[Tom_Doak]

Tom- Isn`t that a completely factual statement that "without raters there are no rankings"? If a certain rater`s sense of self importance is inflated by such a statement then the magazines hired the wrong guy. Maybe I am naive but I can`t imagine that every rater that learns he won`t ever get comped again is going to walk away as JK says in his previous post. See Bart Bradley`s reply #88 as an exception to this line of reasoning. Additionally it`s a shame if architect A or B is only perceived as a really nice guy not because he is but because he is subliminally trying to influence a rater. As with all things in life when someone has the ability to effect the outcome of something there will be some measure of influence peddling. Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.

Tim:  I agree that any ranking is the sum of different people's views.  I don't agree that raters ought to be comped as part of the process, as many are today.  I do not think it is a matter of "getting one over on the golf industry", as John K has suggested here; I just think it puts a lot of bias and behind-the-scenes dealing into the rankings process, and has an impact on the results, to a degree no one really understands for sure.  

I just reacted to your statement because so many raters seem to think they are doing an Important, Thankless job, which is just absurd.  I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren't out there pounding the fairways; they would just throw favors directly at the editors and writers instead of at panelists.    Next, you'll be telling me of all the good that lobbyist money does for government elections.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Mea culpa on my part -- regarding your ascension of BM over Paa-Ko Ridge. Glad to see you have seen the light.

How would your tiering system affect the state lists? Would you list ten courses without an order?

Andy, you asked a good question above -- I have said in the past when state ratings are concerned there should be more of an emphasis given to those who live in the state itself. Therefore, the periodic outside rater who doesn't live in that state should still be able to vote but such a vote is not given the same weight as someone from within who has likely played such courses a number of more times at different points in the calendar and with varying types of weather and turf quality conditions.

In regards to the positioning of courses -- I believe the state lists could be listed in numerical order because in most cases the states don't have the sheer numbers that a national list presents -- especially in the area of actual depth. No doubt certain states would have a much deeper roster - like New York and California, to name just two. But, the benefit at the state level is that people from within that respective state have likely played the courses so many times to allow for the missing cross comparison purpose that inevitably happens at the national level. Being a Jersey guy -- I know the key raters from within the Garden State are quite able to discern the distinctions between courses because of their wherewithal to have played them and to breakdown the ups and downs that each provides.

[Ken Fry]

I spent this past summer as a first time "panelist."  I've been a part of the system now from both sides, as a panelist and as a host professional.  I feel embarrassed to identify myself as a rater because of the "game" that typically goes on between courses and panelists.

I enjoy traveling to see and play new courses.  I've never understood why panelists need to identify themselves to courses.  If a panelist wants to discuss details about the course set-up, conditioning, history, etc. then by all means but only for the sake of securing a few minutes with the resident pro or superintendent.

Raters shouldn't be playing "secret shopper" to try and catch courses in an extremely good or bad moment, but why broadcast your arrival?

Ken

[Phil McDade]

Ken:

A bit like restaurant reviewers, who often go through elaborate disguises to hide their identity so restaurants don't go overboard in serving their needs at the expense of a regular diner's experience. I think golf course rating is a bit tougher, particularly at the privates, because multiple visits (which most restaurant reviewers -- the good ones -- do) can be difficult to arrange, and it seems a good rater would go the extra step of asking some questions about conditioning et al. on site, while the memory of the round is still fresh.

I can't imagine getting comped as a rater doesn't affect one's judgement of a course.

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Here's whar you said -- (my BOLD emphasis added)

So an architect should try to find out who the raters are and then win them over and influence them? Does that really happen? I know an architect who bought a very nice camera for the head of all raters at GD. Is that the kind of thing architects should be doing?

Kelly, what's interesting is that certain mags actually printed the names of the people who are raters -- GD used to do it -- I believe Golf Mag still does. It's not hard to see that those looking to gets support would lobby those who could elevate their respective courses.

But I want to take issue with you on another comments you made later -- (again my BOLD emphasis added)

There is a certain level below which they will not waste their time and I am far down the ladder!

A qualified rater looks at ALL key courses -- and doesn't take the hollywood merry-go-round search only for the stars approach. I believe well-intenttioned raters will look at all deserving courses and frankly many of them are the handiwork of people who don't have the highest of profiles. Your speciific work in Pennsy at Morgan Hill and Lederach are two fine examples of that. Those who have failed to play them when they come to the Keystone State are leaving their golf design honmework assignment on the incomplete side of things.

[Ken Fry]

Ken:

A bit like restaurant reviewers, who often go through elaborate disguises to hide their identity so restaurants don't go overboard in serving their needs at the expense of a regular diner's experience. I think golf course rating is a bit tougher, particularly at the privates, because multiple visits (which most restaurant reviewers -- the good ones -- do) can be difficult to arrange, and it seems a good rater would go the extra step of asking some questions about conditioning et al. on site, while the memory of the round is still fresh.

I can't imagine getting comped as a rater doesn't affect one's judgment of a course.

