more than once every few years.

In the case of that rater who went three times with comped foursomes, Jim should contact the magazine immediately. At Golfweek, I've had to deal with such behavior occasionally, and the policy we have makes it impossible for that rater to commit that offense again (!).

We have 400 raters, most are ladies and gentlemen and act accordingly. A few violaters have popped up, but never for very long. We also rotate out anywhere from 20-40 raters annually, for all sorts of reasons, including non-performance or "over-performance."

Jim, I'd welcome the chance to work with you and other owner/operators behind the scenes to refine what we are developing, namely a handbook policy guide for how owners should deal with raters and how you can make the system work for you or -- in many cases, decide simply not to be a part of it.

[HamiltonBHearst]

It would seem from this thread that the rater community are the largest buyers of pro shop merchandise in America.  Thanks for the support guys.  I wonder if a better, more telling rating system would be for each rater to submit how much  money they spent in each pro shop rather than a number rating for the course.  It may in fact yield the same results.  

I believe the study and understanding of architecture is furthered much more by Mr. Klein writing a comprehensive article than the 300 others submitting numbered opinions in his publication.

Does any rater who is a frequenter of this site think their cumulative efforts leads to a result anywhere as educational as the reviews on this site by Mr. Morrissett?

[TEPaul]

"I believe the study and understanding of architecture is furthered much more by Mr. Klein writing a comprehensive article than the 300 others submitting numbered opinions in his publication.

Does any rater who is a frequenter of this site think their cumulative efforts leads to a result anywhere as educational as the reviews on this site by Mr. Morrissett?"

Here, here Hambone. Or is it Hear, hear?

I couldn't agree with you more. But you know what these rating magazines say---eg that golfers don't want to read about architecture. So what do they do instead? Just give them a bunch of names of golf courses and a bunch of numbers.

Incredible!  

[paul cowley]

....no TomPaul, I think YOU are incredible because you posted just barely three minutes ago on another thread!...and both posts made perfect sense for content and style!

The best I probably could manage in that time frame would be something like;

Asgdftr nthurbbsn Kgdrte  ....hgytudkgh!
....bfyrtgd  ghtyrioe yo hghdsdjdgfhgjkglg , hedfhjasdhvwe. ....weudgasljbe;rk';KDALCDBV QWLBJEFMLAbnbbrfkkdn    wefw.......wefnil;kwen;wfdWEefslnbwvbedwef,
....p ;)ul.

[Adam Clayman]

It makes sense that is should be "Hear, Here".
No?