GD-New Pimp Daddy

[Tom_Doak]

Some responses to your questions:

I suspect that rating matters only to members of the courses rated, and a handful of architecture nerds.  A somewhat silly bragging contest?
   It's also big business.  Courses in the top ten or the top 50 are able to charge higher green fees, partly as a result of the rankings.  Architects who build top-100 courses charge higher design fees.  Members of courses that aren't in the top 100 spend lots of money trying to get there. 

 
A course should allocate a fixed number of rounds to the magazine for rating purposes and the magazine should designate raters (even a lottery for raters willing to play, perhaps?)
   That would be fun to watch!

 
The focus should on reviewing a larger sample of courses, rather than periodically re-arranging the rank order of a small number.
   GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK ask their panelists to post ratings for more than a thousand courses.  They then compile many other lists ... Best [Whatever] Courses, Best Courses in State, etc. ... the results of which are used in advertisements by courses.

 
Why is “Confidential Guide” more interesting/respected that magazine ratings?  (there are good reasons...)
   It's more interesting, because we actually write about the courses instead of just listing them.  More respected, only by a few thousand people who buy the books.

[Peter Pallotta]

"A utopian metaphor" is a terrific little phrase. I was admiring it and wishing I'd written it myself when, out of the blue, I was struck by an uncomfortable thought, i.e. that golf itself is the utopian metaphor, the heaven on earth, and that we here are the cloistered monks of the middle ages chiselling away in dark musty libraries in the vain hope of one day revealing its meaning -- while never realizing that only a fool breaks open that which he loves in order to see how it works.  That we then decide to rank and rate what we think we've learned in just icing on the cake, and perhaps inevitable; when the experience of the utopia is absent, all we have left us is various descriptions of the metaphor.   (That I have now further abstracted this process to describe those descriptions is a sad thing indeed. That's what happens in winter, I guess....)

Peter 

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

Winter? You, of course, are speaking metaphorically.

[Peter Pallotta]

Show off.

Better with ten words than I am with a hundred.

Did anyone ever tell you that, Joe?  That under your Gary Cooper "ah shucks" persona you have an ego the size of Mt Rushmore?

Sure, you have some smarts and talent to back that up, but still -- it's not very nice of you.

  

[Mike_Young]

Keith,
Just read what TD says in post#133. 

I have been told first hand by an executive of a large second home development near me that they were promised a "Best New" by a certain architect if he were used.  And they felt after further digging that it was possible.  For a year or two they loaded that Magazine with full page ads. 
While I don't have first hand knowledge of any and while I am a non apologizing cynic when it comes to so much of the golf industry junk, if I were betting I would say in the end the guy at the top of the magazine pecking order controls everything in that magazine.  I look at all raters as I do members of a green committee in the sense that they have input but the head of the committee is usually the only board member who has a vote.  The humor is in how the magazines keep so many of these rater dudes fired up and pumped as to what they bring to the table.   A good youtube video would be a compilation of raters talking to golf pros as they enter the club to play...lots of good ones but enough goobs to make a hellava video.

[Sean_A]

I don't known where folks get the notion that any ranking can be objective...be it cars, movies or golf courses.  Every one of us will have a unique concept of quality is which is necessarily subjective.  Although, since X number of courses are ranked highly by a significant percentage of raters it does suggest there is significant quality perception overlap between raters.  But matching opinions does not equate to objectivity.  So...forget about objectivity...it doesn't exist.  I suspect many will try their best to give each a course a fair shake and hopefully see the positive even if it doesn't float their boat.  Otherwise, how could Trump Aberdeen make such a  big splash 

Its fairly obvious there is a symbiotic relationship between raters, clubs (course owners/managers), magazines and advertising.  No matter how much carping there is, rankings serve a purpose which is not wholly connected with the job of actually ranking courses.  So what?  Absent a much better system such as how Michelin go about things, its probably the best that can be achieved given the private nature of so many great courses  The job really should be left to only those who are connected enough to get onto properties without folks knowing they are rankers...a secret society if you will. Some how, I don't believe this could ever work in golf because golfers want to know who is offering their opinion...most simply aren't satisfied by the idea of nameless and faceless experts laying it down...and given the history of rankings...this more discerning attitude is a smart way to approach the subject.

For better or worse...this is what we have.  If you don't like it...don't pay attention.  But I think most see the entire process for what it is...a bit of fun which helps golfers see more courses, sell more magazines and generate more advertising for courses.  Sure, folks get upset if their course doesn't make the cut mainly because of ego, but also because there is a potential financial impact.  Not much can be done about this except by creating ever more specialized criteria lists in effort to make many more courses winners.