Phil,

Multiple plays is one of the inherent issues with evaluations.  How many plays does it take?  One play is tough to base much of anything on but that's how the system is set up.  The first time I played Lost Dunes, I was less than thrilled.  Each time I've played it since I've enjoyed it more and more and now consider it one of my favorites.  Multiple plays would be even more unfair that the comping that goes on now.

I agree with you that identifying yourself as a rater to speak in depth with the staff at a particular golf course makes sense.  I happen to be in the camp that also believes all comps for panelists should be eliminated.  Does that mean I won't shell out $500 to evaluate Shadow Creek?  Maybe, but I can't say I would look upon the experience a different way if my wallet wasn't $500 lighter either....

Ken

[Mac Plumart]

Matt W...

I love what you had to say here, "A qualified rater looks at ALL key courses -- and doesn't take the hollywood merry-go-round search only for the stars approach. I believe well-intenttioned raters will look at all deserving courses and frankly many of them are the handiwork of people who don't have the highest of profiles."

But you know what, I think you can take away the term rater.  If a golfer is really trying to identify the type of golf and course that is the most fun for them, they need to look at a wide variety of courses.

[Tim Martin]

 Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.

This quote alone is worthy of it's own seperate thread....Tim,  I would say that it certainly helps the given course. How and why it's on people's radar and what the given course represents in terms of a host of issues may or may not be a positive for the industry long term...

Jud-My point is that on a list like "Best Modern" or "Best New" someone that lives in a neighboring state 90 miles away may not even be aware that course "X" exists. The list makes them aware that it is an option. What would be a negative for the golf industry long term by such inclusion?

[John Kavanaugh]

My biggest problem is why when golf needs revenue and fewer courses are being built the panels are growing in size. If you care about the game you can not rationalize this fact.  This negative becomes a positive with pay to play. Let the magazines have ten thousand raters and everyone wins. 

[C. Squier]

My biggest problem is why when golf needs revenue and fewer courses are being built the panels are growing in size. If you care about the game you can not rationalize this fact.  This negative becomes a positive with pay to play. Let the magazines have ten thousand raters and everyone wins. 

Last time I heard, we still live in a capitalistic society.  These golf courses are making decisions based on what they *think* is best for them.  If comping/refusing/pay for play is their choice, why do you think you know more than the club's management?  Suggesting that a club is making a decision that is NOT in their best interest goes against anything that is holy in economic theory. 

Or, you're just opaquely making a statement on raters that has nothing to do with money changing hands. 

[JC Jones]

If every rater is comped and every course comps raters doesn't that put all courses on the same, level playing field?  Seems to me that if a rater is comped everywhere they play then there is no bias of one course over the other.

So, the solution Mr. Kavanaugh, is not to take away the comps, but to institute comps across the board in order to level the playing field.

Also, since ratings attract the general public to purchase both rounds and memberships, I'm having a tough time distinguishing comped rounds to raters from other marketing costs.  In fact, comping 20 raters to review your course and having the course in the top 100 is probably the cheapest and most effective marketing costs I can think of.

P.S. Clint Squier hits the nail squarely on its head.  The clubs have decided that comping raters is in their best interest.  Likely for their marketing purposes and their member satisfaction.

[Tim Martin]

Tom- Isn`t that a completely factual statement that "without raters there are no rankings"? If a certain rater`s sense of self importance is inflated by such a statement then the magazines hired the wrong guy. Maybe I am naive but I can`t imagine that every rater that learns he won`t ever get comped again is going to walk away as JK says in his previous post. See Bart Bradley`s reply #88 as an exception to this line of reasoning. Additionally it`s a shame if architect A or B is only perceived as a really nice guy not because he is but because he is subliminally trying to influence a rater. As with all things in life when someone has the ability to effect the outcome of something there will be some measure of influence peddling. Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.

Tim:  I agree that any ranking is the sum of different people's views.  I don't agree that raters ought to be comped as part of the process, as many are today.  I do not think it is a matter of "getting one over on the golf industry", as John K has suggested here; I just think it puts a lot of bias and behind-the-scenes dealing into the rankings process, and has an impact on the results, to a degree no one really understands for sure.  

I just reacted to your statement because so many raters seem to think they are doing an Important, Thankless job, which is just absurd.  I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren't out there pounding the fairways; they would just throw favors directly at the editors and writers instead of at panelists.    Next, you'll be telling me of all the good that lobbyist money does for government elections.

Tom-You give the impression from your comments in the second paragraph of your post that I am a rater("I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren`t out there pounding the fairways" ). I am not a rater. I personally could care less if raters get comped or not. I take the lists for what they are and don`t equate them with gospel. Lobbyist money is not good for government elections?Are you sure?

[Tim Martin]

JC,

I can honestly say that I have played every great course I have ever desired because of my many friendships with raters. The majority comped to boot.

This is the same guy that has now decided that through his own new found altruism he will bring the floundering golf industry back to life by having the magazine raters pay. Nice.

[Jud_T]

Tim,

It's really a question of course X being included by something other than purely impartial rationale at the expense of course Y.

