Who is qualified to rate golf courses?

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: Excuse me but that is a crock! Are you telling me that there is some way of justifying a rater being influenced by how much it cost him to play the course?  As you would say - come on man! What about the great classical courses that have no interest in being rated and charge really high unaccompanied rates - you telling me that the rater can justify knocking down his rating of Shinnecock, NGLA or Oakmont - come on. For that matter, is there really a reason for a course to be rated which has been at the top of the list for many years - okay, there may be something significant which has occurred but that is the rare exception.  Who really cares if some rater thinks that Cypress Point is better than Pine Valley - I'm sure the members don't care and what difference does it really make?  The only ratings which matter are new courses and how they compare to those which are already recognized as great - where does Old Mac fit in, how good is the Prairie Club, etc., but the rest are really meaningless.

[Wade Schueneman]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

John, I looked at this site.  I did not study the details, but it appeared to cover trips for current raters (as opposed to camps for potential raters).  Is that correct?

[Bart Bradley]

Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year.  Here is a link to the one coming up in early January.  I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.

http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm

Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path. 

John, I looked at this site.  I did not study the details, but it appeared to cover trips for current raters (as opposed to camps for potential raters).  Is that correct?

Wade:

True...and look...it is far from free!

Bart

[John Kavanaugh]

Wade,

Every camp differs, this is just one of many throughout the year.  I am not a rater myself but would suggest you give them a call and see what is up.  Just don't mention that I sent ya.

[Carl Rogers]

Wowie ... Zowie ... What Frankenstein of a thread did I hatch?!?!

I am not qualified to be a rater, because as in many fields, an individual has to go through a certain fundamental process of learning, experiencing and absorbing.  In the case of GCA, it is the on the ground study and understanding of the acknowleged great courses of the world.  IMO, but arguably ANGC, PV, TOC, Royal Melbourne, Muirfield, Pinehurst No. 2, CP, Shinny?, WF?, Merion? & maybe a few more represent the Rosetta Stone of Golf Design.  The opportunity for a single individual to do any fraction of that is quite daunting and difficult.   These places are, for the most part, not in the public domain and not very welcoming.

That has not been my path in life.

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

I never said a rater was jusitified -- but if you don't think there can be a human backlash because of the fee then you are sipping some potent kool-aid - possibly a tad earlier than you should prior to the tolling of the New Year's Eve bell tonight.

A course that charges people should realize a rater is a bit different than your vanilla guest who is there for pure pleasure reasons. Raters are there to assess the course. I am neither suggesting nor implying that comps are the way to go 100%, but frankly how many people are going to rate a course in a given time frame? In the cases of those high proifle courses -- many of them cut-off the number of raters who may visit in any year. If those facilities didn't charge those raters what is it that they lose? Not a thing as far as I can tell.

The flip side is that when excessive fees are charged -- the person being charged will automatically have the facility in a two-down mode before the first tee shot is hit in a number of ways. Does that serve the course? I don't see how. If you don't think $$ influences the process so be it -- for you.

Jerry, let me help you out with something -- go ask people like Whitten and Klein and they will tell you this -- they have enough rating numbers for years for the big ticket places like Pine Valley, Cypress Point and others of that ilk. What they need is ratings from other places -- many of them remote but not all -- that see far little action from the raters themselves.

Let me also say this -- all courses need to be examined periodcally -- I don't make the lazy assumption - that you seem prepared to do -- that just because "X' course has been in the top ten it shall forever stay in the top ten.

Another thing -- the members do care. They read the pubs and they don't like it when they see others making strides upwards at their expense -- see the fanfare that happened when Shadow Creek made a beeline to the top of the GD ratings a few years back. Maybe not all feel that way but more do than I believe you care to admit.

Jerry -- I find it hard to believe you think the process is mainly "meaningless" -- save for the newest of the new clubs. I think ratings can be quite effective when they don't make assumptions for ANY club and that they try to provide timely info on how things are going now -- not from the distant past. When that is done then the gathering of such information can provide a real map on just where design stands at that moment in time.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: I love you man and I think you know more about gca than most but that is pure jibberish! What the heck are you talking about! Who are raters - people selected by someone based upon whatever criteria he decides so that some magazine can claim its rankings are more credible than another magazine and for what reason - magazine sales and advertising sales. You think for one minute that the people selected are somehow entitled to play any course of their choosing for free or some reduced fee - why?  Go ahead = tell that to the powers are Merion, Pine Valley, ANGC, NGLA, Friars Head, Sand Hills, etc. Life ain't free buddy and a magazine saying that you are some kind of an expert doesn't change the equation.  People don't subscribe to GW because of the course rankings - they may find Brad's reviews interesting and a reason to get the magazine but the overall rankings aren't a reason to subscribe for a year.

