[Tim Nugent]

I have no problem with courss comping raters.  The more raters a course gets, the better it is for the golfer who feels he has to rely on such "expert" opinion as the outlyers don't carry as much weight (good or bad).  The one negative I have heard from owners/GM's is when raters run up a big tab in the restraunt and then just walk out.

[C. Squier]

CS,

the only thing surprising here is your oversized indignation about how getting comped could possibly influence you.  Apparently my club isn't giving away enough free golf as it's still considered underrated by a vast majority here...

What I wouldn't give to see a thread discussing the bloated opinion of courses by their dues paying members.

Clint,

That is best seen in the rating of Wolf Run in Golfweek.  Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member.  I've never played for free at Wolf Run and don't think it deserves to be anywhere near the top 100.  Take out the votes of the rater members and their friends and Golfweek won't think so either.

Guess its a bad time to tell you I paid dues at WR before I had a vote. Though, I don't remember if I ever did rate it. I would be all for a 3-5 year blackout period on rating your own club.  Much bigger risk of bias than paying/not paying a singular greens fee. You pay a number of dues.....would a $200 greens fee be material compared to your total annual golf budget?  

[Mike Hendren]

I would think it is more difficult to give a private course a poor rating when there as the guest of a gracious paying member than it would be to rate a course poorly when comped.  Even when a rater pays I would think he is beholden for the privilege.  It is access, not money that is the issue.

Bogey

[John Kavanaugh]

Clint,

I fully admit that I would love to be a rater just to save that $200.  Sad thing is, I wouldn't tell any club that charges less that I was a rater because the $200 figure is about where my pride price point starts.  I'd pay an extra $75 not to tell a course I was a rater just to avoid having to have my ass kissed in some kind of uncomfortable mating ritual.

I recently went to Vegas and would have rated up all over Cascatta, Shadow Creek and the Wynn.  

Personally, I'm not worried about this anymore.  There are plenty of scams far more sophisticated than the antiquated rater business out there sticking it to dues paying members as they laugh behind our backs.  But like Stu said, it just ain't the same through the back door.

[DMoriarty]

If courses and clubs did not think comps/access improved their ratings, they would not give comps/access to raters.

[Ken Fry]

That is best seen in the rating of Wolf Run in Golfweek.  Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member.  I've never played for free at Wolf Run and don't think it deserves to be anywhere near the top 100.  Take out the votes of the rater members and their friends and Golfweek won't think so either.

Jaka,

Really?  No where near the top 100??  For a course that flies below the radar so much both Golfweek and Golf Digest have it rated nicely for the state of Indiana.  Are you saying both groups pad the course rating?  What makes you think it's so far below a place like Victoria National?

Ken

[Chris Johnston]

CJ:

Unfortunately, I think ratings and pga tour stops matter to many avid, but uninformed, golfers.  I don't think they matter to anyone on this board, but I am constantly surprised by avid golfers telling me that certain courses are the best in the country because of a high ranking or a pga tour stop. 

For instance, the average avid golfer in northeast Ohio thinks that Firestone South (Bridgestone tour stop) is the best course in northeast Ohio.  While I do think it is a great test of golf and very fair, I would play Brookside, Kirtland, Country Club and Canterbury over it any day. However, Firestone gets a ton of revenue from corporate outings that want to entertain clients on the "famed' course.   

Likewise with Double Eagle, it has this reputation being in the top 100 that gets it a lot of national members, but it is not even in my top 10 in the State of Ohio and all of the aforementioned are better.

Sad but true.

Michael:

You and I agree on Firestone compared with the other NE Ohio courses.  I'd play any of the 4 you mention over it...in a heartbeat.  Same goes in Columbus wrt Muirfield - like Firestone, very good course, lots of exposure, but there are several others I would choose to play over it.  For the "corporate" group and resort business, and certainly for the magazines, ratings may indeeed matter.  For a private club, other than pride and bragging, I don't think ratings matter as much, if at all.  People join clubs for reasons far deeper than ratings and special clubs usually want people who add something to the club.

Raters are good people who enjoy rating - I've never met a bad one.  The rating criteria are well known and we sure don't "tailor" anything in the experience to fit them...we don't "teach to the test".  Thats the cool thing about golf, variety...in alternatives and in opinion.

