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

[Greg Tallman]

...be required to at least be able to get the golf ball off the ground? I know we love to promote the ground game on this site but come on, $250 and a willingness to travel does not qualify one to rank golf courses.

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.

[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.

[Tom_Doak]

...be required to at least be able to get the golf ball off the ground? I know we love to promote the ground game on this site but come on, $250 and a willingness to travel does not qualify one to rank golf courses.

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.

Greg:

Probably so.  I have known a couple of fellows in their late 80's whose eye was much keener than what remained of their swings.  But I'm pretty sure you would not be one to complain about that sort of fellow.

[Jim Tang]

Greg -

I think panelists need to be proficient players.  Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players?  No.  But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course.  They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.  

[Greg Tallman]

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.  

[Tom_Doak]

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

Wow, that's a new level of crass.  "Our panelists are worth millions, so you'd better let them play for free if you know what's good for you."

[Greg Tallman]

...be required to at least be able to get the golf ball off the ground? I know we love to promote the ground game on this site but come on, $250 and a willingness to travel does not qualify one to rank golf courses.

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.

Greg:

Probably so.  I have known a couple of fellows in their late 80's whose eye was much keener than what remained of their swings.  But I'm pretty sure you would not be one to complain about that sort of fellow.

Tom,

One of whom is very near and dear to me.

HUGE difference between a guy that used to play to a 5-7 and simply cannot do that any longer and a guy who buys his way onto a panel even though he/she couldn't begin to discuss the differences between Alotian Club and Sand Hills.

[JMEvensky]

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. 

Has MWP's game gotten this bad?

[Greg Tallman]

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

Wow, that's a new level of crass.  "Our panelists are worth millions, so you'd better let them play for free if you know what's good for you."

I agree and one reason we laugh at their "ranking", as if these panelists votes are even tabulated. It is simply a money maker for the magazine. One in which we will never spend a penny.  

[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. 

Has MWP's game gotten this bad?

LOL, only when he trying to hoist a 2-iron ( a what?) from a downhill lie.

[Joel_Stewart]

Should the President of the United States be a former military person since he is the Commander in Chief?  Should movie critics be actors?  Should food critics be chefs?  

I played a few years ago with a panelist who was terrible.  To my surprise he had a really great eye for architecture, maintenance and agronomy.

With all that said, yes they should be able to play but don't discount their ability to look at architecture and understand it.  

[Sven Nilsen]

Greg -

I think panelists need to be proficient players.  Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players?  No.  But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course.  They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.  

If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"

[Greg Tallman]

Should the President of the United States be a former military person since he is the Commander in Chief?  Should movie critics be actors?  Should food critics be chefs?  

I played a few years ago with a panelist who was terrible.  To my surprise he had a really great eye for architecture, maintenance and agronomy.

With all that said, yes they should be able to play but don't discount their ability to look at architecture and understand it.  

Disagree, If you cannot get the golf ball off the ground I have zero interest in what you have read on GCA and can subsequently regurgitate in the grill room after carding your 136 whilst cheating a bit.

Beyond that sending out solicitations for ANYONE WILLING TO PAY $250 is ridiculous.

I do not agree with Digest's "good player policy" either. There are a bunch of 10-20s that play the game and understand. You don't have to be a 5 but you do have to play to a certain level or you simply cannot evaluate a course.... "that bunker is at 257 and thus is a good strategic placement..." Sorry does not work that way.

[Joe Hancock]

Greg -

I think panelists need to be proficient players.  Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players?  No.  But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course.  They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.  

If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"

By understanding that good design is accessible (in strategic terms) to a wide variety of abilities. In other words, looking at the hole through multiple sets of eyes.

Joe

[Sven Nilsen]

Greg -

I think panelists need to be proficient players.  Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players?  No.  But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course.  They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.  

If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"

By understanding that good design is accessible (in strategic terms) to a wide variety of abilities. In other words, looking at the hole through multiple sets of eyes.

Joe

Joe,

That's my point.  Proficiency in play has nothing to do with it, proficiency in analysis does.

Sven

[Charlie Ray]

No.

