GW Raters - What is it like to be one?

[Gib_Papazian]

Warren,
I might take your thoughts a step further and state it has always been my personal feeling that the main function of GolfWeek raters is to identify newer courses of merit for our readership.

There is absolutely nothing new to be said about Shinnecock Hills or Pebble Beach except where there has been a significant change in the maintainance practices, some tree removal or restoration efforts.

In these cases, a practiced eye can make a determination if the changes are enough to massage the list one way or the other. We all ought to see the classics - if only to establish a measuring stick - but barring that, our job is to strike out and find new courses of merit for our Modern List.

In this way, I feel we are the best list simply because there is more room to identify excellence than just the GD Top 100. The golf world is bigger than that now.

And in some sense, it takes far more knowledge to ascertain the merit of a new course than an older one. Any dummy can see that Pine Valley is an astounding architectural achievement - but part of that lies in the preconcieved notions humans bring to any endeavor.

For example, Naccarato and I went to see Crosby National in Del Mar a few months back. The name is cheesy and struck me as the tacky use of a famous golfing name to advance a real estate venture. Full disclosure - I played high school golf with Nate.

But the Schmidt and Curley track was really good and driving away, I felt we had done a great thing in discovering something new that most of the other rating panels would have ignored.

Sometimes, it is just about overcoming your own dogmatic horseshit about somebody like Nicklaus and admitting that Mayacama is the cat's meow. It is. That is that, and I would be doing a disservice to the rest of the gang if I panned it because of my prejudices.

Do you think that GD raters would have taken notice of Barona if not for some scouts on our panel? Please don't tell me I am overstating our importance. Bullshit.

The greatest joy in life is not in drinking Opus One and ticking it off the list, but discovering a hidden gem like Eagle Point and knowing that you spotted it first.

As for the superstar tracks? Love them all to death - but I am a Raynor freak, what would you expect? However, Redanman is right, most of us have a friend in every corner of the nation who can get us on, with or without GolfWeek, already. All that requires is acting like a gentleman, which is quite a bit less taxing than feeling compelled to pick apart the course with tweezers after the fact.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I really like that line about being a rater doesn't get you free golf. As someone who approves the comps at my course, I've seen a lot of angles in an attempt to obtain free golf. I've also learned that there are a lot of raters for a lot of different publications and they all try to work it. Being a rater might not guarantee free golf, but most raters sure think it does

[Paul Richards]

Don:

I must say that i take exception to your statement:

>Being a rater might not guarantee free golf, but most raters
>sure think it does  

The point isn't the "free golf."  

It takes a lot of time, effort, and, not to mention a lot of
money to fly, rent a car, rent a hotel, etc. to make the trip
to visit many of the courses that a rater must visit.

I could stay home and play my home course (a course worthy
of anyone's list!) for "free" anytime I choose.  It's 20 minutes
away, requires no rent-a-car, no hotel room and, certainly,
no effort to ask a Professional if I can have access to his
course.

I still pay the same dues whether I play 100 rounds at my
home course or if I play 40 there and another 60 on the road.

So, from this perspective, "free golf" really isn't so free, is it?
 

[Gib_Papazian]

Don,

What do you mean "work it?"

Believe it or not - particularly in regard to our Modern List - we go though a lot of time, travel and expense just to get to your golf course. Much of the time, where I go (or get sent my Brad) is a place I would not otherwise have visited if I were a "civilian."

Yes, some guys look at the whole thing as a big scam, but I have found those types to be a tiny minority - especially on the GW panel because there are so few of us.

Brad Klein asked me to write a piece articulating my thoughts on architecture and how I would approach course rating before even thinking about giving me a card.

Does that make me entitled to free golf? No, but if you think you are getting worked over then perhaps you do not understand the benefit of an objective evaluation for inclusion on a rating list. Just being on the "to-do" list in the first place indicates somebody thinks your course might be worth a spot in the Top 100.

On another note, what does it cost you to have a rater play your course? In reality, zero. Sometimes I have to play on weekends, but even then I make an attempt to do it in the afternoon after things slow down. As a matter of fact, most of the time it is on a Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon when the course is all but empty. Does that count as a scam? Most (or all) of us leave the course in better condition than when we found it.

Paul,
We must have been channeling the same thoughts - our posts crossed in cyberspace.

[Paul Richards]

Gib:

Our thoughts crossing in cyber-space just proves the old
adage true:

"Great minds think alike."

[Gib_Papazian]

Paul,

My wife would then quickly add:

"Or fools rarely differ."

Just out of curiosity, which course does Don Mahaffey run? Is it on a list anywhere? Worth a look? If he has raters knocking down the door to play, I'd be curious . . . .