Truth is, I've played several very highly rated courses when they were in very bad shape.  Slow or stressed greens, bad fairways, etc.  Pebble was a great example as is Augusta in the fall when balls plug rather than run like on TV, leaving really tough shots into already tough greens.   One must wonder how many raters rate a course due to the existing rating (preconceived notions like Firestone) rather than the criteria in place, but that is probably for another discussion.

[John Kavanaugh]

That is best seen in the rating of Wolf Run in Golfweek.  Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member.  I've never played for free at Wolf Run and don't think it deserves to be anywhere near the top 100.  Take out the votes of the rater members and their friends and Golfweek won't think so either.

Jaka,

Really?  No where near the top 100??  For a course that flies below the radar so much both Golfweek and Golf Digest have it rated nicely for the state of Indiana.  Are you saying both groups pad the course rating?  What makes you think it's so far below a place like Victoria National?

Ken

Ken,

I think it has all the charm and sense of style of a leisure suit too tight in the crotch.  It had its day.

[Ken Fry]

That is best seen in the rating of Wolf Run in Golfweek.  Golfweek allows raters to vote on courses where they are a member.  I've never played for free at Wolf Run and don't think it deserves to be anywhere near the top 100.  Take out the votes of the rater members and their friends and Golfweek won't think so either.

Jaka,

Really?  No where near the top 100??  For a course that flies below the radar so much both Golfweek and Golf Digest have it rated nicely for the state of Indiana.  Are you saying both groups pad the course rating?  What makes you think it's so far below a place like Victoria National?

Ken

Ken,

I think it has all the charm and sense of style of a leisure suit too tight in the crotch.  It had its day.

No matter the angle, you come up with something I always get a chuckle out of.

Ken

[Kalen Braley]

If courses and clubs did not think comps/access improved their ratings, they would not give comps/access to raters.

And the corollary to this is also true:

If courses and clubs did not think ratings helped/improved thier bottom line at some point, they would not give comps/access to raters.


This whole topic is as absurd as the current SuperPacs "allegedly" being independent of a candidate.  

"There is no coordination going on here sir...nope none at all.  Nothing to see here, move along everyone"    

[Howard Riefs]

"There is no coordination going on here sir...nope none at all.  Nothing to see here, move along everyone"    

Captain Renault:  "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

[Carl Nichols]

I'm not a rater, but it wouldn't surprise me that access has as much effect on ratings as comping does. 

[SL_Solow]

I was asked to be a rater a few years ago and have acted in that capacity.  I don't believe that I have been granted access to any courses that I would not have been able to play without the rater's card.  It is my practice to pay to play whenever possible.  Its not that I think being comped would impact my judgment; my opinions are not for sale, at least not for the price of a round of golf.  Rather, to the extent that the owner might have an expectation of a quid pro quo I prefer to disabuse him of that notion from the outset.  If I am invited as a guest, my host invariably receives a reciprocal invite to my club.  I am certain that my friends who invite me to play at their clubs understand that if I rate their course it will receive my honest evaluation.  Finally, some owners may offer to comp raters in an effort to get their course seen by enough of them to obtain a rating as opposed to buying a favorable rating.  Whether this is part of a marketing plan or for some other reason is unimportant, there are enough courses that want to be rated that it is difficult to get to a lot of them.  We all question the utility of ratings but golfers find them interesting and this site is evidence of the amount of discussion and "analysis" they generate.  As for me, the rating process allows me to focus on my interest in architecture and to contribute to the discussion.  I have also met some interesting people in the process and it has caused me to play some courses I might not have taken the time to see.

[Andy Troeger]

I love Wolf Run--for the life of me I can't understand why its not rated significantly higher by all the magazines. It currently sits behind the Pete Dye Course at French Lick in Digest's Indiana state list, which I just fail to comprehend. I like Sycamore Hills well enough, but if its a Top 100 course then Wolf Run is Top 50. Its 1 and 1A with Victoria National for best in state.

As to the question at hand--I think its overblown. I'm only one guy, but while I rate courses for the magazine, I also keep my own list. Those that have seen it will attest that its a moderately frightening Excel spreadsheet that shows that I have way too much time on my hands. It lists every course I've ever played (376) and has breakdowns by architect, state, the last year I played the course, etc. Obviously its a labor of love or I wouldn't have spent the time creating it and playing the golf courses, but the accuracy of it (and what I send to the magazine) are more important to me than what I paid at each course.

