[Jim Franklin]

In respect of my friend, I have changed my post.

[Søren Rye]

I see Portmarnock has all of a sudden generated raters approval in a major way. Up to #25 from #83.

[Mike_Young]

I would like to go a bit against the notion that it's "clear that the magazines are selling [panelists] something" if I may.


The print publishing business has changed a bunch in recent years, in ways of which I won't pretend to have expert knowledge. But I think it's conceivable to speculate that magazines' operating budgets have changed, such that it would seem conceivable that the golf course ranking departments have needed to become self-sufficient. It costs money for these editors to administrate these panels and produce content around the ratings, so what's nefarious about them generating the revenue to operate them through the panel?


It's certainly possible that these publications break even or better from this enterprise, but it doesn't make their relationships with the country and world's great courses purely parasitic, as you seem to be arguing. It's demonstrably symbiotic, as courses have benefited from the exposure that rankings bring.


Why don't you think these clubs are capable of calculating the opportunity cost of refusing to continue comping raters, or even soliciting rater visits at all? Are these great clubs run by idiots? I don't believe that.


Also, on the comp issue, do you think people who aren't financially able to pay hundreds of dollars a number of times over, per year, should be automatically disqualified from being able to contribute to the evaluation of golf courses? It seems that a lot of people's careers in golf have been sparked by golf courses choosing not to charge them to play.


Again, I'm not arguing that the rating game should be all-free, because that's a level of entitlement I don't hold. But I think there's a spectrum of ability to fund the "rater's lifestyle" (don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes), and I think it deserves some consideration.

Excellent points all, Tim!


People need to look at golf course ratings from an ownership and club perspective. If I'm an owner of a new course that recently opened up or an existing course that was recently renovated which I felt strongly was Top 100 worthy, would I pay to have panelists play if I felt that a Top 100 rating would help me become profitable and successful quickly? Your damn right I would! The cost is nothing compared to what the potential return is. Heck, I'd even consider flying them out and putting them up if I had deep enough pockets. If you're an unknown new or existing course looking to breakthrough the noise and attract play, the quickest and surest way to gain traction (provided your pricing and amenities are appealing) is to have an applique in the window of your front entry or plaque in your pro shop that says Golf Digest or Golf Magazine Top 100 Courses. That's a return on investment you can't get through spending thousands on advertising, as it gives you instant credibility.


Now, if I'm an Oakmont or Pebble Beach am I going to go to the same extreme to attract a favorable review or rating? Probably not, as these are well-known, established clubs/courses that don't require giving panelists the same degree of hand-holding. You would only go through that exercise if you were concerned about your ranking slipping or if you entertained thoughts of moving up in the rankings. If your course or club is currently ranked between 100 - 80 you're probably comping panelists to play your course in the hopes of staying there and not falling out of the Top 100. That's just the way the business world works. I don't blame the panelists or the magazines for this. It's simply a byproduct of the way the system is setup and it's not going to change anytime soon. Magazines, panelists and owners each have their own agendas. Often those agendas coalesce. Other times they conflict. That's the nature of the beast. It's an imperfect system and always will be, but it's the best we've got for now.

Mike,

I don't think most owners think about the Top 100.  I think in most cases they hire a marketing firm and that marketing firm suggest the "Top 100" or "Best New" avenue as a marketing strategy and in most cases is never questioned by the owner.  Most of thes big RE developer types aren't that concerned with the golf other than attracting lot sales or hotel rooms.  These marketing firms get aggressive with the mags and they might have two or three clients at the same time wanting rankings.  That's when all the games begin....I mean many of these marketing golf marketing firms are representing equipment companies, balls, golf cars etc and it puts a lot of balls in the air for a magazine....

[Mike Bodo]

I would like to go a bit against the notion that it's "clear that the magazines are selling [panelists] something" if I may.


The print publishing business has changed a bunch in recent years, in ways of which I won't pretend to have expert knowledge. But I think it's conceivable to speculate that magazines' operating budgets have changed, such that it would seem conceivable that the golf course ranking departments have needed to become self-sufficient. It costs money for these editors to administrate these panels and produce content around the ratings, so what's nefarious about them generating the revenue to operate them through the panel?


It's certainly possible that these publications break even or better from this enterprise, but it doesn't make their relationships with the country and world's great courses purely parasitic, as you seem to be arguing. It's demonstrably symbiotic, as courses have benefited from the exposure that rankings bring.


Why don't you think these clubs are capable of calculating the opportunity cost of refusing to continue comping raters, or even soliciting rater visits at all? Are these great clubs run by idiots? I don't believe that.