It is a slippery slope when you begin to quantify what qualities a rater should possess to rate a course.  I would bet that the unskilled couple you noticed on the range judged the course not solely through their own game's standards, maybe they imagined they were Fuzzy and Ben playing the course.  The arguments that state they should be able to manage their ball around the course,    can't you judge a course by walking it and seeing it through different scenarios.  Tom Doak mentions often about how walking a course can broaden the outlook over playing.  

[Joe Hancock]

Maybe raters should be required to play at least three rounds; Once w/ their full set of clubs from the appropriate tee, once w/ only three clubs, and none of them shorter than a five iron, and once with those same three clubs from the forward tees. That would help!

[Greg Tallman]

No.

It is a slippery slope when you begin to quantify what qualities a rater should possess to rate a course.  I would bet that the unskilled couple you noticed on the range judged the course not solely through their own game's standards, maybe they imagined they were Fuzzy and Ben playing the course.  The arguments that state they should be able to manage their ball around the course,    can't you judge a course by walking it and seeing it through different scenarios.  Tom Doak mentions often about how walking a course can broaden the outlook over playing.  

I think you Seņor Doak a disservice by comparing him to this pair of Chicago businessmen whose motive for becoming panelists was clear (jump in JK). That said if you are reading this as an indictment of only these two player you are completely missing my point.

Any magazine that solicits anyone willing to pay $250 is a joke. Plain and simple.

[Greg Tallman]

Maybe raters should be required to play at least three rounds; Once w/ their full set of clubs from the appropriate tee, once w/ only three clubs, and none of them shorter than a five iron, and once with those same three clubs from the forward tees. That would help!

Any requisite beyond penning a check for $250 would be good.

[jeffwarne]

The entire idea that a panelist would PAY a magazine to be a rater and expect to be comped at the facility is ludicrous.
Interesting turn of events that the content providers PAY the Magazine, and subscriptions are free for the reader:

but I digress....

[Greg Tallman]

The entire idea that a panelist would PAY a magazine to be a rater and expect to be comped at the facility is ludicrous.
Interesting turn of events that the content providers PAY the Magazine, and subscriptions are free for the reader:

but I digress....

Digress more please

[Charlie Ray]

Greg,  If that is indeed your point,  then you are correct, I missed your point.   I have no idea how any of the magazine ratings work and I hope to keep it that way.  Sometimes those topics seem very similar to all the bickering and rule changings about figure skating.  

[BHoover]

I don't pay any much attention to rankings so it makes no difference to me whether a rater is any good.

[Peter Pallotta]

Greg - somewhat akin to Charlie's point: it strikes me that, ironically, you are giving rankers and the rating process more respect and credence and validity than many of us here would be willing to give. By focusing on the 'unqualified' rankers who are paying for the priviledge but who don't have the requisite skill, you are implicitely suggesting (and reaffirming the value of) their opposites, i.e. presumably 'qualified' rankers who are not paying for the priviledge and who do have the 'requisite' skill.  And when you do that, i.e. posit identifiable qualifications and quanitfiable skills, you are a very close to positing some objective value and truth to the rating process. Now, I am the first to admit that anyone on here who is a ranker/rater is much more qualified than someone like me -- invariably they have played hundreds of more courses than I have, and play a much better game of golf than me. But that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.  

Peter

[Greg Tallman]

Greg - somewhat akin to Charlie's point: it strikes me that, ironically, you are giving rankers and the rating process more respect and credence and validity than many of us here would be willing to give. By focusing on the 'unqualified' rankers who are paying for the priviledge but who don't have the requisite skill, you are implicitely suggesting (and reaffirming the value of) their opposites, i.e. presumably 'qualified' rankers who are not paying for the priviledge and who do have the 'requisite' skill.  And when you do that, i.e. posit identifiable qualifications and quanitfiable skills, you are a very close to positing some objective value and truth to the rating process. Now, I am the first to admit that anyone on here who is a ranker/rater is much more qualified than someone like me -- invariably they have played hundreds of more courses than I have, and play a much better game of golf than me. But that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.  

Peter

No irony involved. It is something that a public facility must pay attention to. To ignore it would be negligent and, quite frankly, stupid.