[Jerry Kluger]

Oh yeah - HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

I love you to man -- but frankly when the magazines went into the gallup / zagat method in assessing courses they lost all sort of meaning to me and countless others. More solid info comes from this site than just about many other spots.

Jerry, let me say this to you as someone with maybe just a bit of inside knowledge -- the courses (save for the really elite few) are chomping at the bit to get raters to come to their courses. You'd be surprised to know that but many want the attention and many rightly believe in their own mind that they are right up there with the big time layouts.

If the elites don't want to "officially" invite raters -- there's plenty of eyeballs that get on without them being in the know. Like I said Klein and Whitten don't have a need for such visits -- they are already getting them -- they need reviews of places that don't get much attention.

You were the guy who said that the top elites should be forgotten -- nothing really changes fom that side of the coin. I don't agree with that at all.  Unfortunately, too many raters are wrapped up in the "name" courses and fawn over them even when they don't merit the praise -- plenty of layouts within my neck of the woods can be held in that category.

Jerry, re-read what I posted in my last paragraphy to you. It is far from "jibberish." HAPPY nEW yEAR PARTNER !

[Jud_T]

Seems to me that cost of entry is just one of many non GCA issues that one has to ignore when assessing what's actually in the ground...i.e. exclusivity, tournament history, famous members, the overly-friendly staff, the quality of the lunch at the turn, the really cool men's locker room, the awesome club specialty cocktail, the phenomenal pro-shop selection, the fancy address, even the ocean views that don't come into play...

[Ken Fry]

Seems to me that cost of entry is just one of many non GCA issues that one has to ignore when assessing what's actually in the ground...i.e. exclusivity, tournament history, famous members, the overly-friendly staff, the quality of the lunch at the turn, the really cool men's locker room, the awesome club specialty cocktail, the phenomenal pro-shop selection, the fancy address, even the ocean views that don't come into play...

Jud,

As long as subjective matters such as "ambiance" and "aesthetics" are factored into a panelist's review, the door is wide open for someone's eyes to leave the golf course and take in "the experience."  Of course, opinions vary about what makes "the experience" at one facility superior to another as much as we all argue the merits of one design over another.  In the end, you hope it all washes out.

Ken

[Jud_T]

Ken,

There's a place for that stuff-i.e. "The 50 Best Golf Retreats", "Best Golf Resorts", "Most Exclusive Clubs", "Tour Courses You Can Play", the CG's "Dumb Blondes" list etc.  If the title of the list is "100 Best Golf Courses in the Country/World", then IMHO it should be all about the courses themselves and nothing else....

[Adam Clayman]

JC, Jud, That's why there's constant culling. When you have a panelist, such as has posted above, that cannot separate their game from the architecture, on a course with plenty of votes already, and the vote comes in as a statistical anomaly, they get culled. One the other side is true too. When someone spends 20 days playing comped golf at a course and they think it's one of the 10 best in the world, it stands out.

If RJ Harper hadn't taken advantage of the price elasticity at Pebble Beach, would clubs be charging 3-400 hundred dollars to play golf? Hell No! What's a round of golf worth? Just because they charge $650, doesn't mean it's worth it.

[Ken Fry]

Ken,

There's a place for that stuff-i.e. "The 50 Best Golf Retreats", "Best Golf Resorts", "Most Exclusive Clubs", "Tour Courses You Can Play", the CG's "Dumb Blondes" list etc.  If the title of the list is "100 Best Golf Courses in the Country/World", then IMHO it should be all about the courses themselves and nothing else....

Jud,

Agreed.  I could give a rip about the clubhouse or entrance or the cart girls.  Tell me about the course.  I'm pointing out part of the process that is open for panelists to be influenced if they so choose.

