News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #75 on: December 11, 2015, 04:23:15 PM »
Time to get down off the high horse.  I am struggling to think of many things connected with golf which provide useful information  :o  Its all pretty much hobby crap..so not terribly useful...even if entertaining.  I dare say many more people are entertained by rankings than any other info stream dealing with golf.

Kalen asked for better possible solutions. I provided him with my opinion. If that is being "on my high horse" then I'm quite comfortable in the saddle. I meant "useful information" in the context of providing meaningful distinctions between golf courses to help golfers choose where to play and perhaps even better understand the courses on which they play.  As for the rest of your post, it doesn't seem to have much to do with my post.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #76 on: December 11, 2015, 04:28:16 PM »
I was a Golfweek rater from 2009 to 2012, and since then I have been with Golf Digest as a panelist.

When I first asked to join Golfweek's panel, I joined because I'm a golf course nerd like anyone else here and I thought it would be fun to be involved, have a say in the final rankings, and to go and see new golf courses. There is no doubt that additional access to golf courses and comped rounds of golf is great if you're a rater and I certainly used my "card" often early when we were living in Chicago. You can debate the ratings "game" all you want but I always tried to file thoughtful ratings and I always tried to include lesser known courses than to focus heavily on Top 100 golf courses or whatever. I also was (and hopefully am) polite during any rating situations...I always called/e-mailed the pro weeks (or months) in advance, I never requested to play during busy times, took caddies, bought stuff in pro shops, asked questions, wrote thank you letters, etc.

The beginning of the end for me at Golfweek was when I attended my first and only "rater retreat" in SW Michigan. At the time, we were told one was mandatory every other year in order to stay on the panel (even though I've since found out this rule isn't enforced among GW raters evenly). We ended up playing Point O Woods, Harbor Shores, Lost Dunes, and the Warren Course. I think the trip, which also included a couple of nights at a Hampton Inn and one modest dinner, cost maybe $600 which you justify given that you're playing four rounds of good to great golf in a fun part of the country. Guys flew in from all over the country for the event and I met some really nice guys. However, candidly, quite a few of the people in attendance really didn't know what they were talking about at all. Much like the retired and married rater couple from Florida who tried to tell Brad that they rated their home course in FL a "10" because of it's beauty. Or the rater I played with at Harbor Shores that played poorly and while having an out of body experience on the ~4th hole said in my response to an architectural question "I've seen all I need to see, this place is just typical Nicklaus shit." Later that night at dinner the raters discussed if it was possible to give the course a "0" which I was the only person who bothered to speak up to say how ridiculous of a statement that is (Harbor Shores isn't great, but it's not a 0 by any stretch).

Someone above mentioned how GW's visit guidelines seemed reasonable. They are, but they are followed selectively. I attended an event at Conway Farms a bunch of years ago where 12 raters were asked to play in an event on the same day Brad was to be at the course and speaking at a dinner that night. It ended up being the club's "spring stag night golf event" and when I showed up they gave us golf balls, lunch, cocktails, a steak dinner, golf, etc. all comped which is was against the rules but Brad was there so you have to assume it was ok?

It eventually got to the point where it was clear that GW was treating the rating program as a revenue stream for the magazine. It's fairly obvious that the "mandatory" retreats are revenue generators as Golfweek lines up a bunch of comped golf but turns around and charges the raters regardless. They were constantly hawking merchandise such as Golfweek Rater logo'd golf bags and the like to drum up even more $. Then they began charging raters $250/year as an "administrative" fee which isn't charged equally and isn't charged if you've been with the panel for a long time or apparently are in the industry.

After I heard a very unfavorable story regarding the Golfweek panel from a friend in the industry I decided I was going to move on and I was accepted as a Golf Digest panelist a few years ago. I had received an acceptance letter from Golf Digest and not 12 hours later I received an e-mail from Brad asking if I was now a GD panelist. I returned his e-mail as politely as possible saying that I was planning on sending him a resignation letter but hadn't had time, but that I was very thankful for my time on Golfweek's panel and that I hoped he felt I contributed in a meaningful way. I received the following in return "Have fun -- though you won't with GD. You're trading up for prestige and industry-wide respect and losing experience and camaraderie."
I did not respond but it reaffirmed to me that I was making the correct decision.