Ciao   

[Kalen Braley]

The more I think about it, most private courses are really getting the ratings for "free" anyways.

Consider the following scenario:

1.  Joe Sixpack, who doesn't belong to a private club, becomes a rater of GW or GD.
2.  He starts emailing clubs, that he wouldn't be able to access otherwise if he wasn't a rater, and a few schedule him in.
3.  He shows up at the club at the assigned time and has a comp'd round.

How did this cost the club any money?  Remember, if he wasn't a rater, he wouldn't have been able to play the course anyways, so either way the course would have never got the "visitor round" green fee.  So the course incurs no loss of revenue, because he wouldn't have been able to access it otherwise.

(Granted the one exception to this would be, if scheduled at a busy time,  other visitor green fees could be lost, but I would guess this is rare)

So given the assumption that most raters wouldn't have access otherwise, it really costs the course absolutely nothing to have them come out, even for free.

[BCowan]

Ben,

Thanks, maybe I'll write a reversible book. Guaranteed to be epic, just ask me. Can you cover my attorney fees?

Jkava,

    I have shallow pockets.  I'm sure your buddy Hoover would cover you pro bono.

[Kalen Braley]

David,

Very nice false comparison...cant even count the number of logical fallacies in your post.

But how about this one..   A lawyer never worked a high profile case pro-bono to gain publicity and future clients from it?

[Mike_Young]

Kalen,

I think many don't realize how often the rater card get pulled at courses that are off the radar and not looking for publicity other than local play...a few times I have gone on a golf trip where we had arranged all before hand and one guy pulls out a rater card to tell the counter help he is a rater.  That's the main issue I ahve with the  comp business...

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

I think many don't realize how often the rater card get pulled at courses that are off the radar and not looking for publicity other than local play...a few times I have gone on a golf trip where we had arranged all before hand and one guy pulls out a rater card to tell the counter help he is a rater.  That's the main issue I ahve with the  comp business...

Mike,

I understand that happens, and its unfortunate.  In a perfect world owners' would penalize raters who use these tactics and make them pay the guest rate.

But for those who do go thru the proper channels, and make arrangements where the course agrees to comp the round, I think my previous post is still very valid.

[DMoriarty]

Will someone just make Kalen a rater, already?  It is getting pretty deep in here.

(kidding, Kalen)

[Kalen Braley]

Will someone just make Kalen a rater, already?  It is getting pretty deep in here.

Lol... please.  I have no interest.

I present logically constructed arguments, and people get ruffled feathers because they know I'm right.

(Just looked at your post again David, all in good fun!  )

[Mike_Young]

[

Mike,

I understand that happens, and its unfortunate.  In a perfect world owners' would penalize raters who use these tactics and make them pay the guest rate.

But for those who do go thru the proper channels, and make arrangements where the course agrees to comp the round, I think my previous post is still very valid.

Kalen,
Tell me why about 15000 courses in the USA would want a rater playing their place as a comp?  He can make all the arrangements he wants but all he is looking for is free golf.  He knows and the owner knows the course is not going to be ranked in any mag and the rater probably will never mention it anywhere.

[DMoriarty]

I present logically constructed arguments, and people get ruffled feathers because they know I'm right.

Not so sure this one is logically constructed. What does it matter if the club has a cost? (I think it does, but the way, but let's set that aside.)  Surely you see that the rater benefits whether by a comped round, access, or both?  Isn't that the real issue and the one that causes the (real or perceived) conflict?

[Kalen Braley]

[

Mike,

I understand that happens, and its unfortunate.  In a perfect world owners' would penalize raters who use these tactics and make them pay the guest rate.

But for those who do go thru the proper channels, and make arrangements where the course agrees to comp the round, I think my previous post is still very valid.

Kalen,
Tell me why about 15000 courses in the USA would want a rater playing their place as a comp?  He can make all the arrangements he wants but all he is looking for is free golf.  He nows and the owner knows the course is not going to be ranked in any mag and the rater probably will never mention it anywhere.

Mike,

Thats a terrific question and I've wondered the same in that exact context you explained it.

My only answer would be delusion with a bit of vanity mixed in.  Not much different than the guy hitting on the hottest girl in the bar when his chances of success are less than 1%.

I guess courses give in to the same kind of lack of thinking things thru.  Or perhaps for the privates, they realize it doesn't cost anything other than a few extra divots and ball marks on the green so they say what the hell. 

[Kalen Braley]

I present logically constructed arguments, and people get ruffled feathers because they know I'm right.