[JR Potts]

I was asked to be a rater a few years ago and have acted in that capacity.  I don't believe that I have been granted access to any courses that I would not have been able to play without the rater's card.  It is my practice to pay to play whenever possible.  Its not that I think being comped would impact my judgment; my opinions are not for sale, at least not for the price of a round of golf.  Rather, to the extent that the owner might have an expectation of a quid pro quo I prefer to disabuse him of that notion from the outset.  If I am invited as a guest, my host invariably receives a reciprocal invite to my club.  I am certain that my friends who invite me to play at their clubs understand that if I rate their course it will receive my honest evaluation.  Finally, some owners may offer to comp raters in an effort to get their course seen by enough of them to obtain a rating as opposed to buying a favorable rating.  Whether this is part of a marketing plan or for some other reason is unimportant, there are enough courses that want to be rated that it is difficult to get to a lot of them.  We all question the utility of ratings but golfers find them interesting and this site is evidence of the amount of discussion and "analysis" they generate.  As for me, the rating process allows me to focus on my interest in architecture and to contribute to the discussion.  I have also met some interesting people in the process and it has caused me to play some courses I might not have taken the time to see.

This summarizes very well where I am as well.  I've never taken a free round of golf....unless it's from one of my buddies who is dumb enough to invite me and host me at his club.

[Tom_Doak]

One of several reasons it's impossible for me to update The Confidential Guide is that I'm in a different position today.

When I wrote it, I was just a kid, and I had visited all those courses as an architecture student, not as a rater.  Nobody treated me different because they thought I might someday give their course a 9 [or call it "Hamburger Helper" ] ... none of them, nor I, had any notion of that at the time.  I got to see people for how they really were, not how they pretended to be.

Certainly, some people treated this lowly architecture student much nicer than others, and it's impossible not to remember that.  It probably influenced my ratings [positive or negative] for maybe 10% of the courses I visited, but with two caveats: 

(1)  That's inevitable, if you're human, and
(2)  It was an honest reflection of how welcoming [or unwelcoming] those particular clubs were, which is not a bad thing to factor into a rating a club, at least a little bit.


Some very good friends of mine are raters for the various publications, and most of those that I know are people who love golf and do the job sincerely to try and identify what are the best courses.  I am only bothered when they deny that their status gets them any special favors, or that they ever use their status as raters for that purpose.  Over 15+ years of being involved with the GOLF Magazine rankings, I saw how a few panelists evolved from "golly, it was so cool to see this course, I hope we can get more people to go there," to, "that course would have never made the rankings if it wasn't for my vote."  Human nature at its finest. 

Worse yet, at several clubs where I consult, I've listened to the professional staff agonize over whether to comp a rater when they felt his behavior was really out of line and against their policy, or let it slide for fear they will get a negative review.  I must admit I'm aghast at some of the great courses who value rankings so much that they will put up with stuff they know is wrong.

[Sean Leary]

I am always surprised when I hear about raters' poor behavior. Seems incomprehensible to me as all of the raters I know would never act that way.

[Sean_A]

Sean

Well, given some of the crap that gets tossed round on this site it shouldn't be surprising that folks can act in a similar fashion elsewhere.

Ciao

[Joel_Stewart]

I am always surprised when I hear about raters' poor behavior. Seems incomprehensible to me as all of the raters I know would never act that way.

Agreed.  I've seen some very gutsy behavior among panelists trying to access golf courses.  I've received at least 10 requests from panelists who want to play Cypress Point.  The internal Golf Digest web site for panelists always has somebody asking for help.  There is one well known panelist that is just animal for badgering other panelists for access.

One thing I have noticed and witnessed it some panelists get a little too elderly to play and lose their game.  I hosted an old guy a few years ago that was a disaster.  He was a little pissed I made him walk, (we shared a caddie) and thus he walked just shuffling his feet and looked down the entire time.  I tried to point out features to the golf course and he just shrugged, appearing to have no idea what I was talking about.

[Frank M]

If a rater is rating for any other reason other than rating golf courses, they shouldn't be rating.   

[Jackson C]

One of several reasons it's impossible for me to update The Confidential Guide is that I'm in a different position today.