My time on Golf Digest's panel has been largely positive. There isn't nearly as much pressure to get out and rate a bunch of courses every single year (I think the minimum goal is 5-8?). I'm much busier these days I don't have nearly the time to travel and play golf like I used to. I belong to a golf club that is a 7-iron away from my home and I'm now married, have a dog, a kid, other hobbies, etc. that makes it hard for me to tell my wife that I'm gone on Saturday to go play 36 holes in the next state over.

Ironically, I really haven't used my Golf Digest much at all as I've been able to file most of my ratings by rating courses I've played organically through friends or while playing for work on the road. For example, I played Windsong Farm (for the 3rd time) as part of the Mashie this year, which is a candidate course, which I later submitted a rating.

Golf Digest also doesn't force you to travel to a "retreat" in order to gain education from the head of the panel like Golfweek does (they do an annual webinar). I don't always perfectly agree with all of GD's rating criteria or even the final results, but its been fun to be involved with the process and I continue to file my ratings in a (somewhat) timely and thoughtful manor.

The news this week that Golf Digest is going to be charging each panelist $250 is somewhat surprising, but not unexpected. I don't exactly agree with the principal of having to pay dues to this "club", or that I am essentially paying GD for access that an unrelated entity is supplying for free, but it is what it is. In the grand scheme of things, $250 isn't really all that much on an annual basis and if it gives me the opportunity to see one or two new courses I wouldn't be able to play otherwise then it's worth it. So, I'll probably pay the $250 and stay involved for the time being.

Overall, I think the rating "game" at Golf Digest fairly harmless. As Kalen points out, everyone is looking for something. Courses and memberships want the rankings, raters want to play new golf courses for reduced or comped fees, and GD wants the panelist data to help put together the rankings which they are proud of and date back over 50's.
H.P.S.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2015, 04:48:16 PM »
David,

While I agree that having a few very educated and well-respected opinions is ideal, once again the fundamental problem is lack of data points. Certainly in your proposal, the off-the-path, unknowns will likely never get a visit, whereas with the GD or GW system, these kinds of courses will still get visits and ratings every year.

For example here in Utah, there is neat quirky old course that is waayyy off the radar, and would never get even close to a sniff from a small group. But with a fuller size local crew it will get the attention it deserves and a light shined on it and who knows what could come from that in helping keep it afloat.

To boot, if a course only gets rated once or twice per decade, it can end up being both stale and subjective based on the experience of the day.  It would result in these obsolete snapshots instead of a current and fresh list that gets an annual reboot.

Even Tom D has admitted he would love to revisit many of the courses from his original guide and provide fresh updates, and a much needed 2nd opinion.

David Wuthrich

Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #78 on: December 11, 2015, 04:49:01 PM »
Very well stated.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #79 on: December 11, 2015, 04:55:45 PM »
One of the great things about the new rule on posting scores while not playing alone is that Golweek guys wanting to go to Digest will have a little tougher time lowering that handicap. I remember seeing a guy who broke 80 every round for a year. Well played Pat. I bet that index has risen now that you are so "busy".

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #80 on: December 11, 2015, 05:00:55 PM »
I owe Pat an apology. He has broken 80 every round this year too. So sorry. Damn.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #81 on: December 11, 2015, 05:09:27 PM »
Kalen,

There are so many deeply flawed premises in your well-intentioned post it's hard to know where to begin.

Rankers' opinions are not independent of each other. The magazine systems throw out outlier scores and, sometimes, rankers, which presents what Keynes called the "Beauty Pageant problem." Two of the magazines "groom" the outcomes by the use of criteria, which presupposes an objective, universally-agreed definition of greatness.

We've covered this ground so, so many times that it's discouraging whenever anyone assumes magazine rankings ultimately reflect something other than a mirror held up to the rankers and to the architects of the lists.