The rock speakers on the practice range at Kingsley is cool and all, but that's not why Kinglsey is one of my favorite courses to play either...

Ken

[Sean_A]

Jud & Ken

You are missing the point.  I think some (for sure I am) are saying that almost all raters are incapable of properly rating a course because they don't know enough about architecture or specific projects in question.  That is why other issues creep in to detract or boost an opinion.  Its also why it is seriously important for me to know the individual panelists and perhaps even the separate ratings of each panelist.  Of course this means that a panel can't consist of 500 chaps - which is a good start if what we are really looking for is architectural comment.  I however, don't believe this to be the case.  Most guys really want to know about thhe experience of game and as I said earlier, most of those that profess to want to know only about the architecture are incapable of delivering a properly informed opinion on the matter.

Ciao

[Ken Fry]

Jud & Ken

You are missing the point.  I think some (for sure I am) are saying that almost all raters are incapable of properly rating a course because they don't know enough about architecture or specific projects in question.  That is why other issues creep in to detract or boost an opinion.  Its also why it is seriously important for me to know the individual panelists and perhaps even the separate ratings of each panelist.  Of course this means that a panel can't consist of 500 chaps - which is a good start if what we are really looking for is architectural comment.  I however, don't believe this to be the case.  Most guys really want to know about thhe experience of game and as I said earlier, most of those that profess to want to know only about the architecture are incapable of delivering a properly informed opinion on the matter.

Ciao

Sean,

I agree with what you are saying.  The original intent of this topic is if panelist have the knowledge to truly rate the architectural merit of the course.  To this end, I think overall there is a small percentage of people with enough experience through travel and study to qualify.

The topic has also spun off on the tangent of how panelists can be influenced by comps and/or "fluff" in their evaluations.

Maybe if large panels are utilized the list should be the "100 Greatest Golf Experiences"..... 

Ken

[Phil McDade]

Sean:

A bit off-stray here, but wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of competency in assessing courses? It doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or thing, does it? Doak and Brauer and Co., for instance (from their comments posted here), sees things in golf courses that I can't even imagine thinking of, but no surprise there, as it's their business to do so, and I'm just a guy in his pajamas writing on the Net (I assume the reverse is true if they joined me at a competitive swim meet).

But I know ALOT more about architecture (and I assume you do, too) than many of my friends with whom I golf -- one of the pleasures I have is golfing with folks at a course with which I'm quite familiar, and they are not, and pointing out the various ways the architect used the land and/or other techniques for certain shots and holes. And I've learned alot about architecture in golfing with, and hanging around, others more knowledgeable than me about it.

I'm not sure where this gets us on the rater thing -- other than I'm not convinced there is a cadre of raters out there who know so much more about architecture than I do that it should remain their exclusive province.

[Brad Klein]

From the standpoint of managing such a group, I can tell you that some of the people most convinced of their ability to judge golf courses are not the ones you want representing your publication in the field.

While I have never doubted their eagerness, interest, knowledge and ability to make judgments that are often quite sound, it's hard to separate that from a certain category of "access whore," as well as simply folks whose Type-A personality is the antithesis of the more diplomatic, low-key person (male or female) that's ideal. In both cases, it's a very small but vocal minority of the potential pool of applicants. But it's certainly an issue that pertains to the topic.

[Sean_A]

Phil

Sure there are degrees of separation, but that isn't really the issue.  Guys rate courses of which they don't know squat about its architecture because the usual criteria for rating is walking or playing a course.  I am sure these same guys may know intimate architectural detail about some courses, but that doesn't translate to all (or more accurately most) courses unless they are quite an unusual rater (most likely in the business).  I know about architecture only on a very superficial level - that is the finish work, bunker placement etc, but most of what "I know" is just personal observation of given facts.  I don't know what went into creating those facts so I can't properly judge the worth of those facts except from a playing PoV (which shouldn't be taken lightly because this is the real bottom line so far as I am concerned).  I believe this to be the case for nearly all ratings of nearly all courses - that is why I say what really gets rated is the experience of a course.  AND, if we are gonna talk about experience I see nothing wrong with adding in criteria that effects the experience.  Indeed, I think these things effect even raters who know their stuff and are quite objective.  So long as that is understood it isn't an issue.  My problem is with these panelsists claiming expert knowledge and incredible objectivity when I KNOW this isn't the case.  