Also, on the comp issue, do you think people who aren't financially able to pay hundreds of dollars a number of times over, per year, should be automatically disqualified from being able to contribute to the evaluation of golf courses? It seems that a lot of people's careers in golf have been sparked by golf courses choosing not to charge them to play.


Again, I'm not arguing that the rating game should be all-free, because that's a level of entitlement I don't hold. But I think there's a spectrum of ability to fund the "rater's lifestyle" (don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes), and I think it deserves some consideration.

Excellent points all, Tim!


People need to look at golf course ratings from an ownership and club perspective. If I'm an owner of a new course that recently opened up or an existing course that was recently renovated which I felt strongly was Top 100 worthy, would I pay to have panelists play if I felt that a Top 100 rating would help me become profitable and successful quickly? Your damn right I would! The cost is nothing compared to what the potential return is. Heck, I'd even consider flying them out and putting them up if I had deep enough pockets. If you're an unknown new or existing course looking to breakthrough the noise and attract play, the quickest and surest way to gain traction (provided your pricing and amenities are appealing) is to have an applique in the window of your front entry or plaque in your pro shop that says Golf Digest or Golf Magazine Top 100 Courses. That's a return on investment you can't get through spending thousands on advertising, as it gives you instant credibility.


Now, if I'm an Oakmont or Pebble Beach am I going to go to the same extreme to attract a favorable review or rating? Probably not, as these are well-known, established clubs/courses that don't require giving panelists the same degree of hand-holding. You would only go through that exercise if you were concerned about your ranking slipping or if you entertained thoughts of moving up in the rankings. If your course or club is currently ranked between 100 - 80 you're probably comping panelists to play your course in the hopes of staying there and not falling out of the Top 100. That's just the way the business world works. I don't blame the panelists or the magazines for this. It's simply a byproduct of the way the system is setup and it's not going to change anytime soon. Magazines, panelists and owners each have their own agendas. Often those agendas coalesce. Other times they conflict. That's the nature of the beast. It's an imperfect system and always will be, but it's the best we've got for now.

Mike,

I don't think most owners think about the Top 100.  I think in most cases they hire a marketing firm and that marketing firm suggest the "Top 100" or "Best New" avenue as a marketing strategy and in most cases is never questioned by the owner.  Most of thes big RE developer types aren't that concerned with the golf other than attracting lot sales or hotel rooms.  These marketing firms get aggressive with the mags and they might have two or three clients at the same time wanting rankings.  That's when all the games begin....I mean many of these marketing golf marketing firms are representing equipment companies, balls, golf cars etc and it puts a lot of balls in the air for a magazine....

Mike, thanks for the insight and perspective on how the game works and where the different pieces of the puzzle fit. It's interesting to see the different layers involved and how each interacts with the other. Quite different from the industry my company is in. I'm honored to be privy to yours and some of the other course panelists comments here and am by no means judging or being critical the process, nor those involved with course rankings. It's a daunting task from the little I've been able to gather and makes me glad to have other people doing this and not me. 


Cheers!

[Mike_Young]

Give me 200 club pros at 200 top clubs and let me pump them full of sodium pentathol and ask them about this topic -- and are you willing to post a transcript of what comes out of their mouths verbatim?

David,

I honestly don't think Sean, Wayne etc have any idea how lowly regarded raters are. People just see them as scorned golfers who've given up focussing on their golf to focussing on getting their kicks from rating courses.

Oh and BTW, For those who don't know (and apparently there are plenty), I was a rater.  For quite a while.  And I walked away when It morphed into what it had become:  Extortion. 

Just for the rookies out there who brag about it ...

You da real MVP, Shivas. To answer your early question, yes, I am a rater (Golfweek).


Now, per my post: just how misguided do you believe top club pros, DoGs and GMs to be? After all, they're the ones who (along with their memberships) ultimately decide the ways in which their facilities go along with these panels and lists (i.e. whether and what they charge raters), are they not? Are you prepared to call them on the carpet for participating in and perpetuating a completely evil and rapacious system? Me, I think they're more savvy. It seems you think they're complete rubes.

Do what?  They know who the rubes are but they are often at the mercy of a golf marketing company who is pushing the rater thing and magazine thing...The marketing guys are the ones bringing buses of writers, or raters or whatever is needed.  Look dude, there are almost 6000 views of this thread....and maybe three or four raters are commenting...the pros etc are usually forced into this thing...


Also, per my post: should passionate, curious, potentially insightful golfers who might have more limited financial means than others be disallowed completely from helping evaluate golf courses?   
YES.  If they are in that kind of shape they need to wait until things are better before signing up to spend free time going around rating golf courses. 

If so, perhaps you're in the camp that views golf as purely an aspirational, 1%er-type pursuit. If that's your position, fine; it would help this discussion to know where you stand. That stance would be consistent with your extreme disdain for anyone who has ever been comped a round of golf on a nice course.