Which by the way is why Moriarty is right: magazines ultimately present a watered-down, statistically massaged version of a strong critic's opinion. That's all they are, but wrapped in an ersatz authority conveyed by the use of numbers (gotta love how they push the scores past the decimal, fooling people naturally susceptible to "authority by number" with their false precision) and by panels, but without the accountability and authoritative voice of an expert.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #82 on: December 11, 2015, 05:23:54 PM »
Kalen,  If the rating system as is works so well then why hasn't the "quirky old course that is waayyy off the radar" gotten the attention you think it deserves so far?  When it comes to providing substantive information about golf courses on and off the beaten path, the Confidential Guide approach does a much better job than any of the magazine ratings, and it doesn't have the backing of a magazine.

As for a rankings going stale it is always a risk, but I'd rather have one qualified and trustworthy substantive opinion about a course from five years ago than a bunch of annual aggregated "data points" from rankers, with many of whom I might fundamentally disagree about what constitutes a quality golf course.

As for "data points"  I don't know what you mean exactly, but the raters I know all seem to be valuing different things, so aggregating their opinions doesn't really mean much to me.  Give me one informed opinion from someone I trust over a multitude of aggregated opinions any day.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #83 on: December 11, 2015, 05:27:16 PM »
I owe Pat an apology. He has broken 80 every round this year too. So sorry. Damn.


Well, no, I didn't break 80 every round this year. Since you're already creeping on my GHIN account, click over on the tab that says "H.I. Hist" and you'll see the result of quite a few 80+ scores earlier in the year. I'm busier now but I can still get it around the course.
H.P.S.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #84 on: December 11, 2015, 05:29:12 PM »
I'm not creeping or paranoid, I'm vigilant.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #85 on: December 11, 2015, 05:30:24 PM »
Kalen,

There are so many deeply flawed premises in your well-intentioned post it's hard to know where to begin.

Rankers' opinions are not independent of each other. The magazine systems throw out outlier scores and, sometimes, rankers, which presents what Keynes called the "Beauty Pageant problem." Two of the magazines "groom" the outcomes by the use of criteria, which presupposes an objective, universally-agreed definition of greatness.

We've covered this ground so, so many times that it's discouraging whenever anyone assumes magazine rankings ultimately reflect something other than a mirror held up to the rankers and to the architects of the lists.

Which by the way is why Moriarty is right: magazines ultimately present a watered-down, statistically massaged version of a strong critic's opinion. That's all they are, but wrapped in an ersatz authority conveyed by the use of numbers (gotta love how they push the scores past the decimal, fooling people naturally susceptible to "authority by number" with their false precision) and by panels, but without the accountability and authoritative voice of an expert.

Mark,

I'm actually fine with all of what you said, as I've said before, the current system certainly has its flaws and exploits.

But like I've also stated, I don't see this other method as a viable alternative as it'd be stale and often obsolete and woefully underserve thousands of courses due to a limited number of eyeballs on grass.  It reminds me a bit of libertarianism...sounds great on paper but the implementation just doesn't work.   ;)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #86 on: December 11, 2015, 05:42:28 PM »
David,

Utah isn't exactly a "destination" outside of perhaps a few courses down south near St. George.  I suspect the state is woefully underserved by both GW and GD and this course would only make a best of Utah list,  never a national spotlight.  Combine that with many golfers favoring the new 7000+ yard modern courses, and not so much valuing quirk.. I'm not surprised to see it get little attention.  Even a course like Rustic is probably a relative unknown in So.Cal among the average weekend warriors.

As for where the value is from a ranking list perspective, it seems clear ranking lists aren't trying to attract members of the treehouse, but moreso the uneducated masses.  So I'm not surprised one bit to see them as sounding boards.  Its kinda like McDonalds, billions have been served and its widely popular, but doesn't mean the food is any good

Looking at it from a more abstracted view, at the end of the day, you've already got what you want in the form of the Confidential Guide (with more on the way)and GCA course reviews...and the weekend warrior who cares more about their driver and bag, get what they get with a watered down list of courses that they couldn't discern anyways.  Who's losing??

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #87 on: December 11, 2015, 05:44:30 PM »
What's going to become really clear from this thread is that as people defend this system, literally everybody who does so is going to be someone who receives a benefit from it - mostly raters in denial, but also those who benefit from it in other ways.  My hunch is that this is going be 100% true.