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

I think I get what you are saying, but please correct me if I am misinterpretting it.

I think the argument you are making is that all the golfers see is the final course.  They walk it/play it, they experience the shots, the routing, see the bunkers and putt on the greens.  

What they don't know is what could have been and/or what would have been if someone else worked on the course.  They don't know the amazing work that the architect did to piece together a great 18 holes on only 120 acres of property.  Just like they don't realize the lousy job the architect did on this pristine 300 acre ocean front site with perfect soil suited for the game, which yielded a very good course on the greatest site in the world for golf.

Is that the gist of what you are saying?

If so, I think I agree and, in fact, I started a thread on this topic that totally fizzled.  It was titled something like An architects best work on a bad site.

But at the end of the day aren't the Top 100 courses an almagamation of the land the course is on, the job the architect did, and the view point of the golfer?  Does a golfer really give a course more kudos if a designer built a course that ends up being a 7 on land that should have yielded a 2 rather than a course that yielded an 8 on land that should have yielded a 10?  Shouldn't the rating reflect the 8 is better than the 7 at the end of the day?

Now to go next level, those people truly in the know will disparage the 8 and rave about the 7.  But like you say, who really knows.  Maybe this is why Nicklaus, Rees Jones, and Fazio take so much heat.

Am I getting what you are saying?

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
Panelists are there to rate the final golf course based on the categories provided by the magazine (if provided).  They really don't rate architecture except as it relates to some of those categories. As Ken said, given that ambiance is one of the Digest categories then sure the experience matters to a point, as does aesthetics (another category). As you said, the whole thing is supposed to be from the playing POV.

Unless a particular panelist chooses to include it, rating has NOTHING to do with whether an architect had to overcome obstacles, whether the site was good or bad, whether it could have been better, or some other architecture topics that we like to discuss here. Its the panelists opinion of the final, finished product. Nothing more, nothing less. Given all that, its not as difficult as some panelists perhaps would like to pretend or as complicated as perhaps you think it should be!

[Mike_Young]

I haven't read this entire thread but IMHO any golfer can rate a golf course....but why?  There was never a need for ratings until there was a magazine that needed to sell ads.  And now the magazine have become smaller and the second home RE ads had almost vanished.  The money spent by developers for ratings was unjustifiable for golf alone....it had to be justified via RE.  AND then to compound the problem there have not been enough courses built to actually compile an annual rating so the magazines have to come up with new "rating list" .....
But if RE is not in the equation most courses are only concerned with the people within 20 miles of their shop and focus there....thus we will rarely hear of them in ratings....

[Sean_A]

Mac

You get the idea.  

Andy

Presumably the routing of a course is a big part of rating it.  How in the heck does Joe Six pack know enough about routing to make any judgement?  This is why I say these ratings are essentially quite superficial and on that level, sure, anybody can be a rater - of the experience of playing a course rather than the architecture of the course.  It may seem like splitting hairs, but I don't think it is.  In any case, courses have been rated to death and the need for this procedure has outgrown its usefulness as a regular event.  Very little changes in rankings.  Perhaps that is why all sorts of wierd cop out categories of lists are invented.   

Ciao

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

For those of you guys so critical of the rating game and the people that do it, I'm curious which magazine rankings you deem to be FATALLY flawed?  I'm not talking about course A is #20 but you think they deserve to be #18.  I'm talking rankings that have courses that obviously deserve to be in the top 60 or so and don't make the list at all.  Or courses that deserve top 20 billing but only barely slipped into the top 100.  Isn't the point to identify the best of the best, and doesn't a large panel provide a large enough sample size of course visits to correct any one raters mistake?

For all the angst you guys are throwing around, how about some concrete examples of obvoius ommissions or mistakes that would automatically kill the credibility of the magazine in question?  I'm sure there are raters that do it for the free access, but some of you guys are suggesting that the entire exercise is corrupt and pointless.  Talk about prejudice..

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
How does routing presume to fit into the Digest categories that currently count: Shot values, Design variety, Resistance to scoring, Conditioning, Memorability, Aesthetics, Ambiance?  The following two are rated but don't currently count: Playability and Walkability.

Its actually a bit of a trick question that would make more sense if I included the definitions of the categories, but I want to see your response first