[Don_Mahaffey]

Gib, Paul,
No one is knocking down the door to rate my course and it certainly would not be in anyone's top 100. Put it this way, the only time I know it was rated it finished 6th among public golf in the Tucson area.

I get so many requests for free golf that I guess I have a little attitude about the subject. If you guys want to spend your money and time rating golf courses to help someone make a profit selling magazines, that's fine. I'm just not sure how that obligates courses to give away free golf.

I would probably comp a rater if he had the courtesy to call ahead and was willing to just come out and let us work him in where we could. But, I get so many people who make a time and then come out and slap some BS card on the counter and demand free golf that I refuse to comp anyone who takes that sort of attitude. I am not saying you guys do that, or any GW raters do. It's the attitude that you deserve free golf and it doesn't cost us anything that I take exception to.

[Paul Richards]

Don:

Can't say that I blame you if raters are really doing that to
you.  That could certainly sour your attitude.  That saddens
me to hear that you've experience this bad behavior, because
it ruins it for the guys who do things correctly.

However, as you say, it should be done properly - call ahead,
be worked into the schedule, and, afterwards, properly thank you, then your attitude would certainly change, no?

[JohnV]

One question I have for my fellow raters.  If someone else has made a starting time for four folks and you are the only rater in the group.  Do you call ahead and let them know you are coming, just to see if you can get a free round?

I don't.  For example, I played Pasatiempo with three others from this group last week.  I didn't even mention that I was a rater, although I did make sure I got the cheaper county resident rate.

[Gib_Papazian]

Okay Don, let's look at it another way.

Forget about GW. How about regular golf writers? Maybe you do have a lot of rude idiots show up, and I agree you ought to send them packing.

However, in my other life, I write a weekly column about history, architecture and course reviews highlighting good public courses for a 110 year old newspaper.

Most of these do not have a prayer of making a Top anything list. But, my job is to go out, play them, and write a comprehensive evaluation on the course, its architect and value for green fees for my readership.

Sometimes this is a pain in the ass because it is really easy to go play Olympic or call one of my friends at Cal Club, Meadow, Green Hills etc. But it is important for learned writers to go to public courses and report to the people what I saw.

Not just expensive CCFAD's, but modest public courses that bring something special to the table - a poor man's hidden gem if you will.

Sometimes it is a walk in the park, but sometimes its a 5 hour round in scruffy conditions with playing partners who cannot hit their asses with both hands.

Readers constantly ask me for suggestions on where to play in outlying areas and if I am not posted on what is out there, what the hell is ANG-S.M. Times paying me for? And let me tell you, if I print a recommendation and a reader(s) have a negative experience, I hear about it in technicolor.

So I am careful not to embellish the truth and give my evaluation as clearly, objectively and accurately as possible. What good does that do you at #6 muni in Tucson? If the tee sheet is full at all times, probably nothing. But if it isn't and I like the golf course, I guarantee you are going to sell a few more times that might have gone unused because of it.

Actually, I am probably the last writer you want out there because most of them feel compelled to pen some fluff piece with cloying compliments in exchange for a free pass.

I'm not one of those.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Paul,
It's not GW raters, but it happens a lot. It's pretty comical who think they "deserve" free golf. Those that follow protocol and use a little common courtesy are definitely in the minority. If you called me and said you would be in the area next week and wanted to rate my course, I'd find a spot. But, if you made a prime tee time in my high season and showed up expecting free golf...no dice. Happens a lot.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Gib,
My experience with writers is, if I advertise with them, I get a good write up. If I don't advertise, I get nothing. I would love to see someone come out and do a honest article. I can handle it as I think I know our shortcomings and our strengths. I've just never met a writer who didn't hand me an ad rate sheet before he went out to play his free round of golf.  

[Gib_Papazian]

Don,

Not once in my entire writing career have I ever implied or even thought about a connection between ad payment and a favorable write-up. Any asshole who shows up with a rate sheet before he plays is not a writer, he is a whore and ought to be shown the door immediately.

That entire unholy alliance between rating and the ad department strikes a nasty chord with me. I also run an agricultural commodity distribution firm with the highest Integrity and Payment rating in our industry.

I refuse to cough up egregious fees for ad space in these rags and therefore my competitors - some of whom are slow paying and dishonest - get these glowing write-ups. We get ignored. This is nothing more than racketeering and extortion.
  
If anybody at the Times or ANG demanded I imply a quid pro quo to the course professional in exhange for advertising, I would resign immediately. Your story makes me sick.