I'm a panelist and I'm not "defending" the "system." It's obvious that I have received many benefits from being a rater/panelist since 2009. I've been able to play a bunch of courses I hadn't yet or likely would never of studied & played. In that aspect the "system" has been great to me personally. The point of the thread is Golf Digest charging the panelists a $250 fee. Since I'm already on the panel, my mindset is that I might as well pay it to stay on. Why wouldn't I? $250 is a fraction of my monthly "local" club dues. I had/have a problem paying $250 to Golfweek because I don't believe their policy and leadership is forthcoming. Golf Digest picks the top 100 courses in the country based on panelist votes which are often gained at the expense of a comped round at a course where they are welcome, they sell magazines based on those rankings...so what?     
H.P.S.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #88 on: December 11, 2015, 05:47:10 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2015, 09:27:19 PM by PCraig »
H.P.S.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #89 on: December 11, 2015, 06:06:12 PM »
Arble the fesenjoon rec may be free but I am selling directions to sticky toffee pudding to the highest bidder.

The place already gets packed so if I'm going to make it harder on myself to get in I deserve something for my research. I meant to say, I'm offering a valuable service.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Keith OHalloran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #90 on: December 11, 2015, 06:17:31 PM »
PCraig,
Can you explain a little more about how you differentiate the two? You dropped off GW when they charged, but stayed at GD. Maybe I missed your explanation?

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #91 on: December 11, 2015, 06:28:42 PM »
PCraig,
Can you explain a little more about how you differentiate the two? You dropped off GW when they charged, but stayed at GD. Maybe I missed your explanation?


No, I left before I was asked to pay at GW.
H.P.S.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #92 on: December 11, 2015, 07:56:25 PM »
Kalen, the Confidential Guide does exist, through the efforts of a few people working on it in their spare time. A magazine would arguably be in a better position to pull something like the CG together and to maintain the list so it doesn't get sterile. And once the database is established a magazine is in a better position to update the information and even expand the courses covered to your "quirky old course."

Let's be realistic. Does the world really need a new best classic courses list every couple of years?  Are things really changing that fast in the world of golf courses built 75+ years ago? Wouldn't those resources be better spent exploring the "quirky old courses of Utah" (or wherever) which you admit normally escape notice by these lists?  The nice thing about the Doak approach is that once a course has been reviewed it is on the radar even if it is only a 4, and so it doesn't get lost in the bureaucracy of the top ___ lists.

It seems like such a list or reviews might be of great benefit to your "uneducated masses" more than latest Top 100 national list, or even a Top in state list.  This is especially so if there was also a place for customer feedback, which might help in keeping the list from getting stale.

I have no idea how you think a bunch of rankers visiting a course that will never be realistically be ranked benefits the "uneducated masses" since they will never see or understand those rankings.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #93 on: December 11, 2015, 08:00:12 PM »
I am selling directions to sticky toffee pudding to the highest bidder.


Thats not a service I would pay for....the stuff is dime a dozen and dear at that price.

Ciao

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #94 on: December 11, 2015, 08:12:14 PM »
While I am at it here's another offer of a better system.   Get rid of the panelists but keep the rankings. 

If we get right down do it, aren't rankers really just consumer reviewers with benefits?  And don't those benefits cause many of the real and apparent problems with the system?  So why have panelists rankers at all?  Why don't the magazines develop their own computerized review system where any customer can offer their opinions on a golf course? The magazines could still aggregate the scores (and even make rules for whose scores get aggregated) but the system could be transparent so that discerning readers could actually view the opinions of individual rankers or perhaps even sort and refine their reading to only include results from certain rankers, much like one can on various online sites now.  Is the average Golfweek or Golf Digest rater really that much more qualified to offer these reviews than any other avid golfer?  I just don't see it.

What would be the disadvantage of opening up the rating process to everyone?   Raters wouldn't like it, obviously.  And Magazines would have to come up with a more refined method of coming up with their best ____ and top ___ lists, but it could be done.  But would the readers be worse off if they were allowed to participate?   I don't see how.  If magazines are just aggregating opinions, they might as well go all the way. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #95 on: December 11, 2015, 09:36:38 PM »
While I am at it here's another offer of a better system.   Get rid of the panelists but keep the rankings. 