[John Kavanaugh]

In many cultures paying forms of protection money is more efficient than paying taxes for police. I guess that is economics. It is certainly not freedom. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Now that Golfweek charges dues to be a rater how is this any different than an organization such as the Outpost Club?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,

In general, I fall into the "anyone is qualified" camp.  I might even qualify as the "intelligentsia" (any place but here, of course) but I really dislike the idea of "tastemakers" who sit around and discuss movies, restaurants, art, etc. as if they know more than everyone else.

You like what you like, and most people like it instinctively, regardless of any detailed point system.  One example, is cresting the hill at the first tee of Crystal Downs a few years ago when TD invited me to play there.  I knew from my first look it was one of the special places in golf and I doubt I could have changed my view using any point system after walking off the 18th green.  (and frankly, if any great course could go downhill toward the end, its CD, with its personality Mac/Max split from front to back nine)

And I have no problem with large panels.  The more opinions the merrier and they tend to average out where they should.

[cary lichtenstein]

When I rated courses, I used to put my rater card and my credit card on the counter, assuming that if they wanted to charge me for the round, this would eleviate the embrassement they might have in asking for payment.

I always thought the comp thing was a goofy policy to get you the rate the course higher if you didn't have to pay.

All it would take would be for the powers that be at GD, GM and GW to send out a 1 page letter and this policy would be history.

I'd bet the # of rater rounds would decrease by 50% and the average rating would drop by 1/2 point.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom-You give the impression from your comments in the second paragraph of your post that I am a rater("I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren`t out there pounding the fairways" ). I am not a rater. I personally could care less if raters get comped or not. I take the lists for what they are and don`t equate them with gospel. Lobbyist money is not good for government elections?Are you sure?

Tim:

My apologies.  I did mistake you for a rater.  The sentence you wrote to John about how "the rankings could not exist without raters" is a phrase I've heard a couple of times from self-important blowhard raters, and it caused a knee-jerk reaction on my part.

Instead, you are defending a group of guys you don't really know!  You are a gentleman for doing so.  Just fair warning, though:  not all of them are in your class.

[Jerry Kluger]

I swore that I wouldn't get involved in one of these discussions but what the heck.  Yes, I was a rater at one time and I was told at every course where I took a caddie that I was the first rater who didn't take himself so seriously to make it seem that I knew everything. I also felt that if I was being comped that I would at least buy a shirt in the golf shop. 

I should also tell you a true story about an episode at a rater event I attended.  A fellow rater in my group had a hole in one and his only concern was that we wouldn't tell anyone because he didn't want to buy drinks for the group - I guess he was used to getting comped that paying for the event was as far as he would go.

My belief is that if you are going to be a rater it means that you have to be able to judge the quality of the course so you must see the courses which have been recognized as top quality architecture.  It sometimes means going to see those courses and paying the freight which I can tell is often very steep - but I gladly paid it in order to understand what greatness is and this includes courses that want nothing to do with raters such as Shinnecock, Maidstone, and NGLA.  You want to be a rater then make the effort to see Pine Valley even if you don't play it by attending the Crump Cup. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

You are so right with your last post. Interestingly, what many people don't ever mention -- likely because they don't get it -- is that raters if they travel extensively are picking up numerous costs to play the different courses. Keep in mind, when people do get charged a high amount to play a particular course it's not unheard of for some people to then set insanely high expectatons for such a course(s) to meet. Frankly, if a rater is there for the right reasons -- the issue of whether they paid or were comped has little to do with seeing things clearly.

[cary lichtenstein]

Everybody's opinion is affected by $. Simple fact of life. I wanted to play Sebonac unescorted. The price was I think $650 each plus caddie. I passed. How do I think I would have rated it if I paid that? Probably not as good as if I were compt'ed. And I think that applies to every rated.

I remember playing Oakmont and paying $350 each plus caddy. I found the course ridiculously difficult and rated it low. Would I have rated it higher were it not for the cost, probably not, but maybe the cost plus the bad round put me in a bad mood, no one is unaffected by whether the course fits their eye plus outside influences.

I remember courses that the pro was so arrogant, muirfield, even though I paid for unaccompanied for me and my wife, but was able to rate it fairly because it was an excellent course, an I remember other courses where the owner and staff fell all over me and I thought the course was shit  I hated to give it a poor rating but I did.

Level the playing field, let everyone pay and the rating would be BETTER

[Mac Plumart]

I wanted to play Sebonac unescorted. The price was I think $650 each plus caddie. I passed. How do I think I would have rated it if I paid that? Probably not as good as if I were compt'ed. And I think that applies to every rater.

Not true at all. 

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

Once $$ enters the picture it can influence people from the negative side of things. Usually a number of clubs I know of will charge people to play but not the full guest rate simply because they are there for a rating.

If $$ is too high it will do what you mentioned -- and that doesn't advance the process or even the club(s) themselves.

[JC Jones]

I wanted to play Sebonac unescorted. The price was I think $650 each plus caddie. I passed. How do I think I would have rated it if I paid that? Probably not as good as if I were compt'ed. And I think that applies to every rater.

Not true at all. 

Cary,

Maybe you would have rated it higher to make yourself feel better for dropping 8 bills on a round of golf?

The payment of money (or the lack thereof) will affect different people in different ways. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()