Not so sure this one is logically constructed. What does it matter if the club has a cost? (I think it does, but the way, but let's set that aside.)  Surely you see that the rater is getting a benefit whether a comped round, access, or both?  Isn't that the real issue and the one that causes the (real or perceived) conflict.

David,

If you go back and look at my prior posts I've already admitted the rater benefits/wins quite a few times.

My only recent point was that the course doesn't really incur anything extra by comp'ing the occasional rater and potentially have more press and memberships to gain.  Its a potential "bigger" win for them than what most realize.

So that's the point, if a course has a $200 visitor round fee, they really in fact are not forgoeing this for someone who wouldn't have had access otherwise.

[BCowan]

''My only answer would be delusion with a bit of vanity mixed in.  Not much different than the guy hitting on the hottest girl in the bar when his chances of success are less than 1%.''

Does a coffee house yield different results  ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfkKkvWEPMo

Just do the opposite...

[Kalen Braley]

''My only answer would be delusion with a bit of vanity mixed in.  Not much different than the guy hitting on the hottest girl in the bar when his chances of success are less than 1%.''

Does a coffee house yield different results  ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfkKkvWEPMo

Just do the opposite...

Very funny.... gawd I miss that show, I think George was my favorite character.

Awesome Ben, thanks for posting.    

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Thats a terrific question and I've wondered the same in that exact context you explained it.

My only answer would be delusion with a bit of vanity mixed in.  Not much different than the guy hitting on the hottest girl in the bar when his chances of success are less than 1%.

I guess courses give in to the same kind of lack of thinking things thru.  Or perhaps for the privates, they realize it doesn't cost anything other than a few extra divots and ball marks on the green so they say what the hell. 


Kalen,
I think you just hit on the disconnect....a rater is nothing like the hottest girl...tthe ones that create the problems are more like the tramp....THERE IS NO DELUSION FOR MOST OF THE 15000 COURSES....the rater is impressed with himself ( vanity and delusion) much more than the course personnel he is asking for a comp...

[Peter Pallotta]

When he's good, he's one of the best. From Chicago. David Mamet. You know the play.   

MOSS
It's not right.

AARONOW
It's not.

MOSS
No.

(pause)

AARONOW
And it's not right to the customers.

MOSS
I know it's not.  I'll tell you, you got, you know, you got...what did I learn as a kid on Western?
Don't sell a guy one car.  Sell him five cars over fifteen years.

AARONOW
That's right.

MOSS
Eh...?

AARONOW
That's right.

MOSS
Goddamn right, that's right.  Guys come on: "Oh, the blah blah blah, I know what I'll do: I'll go in and
rob everyone blind and go to Argentina cause nobody ever thought of this before."

AARONOW
That's right...

MOSS
Eh?

AARONOW
No.  That's absolutely right.

MOSS
And so they kill the goose.  I, I, I'll...and a effin' man, worked all his life has got to...

AARONOW
...that's right...

MOSS
...cower in his boots...

AARONOW
(simultaneously with "boots")
Shoes, boots, yes...

MOSS
For some effin' "Sell ten thousand and you win the steak knives..."

AARONOW
For some sales pro...

MOSS
...sales promotion, "You lose, then we fire your..." No.  It's medieval... it's wrong. "Or we're
going to fire your ass." It's wrong.

AARONOW
Yes.

MOSS
Yes, it is.  And you know who's responsible?

AARONOW
Who?

MOSS
You know who it is.

[Mike_Young]

Peter, get away from that coffee.....

[Peter Pallotta]

You're...no, but you're not...no, that's fine. Okay. That's fine, Mike. We're in agreement...we're... I agree with you.  But. Mike: do you see what I'm saying....Mike? Listen: yes, yes. Alright? Do you understand now? I should put that coffee down. I...yes...I should put that coffee down. Right. But -- they killed the goose, Mike. They Killed The Effing Goose.

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

I think you missed the point of the last analogy.  The rater isn't the brass ring, its the delusion that their course could actually make one of those lists.  The rater is just a means-to-the-end in this fantasy scenario.

P.S.  My original post back on Page 1 was only to say that I thought the premise of the original thread was disingenuous to the nature of the system as it includes raters.  I never thought this thread would turn into this, so I think I'll bow out at this point and leave it to you guys.

But i'll leave you with a quote from my buddy Mr. Lee!! 

[Mike_Young]

Kalen,
I understood the analogy.  I just want to be clear that the average course owner has no misconceptions about his property and certainly doesn't care to comp a rater.  He would prefer to comp the guy that comes thru there a few times a week more than some dude he doesn't know.  To be clear...the industry is not impressed by raters nearly as much as raters are...

I'm out also...have a Merry Christmas....cheers, Mike