Should one charged with ranking/rating a golf course...

[Paul Gray]

Greg,

MacKenzie wasn't a great player.

If however we really are talking guys that aren't quite sure which end of the club to grip, I do see your point.

We are talking about soliciting ANYONE willing to pay $250 to the "magazine" to become a panelist. Knowing what a golf club looks like is not a requisite skill. E-Mails from the "rating czar" forthcoming soon.

Trumpeting the average net worth of one's panel speaks volumes. Pure garbage.  

Wow. I really didn't know what you meant when you made reference to $250 in your opening post. That is utterly incredible/terrible.

Maybe I've failed to read something but can we just name the publication in question. Please.

[Charlie Ray]

that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.  

Peter

This is one of my favorite subjects,,,
we strive for equality in many areas...  but an informed 'qualified' opinion carries more weight  (I value my cardiologist's opinion more than my grandmothers concerning my heart)      but at the same time how do we quantify an opinion,,,  for an opinion will always be just that,, and never move into the realm of objectivity.

Honestly, the older I get the more I look at golf course ratings with the same skepticism as I listen to the 'expert' talk about the best horse for Race 6.
and those that argue over ratings,,,  you are having the exact same arguments that people are having about what is the best restaurant, the best figure skater, the best 80's rock song,  the best sport's movie, the best QB.   (which is fine, so long as you realize that what you are arguing about doesn't mean anything)     Can we just realize that it is a pointless argument and talk about how much fun we had playing this golf course because ....       We will never be able to quantify why Cypress Point is a better golf course than the TPC such and such,,

[Greg Tallman]

that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.  

Peter

This is one of my favorite subjects,,,
we strive for equality in many areas...  but an informed 'qualified' opinion carries more weight  (I value my cardiologist's opinion more than my grandmothers concerning my heart)      but at the same time how do we quantify an opinion,,,  for an opinion will always be just that,, and never move into the realm of objectivity.

Honestly, the older I get the more I look at golf course ratings with the same skepticism as I listen to the 'expert' talk about the best horse for Race 6.
and those that argue over ratings,,,  you are having the exact same arguments that people are having about what is the best restaurant, the best figure skater, the best 80's rock song,  the best sport's movie, the best QB.   (which is fine, so long as you realize that what you are arguing about doesn't mean anything)     Can we just realize that it is a pointless argument and talk about how much fun we had playing this golf course because ....       We will never be able to quantify why Cypress Point is a better golf course than the TPC such and such,,

Can we agree that charging one to be a panelist is wrong?

Best figure skater? Tonya Harding, hands down.

[Jason Topp]

Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?   

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

To say that we on here my not pay attention to ratings is one thing,but tothimkin the real world that they are irrelevant is like living in Nederland.
We are nowhere close to the "average" golfers who do put a lot of stock into ratings especially when making vacation plans, so people in GRegs position do have to take such things seriously, it is his livelihood, getting people onto the tee and if rankings aid that, they do become important, like it or not.
My distaste for recruiting raters is tremendous as it serves only one motive, raise money for the rating entity ie the magazine it represents ,that simply cannot create a good enviroment for accurate and meaningful raters or ratings.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?   

More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?

Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.

If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it?  

[Greg Tallman]

To say that we on here my not pay attention to ratings is one thing,but tothimkin the real world that they are irrelevant is like living in Nederland.
We are nowhere close to the "average" golfers who do put a lot of stock into ratings especially when making vacation plans, so people in GRegs position do have to take such things seriously, it is his livelihood, getting people onto the tee and if rankings aid that, they do become important, like it or not.
My distaste for recruiting raters is tremendous as it serves only one motive, raise money for the rating entity ie the magazine it represents ,that simply cannot create a good enviroment for accurate and meaningful raters or ratings.

Yeah but what if you got a kickback for signing up 20 of your buddies? Not that far fetched is it?

[jeffwarne]

Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?   

More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?

Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.

If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it?  

Greg,
my book will be better
maybe we could do several editions

[Greg Tallman]

Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?   

More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?

Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.

If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it?  

Greg,
my book will be better
maybe we could do several editions

"Golf Course Rankings, Corruption from The Hamptons to Los Cabos"

[John Kavanaugh]

Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.

[Brent Hutto]

When the course feels it can't possibly opt out of the ratings racket because to do so would cost it money...

When the magazines feel they make money from publishing the ratings...

When the raters routinely get comped rounds at courses they would never reach into their own wallet to play...

And when rating "czars" can have a lucrative gig getting paid to advise clubs on how to maximize their ratings...

In my view adding the additional wrinkle of payments from wanna-be raters directly to the magazine is a bit "dog bites man" is it not? It's all money grubbing we're just quibbling over which form seem more, well, grubby.

[Greg Tallman]

Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.

John, If only I had a mentor as wise as you.

I can spot you the $250 if finances are an issue. 

[Brent Hutto]

Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.

John, If only I had a mentor as wise as you.

I can spot you the $250 if finances are an issue. 

It would more like John's style to splash for the $250 out of his own pocket, then immediately resign from the rating panel because "they'll let just anybody in".

[J_ Crisham]

Greg,   If you believe that a rater needs to be a low handicapper  you have just eliminated Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, and Brad Klein. All adequate golfers but far from scratch players. Which of the 3 gentlemen mentioned do you feel should be disqualified from being a rater due to their average ability to play the game? I'm not sure what club you work at but there is no rule that says you must allow or for even comp raters. My club allows them but doesn't comp their golf - we are still top 100 classic and have no shortage of rater visits annually.