No wonder you have a bad attitude, I would too.    

[Jim_Kennedy]

Gib and Paul,
When I hear the refrain of "it costs you zero" to put a player on your course I understand the context of the speakers reasoning, but there is most definitely a cost related to every round played at a golf course. Anytime a player gets comped it costs the course whatever the fees would have been had they paid. If they give away 100 rounds a season that could be $5,000 off their gross. That is the reality of service and recreational businesses. When a comp is given it is usually a professional courtesy with a definite monetary value attached.
Alternatively, having your course considered for a spot on one of the lists is noteworthy and if included, would add to any courses bottom line. The rater is coming out at his or her
expense and it requires a certain level of professionalism and dedication.
The proper approach, as Don notes, is one that includes courtesy and should be a part of any raters handbook, if it isn't already.

[Matt_Ward]

Gib:

With all due respect -- I visited Barona Creek last February as part of my GD rating efforts. I didn't need to have "scouts" alert me to this wonderful course. In other cases that has happened but I'm sure you and others have learned about others courses from GD raters and other sources.

Warren L:

Your description about what a rater should be able to do is very true. I have found that too many people play the "name" courses in awe and its refreshing to see redanman's comments in that he plays without regard to the "name."  I also agree with you that regionalism has no place -- I'm a golfer first and foremost -- a resident of NJ second.

It's also critical that people who do "rate" not have any sort of conflict -- they are not to rate to gain a particular course or area of the country. Above all else, they must be able to travel a good bit to see what trends and happenings are taking place and not be afraid (provided they can defend their reasoning) in stating their position.

I also believe that it's important to have people travel to other areas besides their own. My visit to Paa Ko Ridge is one I will long remember because after playing Sanctuary on my visit to the region I knew full well that one course was a bit overrated and how one course (Paa Ko) is one any passionate golfer should visit and play when in the Albuquerque area.

Don M:

Let me tell you the other half of the story. When I go to rate courses for a review it amazes me that there are some people (GM's, Director of Golf, some head pros, also mktg type people) who do provide a "comp" round actually expect you to write glowing terms of their facility in the same vein as the seond coming of PV or Cypress. Anything less than that and you think I was saying there is no God.

I write for a few magazines and edit a local one in my home state of NJ and it amazes me that people believe the whole purpose of journalism is not editorial but advertorial -- promoting their facility even when its a dogtrack. I am not here to be manipulated by course personnel seeking to gain their own advantage. I'm also OK with the belief that when "in Rome do as the Romans" and if that means I pay so be it.

I take great care in making visits around the country on my dime -- on my time. I agree completely with you that anyone who acts or behaves in a rude or pushy way should be showed the door whether they're comped or not.

But, as Paul Richards just mentioned in paraphrasing him -- you don't throw the baby out with the bath oil. There are plenty of fine people on the various rating panels -- GW, GD and GM who are diligent and fair minded people who love nothing more than playing a course of distinction particularly ones that Gib mentioned that are not always talked about.

FYI -- one last thing I always try to play courses when there not busy or too busy ... late in the day and very few times on weekends and holidays.

Hope this helps ...

[Nick_Ficorelli]

Don:
These instances at your course truly amaze me...
it seems every bore in the country is beating a path to your door.
 I think most raters can supply you with a number that you can verify credentials or relate any unpleasant behavior.

[Gib_Papazian]

Matt,

I was not implying we "got" Barona on the list. But GW guys tend to communicate with each other - we are probalby more closely knit with 175 raters than the 650 you have. Therefore, we have to be more dilligent because there are so few of us in comparison.

A good course like Barona is going to be found eventually, but with as many guys as you have, it is not as necessary to keep in communication.

Heck, this GCA Discussion Group is a great spots for hints.

[Matt_Ward]

Gib:

Well said.

You're absolutely right -- GCA does allow quick and timely exchange of information that really speeds up the process on solid courses that often go unnoticed and underappreciated.

As far as communication is concerned I think it's a good think provided it's not done to combine "votes" in an effort to elevate or lower a particular course. To be clear, I'm not in favor in adding more panelists because I have never believed that having more panelists means better reviews or better coverage in areas often less visited than others. Mine just happens to be a minority voice on that matter.

I also think that rating criteria for golf courses should be the actual design -- not other categories that are often used to bolster old time / more famous name courses.

Just one more thing -- I completely concur with redanman that finding unique courses along the way is really the "juice"
that interests me. You're right Gib -- Pebble is still Pebble until something major happens (i.e. 5th hole). Real homework is getting to see the courses that don't have the glossy brochures or mktg / pr companies touting them as the second coming of Cypress.