If we get right down do it, aren't rankers really just consumer reviewers with benefits?  And don't those benefits cause many of the real and apparent problems with the system?  So why have panelists rankers at all?  Why don't the magazines develop their own computerized review system where any customer can offer their opinions on a golf course? The magazines could still aggregate the scores (and even make rules for whose scores get aggregated) but the system could be transparent so that discerning readers could actually view the opinions of individual rankers or perhaps even sort and refine their reading to only include results from certain rankers, much like one can on various online sites now.  Is the average Golfweek or Golf Digest rater really that much more qualified to offer these reviews than any other avid golfer?  I just don't see it.

What would be the disadvantage of opening up the rating process to everyone?   Raters wouldn't like it, obviously.  And Magazines would have to come up with a more refined method of coming up with their best ____ and top ___ lists, but it could be done.  But would the readers be worse off if they were allowed to participate?   I don't see how.  If magazines are just aggregating opinions, they might as well go all the way.

David Golf Digest already has something like his with their Golf Digest Course Critic App.  You can see the ratings and comments your friends enter.  I assume Golf Digest has the aggregate scores.  I haven't used the app in a couple years and don't have it on my current phone to see if they have the aggregate scores available.  I don't remember seeing it.

GolfLink does show the aggregate rankings from their public voting and it can be seen here (http://www.golflink.com/top-golf-courses/).  I've not yet played Jefferson Park but I doubt it deserves it's place between Pine Valley and Augusta National.  I doubt few who voted have played Pine Valley or Augusta, but a lot of people have probably played Jefferson Park (and not much else).

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #96 on: December 11, 2015, 10:07:26 PM »
Jeff,

The magazines need good writers far more than good raters. These panels keep the good guys employed.


Raters will that much impact should not be paying to provide it. I just can't get my head around the economics of this arrangement. Courses want this, right? Magazines want this right? Why would the laborers have to fund it?

The economics are simple.  The magazines have zero cost of goods sold, and sell their goods for what the market will bear.  It's all profit.  Like in Goodfellas where he said they pay for a case of booze and sell it out the back because they were never going to pay for it anyway.  Here, the magazines get their inventory for FREE, and then sell it.  In essence, they're stealing their inventory from the courses, the same as if they at in the shoe business and highjacked shoe trucks and sold the shoes at a discount at a pop-up store.  It's the same thing.  They're taking somebody else's goods, repackaging (a very kind description) it as their own, and selling it at a 100% profit margin.

Bingo

hmmm...just like Golfnow.... ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #97 on: December 11, 2015, 10:22:37 PM »
Gee, I just read this entire thread.

Greg T thinks he has it bad with some of the rater types.  Try having a country course that no one ever needs to rate in the first place and yet these dudes always bring in the rater cards and the counter help is afraid they could upset them.  But it's not just raters, it's dudes that volunteer for the State golf assoc as rules officials and all sorts of comp cards.

What confuses me the most and what the magazines never tell us are whether the ratings are fiction or non-fiction.  But hen I guess if we can broker a political convention we can always broker a golf course rating ;D ;D ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #98 on: December 12, 2015, 01:45:02 AM »
PCraig, thanks for sharing all that.  I feel many of the things that bother you are endemic to conducting rankings.  As course openings were fast and furious in far flung places, the challenge seemed to be getting a handle on all the new facilities.  It wouldn't be easy without a large panel.  With greater size it makes sense to communicate regularly in order to have some consistency in the process.  Rater retreats accomplish that.
Dave, you, or Barney can see something sinister here.  Seems like it comes with the territory.
A golf course architect of some renown told me the panel of Golf Magazine, by far the most accomplished group you could ever hope to find, wasn't killing itself to beat a path to course openings.  In that context the larger group for Golf Digest makes sense.  In time the GOLFWEEK panel went from the smaller end to the other extreme.
 

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GD-New Pimp Daddy
« Reply #99 on: December 12, 2015, 06:18:05 AM »
I am selling directions to sticky toffee pudding to the highest bidder.

Thats not a service I would pay for....the stuff is dime a dozen and dear at that price.

Ciao



If that isn't a deportable offence it should be.



Anyway, an unpublished ranking just put this place at #1. I will sell that to you instead.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back