[jeffwarne]

Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?   

More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?

Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.

If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it?  

Greg,
my book will be better
maybe we could do several editions

"Golf Course Rankings, Corruption from The Hamptons to Los Cabos"

Mine won't be about raters you can write those chapters.
In fact I'm all for corruption if I can profit , especially if a rating or 2 are the only things impacted.

[Greg Tallman]

Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.

John, If only I had a mentor as wise as you.

I can spot you the $250 if finances are an issue. 

It would more like John's style to splash for the $250 out of his own pocket, then immediately resign from the rating panel because "they'll let just anybody in".

That made me LOL, literally. Love it. JK, I will comp you based on your "former rater" status if you'll do it.

[Mike Hendren]

A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.

First, I'm compelled to ask:  Why do you currently comp raters?

Second, I note that Golfweek's annual rater fee is $250 and your advertised fee for a winter round before 10:20 a.m. on the Ocean Course is $365 (with no "complimentary" shirt I assume).  Follow-up question:  Do you know how to identify the fool in a poker game?

Why don't you cut the crap and come right and say what's bothering you?  It's likely legitimate.

Kindest regards,

Mike

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Greg,   If you believe that a rater needs to be a low handicapper  you have just eliminated Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, and Brad Klein. All adequate golfers but far from scratch players. Which of the 3 gentlemen mentioned do you feel should be disqualified from being a rater due to their average ability to play the game? I'm not sure what club you work at but there is no rule that says you must allow or for even comp raters. My club allows them but doesn't comp their golf - we are still top 100 classic and have no shortage of rater visits annually.

Trust me all three of those gents can get the ball in the air, and you miss the point.
Recruitment of raters on the basis of paying an annual subscription, is that the best way to recruit meaningful raters.
That is Gregs point

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,   If you believe that a rater needs to be a low handicapper  you have just eliminated Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, and Brad Klein.Where did I state that a low handicap was required? I simply question whether the ability to get a ball off the ground might be a prerequisite. I'll take 100 Doaks and Keisers to every Jack Nicklaus or Justin Rose

All adequate golfers but far from scratch players. Which of the 3 gentlemen mentioned do you feel should be disqualified from being a rater due to their average ability to play the game? Due to their golfing abilities? None.

I'm not sure what club you work at but there is no rule that says you must allow or for even comp raters. My club allows them but doesn't comp their golf - we are still top 100 classic and have no shortage of rater visits annually.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.

First, I'm compelled to ask:  Why do you currently comp raters?

Second, I note that Golfweek's annual rater fee is $250 and your advertised fee for a winter round before 10:20 a.m. on the Ocean Course is $365 (with no "complimentary" shirt I assume).  Follow-up question:  Do you know how to identify the fool in a poker game?

Why don't you cut the crap and come right and say what's bothering you?  It's likely legitimate.

Kindest regards,

Mike

Mike, does he really have to, it is not clear?😀

[Greg Tallman]

A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.

First, I'm compelled to ask:  Why do you currently comp raters? We comp MOST raters. If you have played here 30 times and are not a personal friend then you do not need to "rate" the course and thus I am not buying your vote. Why? because it is part of the game and the vast majority of panelists from the respected publications are serious about their role and given their roles carry a bit of weight away from their panel duties, particularly those from GOLF where Doak molded a pretty good concept and process of how to go about it. His successors have carried on in the same manner

Second, I note that Golfweek's annual rater fee is $250 and your advertised fee for a winter round before 10:20 a.m. on the Ocean Course is $365 (with no "complimentary" shirt I assume).  If you are looking for a complimentary shirt when playing one of the world's better golf courses that happens to occupy land worth hundreds of millions of dollars you'll have to look elsewhere. You also conveniently omit that you can that course for $165 later in the day

Follow-up question:  Do you know how to identify the fool in a poker game? Having covered the expenses of my recent honeymoon by playing poker with fellow hotel guests I am going to say yes, I do know. More difficult at times is identifying the rating whore on the discussion board. Yes I unerstand our policy contributes to the "whoredom"

Why don't you cut the crap and come right and say what's bothering you?  It's likely legitimate. In good time, to do so this early on would stifle discussion and even contempt which bothers me not and was fully expected. Interesting to see how many who know exactly what I am saying will call me out or defend the publication without identifying why

Kindest regards,
Kind indeed!  

Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

Brad is no ones fool. He would kick me off his panel quicker than I could resign.

[Don Mahaffey]

Raters and Rankings, such a love/hate relationship.

I have no patience with course operators bitching about raters once they decide to play the rating game.

Just what did they expect? You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses. Why in the world you all play along is lost on me.  What positive outcome is there for the vast majority of courses that participate? What are you going to do, blow up your course and try to make it like the one 20 spots above you?

[Greg Tallman]

Raters and Rankings, such a love/hate relationship.

I have no patience with course operators bitching about raters once they decide to play the rating game.

Just what did they expect? You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses. Why in the world you all play along is lost on me.  What positive outcome is there for the vast majority of courses that participate? What are you going to do, blow up your course and try to make it like the one 20 spots above you?

Yes, what is your consulting fee? Once finished we can get Bogey down and comp an entire week. Maybe we can jump a spot or two.

[Mark McKeever]

I think all panelists should be able to play a hole the way it was meant to be played to really appreciate the architectural merit.

Mark