When I wrote it, I was just a kid, and I had visited all those courses as an architecture student, not as a rater.  Nobody treated me different because they thought I might someday give their course a 9 [or call it "Hamburger Helper" ] ... none of them, nor I, had any notion of that at the time.  I got to see people for how they really were, not how they pretended to be.

Certainly, some people treated this lowly architecture student much nicer than others, and it's impossible not to remember that.  It probably influenced my ratings [positive or negative] for maybe 10% of the courses I visited, but with two caveats: 

(1)  That's inevitable, if you're human, and
(2)  It was an honest reflection of how welcoming [or unwelcoming] those particular clubs were, which is not a bad thing to factor into a rating a club, at least a little bit.


Some very good friends of mine are raters for the various publications, and most of those that I know are people who love golf and do the job sincerely to try and identify what are the best courses.  I am only bothered when they deny that their status gets them any special favors, or that they ever use their status as raters for that purpose.  Over 15+ years of being involved with the GOLF Magazine rankings, I saw how a few panelists evolved from "golly, it was so cool to see this course, I hope we can get more people to go there," to, "that course would have never made the rankings if it wasn't for my vote."  Human nature at its finest. 

Worse yet, at several clubs where I consult, I've listened to the professional staff agonize over whether to comp a rater when they felt his behavior was really out of line and against their policy, or let it slide for fear they will get a negative review.  I must admit I'm aghast at some of the great courses who value rankings so much that they will put up with stuff they know is wrong.

Very interesting.
Is there an opportunity here for the rating publications to do something along these lines:

Let the clubs know that they are free to report poor behavior/abuse by a rater.
Publication will then void that rater's rating for the course.

I think this is a win win for the course and the publication.

[don_bartlett]

The courses certainly have the ability to notify the publications if a panelist's behavior is unbecoming, and the publication acts quickly and usually ends up in dismissal of that panelist...  Now, whether the course takes that action is a different story.

I agree with Frank, they are there as guests of that particular club, paying or comped and their only focus is giving an honest un-biased rating. 

[John Kavanaugh]

The courses certainly have the ability to notify the publications if a panelist's behavior is unbecoming, and the publication acts quickly and usually ends up in dismissal of that panelist...  Now, whether the course takes that action is a different story.

I agree with Frank, they are there as guests of that particular club, paying or comped and their only focus is giving an honest un-biased rating. 

Sorry Don, but I was playing at a course where a member told me of that exact situation.  The course was informed the rater was dismissed.  He wasn't, just told to lay low for a while.

The worst thing a course or a pro can do to help their course is play the role of a snitch.  Raters get together at "rater camp" and compare notes.  Golf is a very small community and in today's job market you can not afford to close out any opportunity by becoming known as "that guy".  No matter how big of a jerk any one rater may be every pro has 20 members ten times worse.

I do know a pro who turned in a couple of raters for pissing off the balcony.  He was told they would be dismissed but I would lay money they were not.  The poor bastards were at camp for God's sake.

[Jackson C]

The courses certainly have the ability to notify the publications if a panelist's behavior is unbecoming, and the publication acts quickly and usually ends up in dismissal of that panelist...  Now, whether the course takes that action is a different story.

I agree with Frank, they are there as guests of that particular club, paying or comped and their only focus is giving an honest un-biased rating. 

Sorry Don, but I was playing at a course where a member told me of that exact situation.  The course was informed the rater was dismissed.  He wasn't, just told to lay low for a while.

The worst thing a course or a pro can do to help their course is play the role of a snitch.  Raters get together at "rater camp" and compare notes.  Golf is a very small community and in today's job market you can not afford to close out any opportunity by becoming known as "that guy".  No matter how big of a jerk any one rater may be every pro has 20 members ten times worse.

I do know a pro who turned in a couple of raters for pissing off the balcony.  He was told they would be dismissed but I would lay money they were not.  The poor bastards were at camp for God's sake.

To expand on my first post, the idea includes the following:

complaints from courses would be kept confidential by the publication
the publication would void the rating but not tell the rater; the rater would not know his vote was not counted
the publication is not required to dismiss the rater, but in its judgment and based on the history of complaints against the rater can take action

[John Kavanaugh]

Jackson,

Do you know that pigs sleep exclusively on their left sides?  Would you buy sausage from a factory that advertised they only use right ears because they are more tender due to the cool night air? 

note:  I love Cornell more than any other American University and this is not meant as a slam against the finest agriculture school known to man.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()