 Nothing wrong with wanting to belong to a club of 1 percenters.  Many of the good clubs are such.    And I don't see anywhere that David said he had a disdain for anyone who has been comped a round.  He said raters should not be comped.  I would think he thinks like myself on the subject and feels only those deserving of comps should have them.  Last year I was with a guy who has won two US Senior Opens and a dude who is a rater of courses for the State Golf Association, a real tool.  At the counter the US Senior Open winner never said a word but presented his credit card and paid and the the tool presents his State Golf card and asked if they comp etc....I went off my rocker...what do you think happened.  Well, the US Senior Open winner paid for his round and refused any comps from the course just to embarrass the guy...loved it.

[Mike_Young]

I would like to go a bit against the notion that it's "clear that the magazines are selling [panelists] something" if I may.


The print publishing business has changed a bunch in recent years, in ways of which I won't pretend to have expert knowledge. But I think it's conceivable to speculate that magazines' operating budgets have changed, such that it would seem conceivable that the golf course ranking departments have needed to become self-sufficient. It costs money for these editors to administrate these panels and produce content around the ratings, so what's nefarious about them generating the revenue to operate them through the panel?


It's certainly possible that these publications break even or better from this enterprise, but it doesn't make their relationships with the country and world's great courses purely parasitic, as you seem to be arguing. It's demonstrably symbiotic, as courses have benefited from the exposure that rankings bring.


Why don't you think these clubs are capable of calculating the opportunity cost of refusing to continue comping raters, or even soliciting rater visits at all? Are these great clubs run by idiots? I don't believe that.


Also, on the comp issue, do you think people who aren't financially able to pay hundreds of dollars a number of times over, per year, should be automatically disqualified from being able to contribute to the evaluation of golf courses? It seems that a lot of people's careers in golf have been sparked by golf courses choosing not to charge them to play.


Again, I'm not arguing that the rating game should be all-free, because that's a level of entitlement I don't hold. But I think there's a spectrum of ability to fund the "rater's lifestyle" (don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes), and I think it deserves some consideration.

Excellent points all, Tim!


People need to look at golf course ratings from an ownership and club perspective. If I'm an owner of a new course that recently opened up or an existing course that was recently renovated which I felt strongly was Top 100 worthy, would I pay to have panelists play if I felt that a Top 100 rating would help me become profitable and successful quickly? Your damn right I would! The cost is nothing compared to what the potential return is. Heck, I'd even consider flying them out and putting them up if I had deep enough pockets. If you're an unknown new or existing course looking to breakthrough the noise and attract play, the quickest and surest way to gain traction (provided your pricing and amenities are appealing) is to have an applique in the window of your front entry or plaque in your pro shop that says Golf Digest or Golf Magazine Top 100 Courses. That's a return on investment you can't get through spending thousands on advertising, as it gives you instant credibility.


Now, if I'm an Oakmont or Pebble Beach am I going to go to the same extreme to attract a favorable review or rating? Probably not, as these are well-known, established clubs/courses that don't require giving panelists the same degree of hand-holding. You would only go through that exercise if you were concerned about your ranking slipping or if you entertained thoughts of moving up in the rankings. If your course or club is currently ranked between 100 - 80 you're probably comping panelists to play your course in the hopes of staying there and not falling out of the Top 100. That's just the way the business world works. I don't blame the panelists or the magazines for this. It's simply a byproduct of the way the system is setup and it's not going to change anytime soon. Magazines, panelists and owners each have their own agendas. Often those agendas coalesce. Other times they conflict. That's the nature of the beast. It's an imperfect system and always will be, but it's the best we've got for now.

Mike,

I don't think most owners think about the Top 100.  I think in most cases they hire a marketing firm and that marketing firm suggest the "Top 100" or "Best New" avenue as a marketing strategy and in most cases is never questioned by the owner.  Most of thes big RE developer types aren't that concerned with the golf other than attracting lot sales or hotel rooms.  These marketing firms get aggressive with the mags and they might have two or three clients at the same time wanting rankings.  That's when all the games begin....I mean many of these marketing golf marketing firms are representing equipment companies, balls, golf cars etc and it puts a lot of balls in the air for a magazine....

Mike, thanks for the insight and perspective on how the game works and where the different pieces of the puzzle fit. It's interesting to see the different layers involved and how each interacts with the other. Quite different from the industry my company is in. I'm honored to be privy to yours and some of the other course panelists comments here and am by no means judging or being critical the process, nor those involved with course rankings. It's a daunting task from the little I've been able to gather and makes me glad to have other people doing this and not me. 


Cheers!

Mke,
Let me clear. I AM NOT A PANELIST OR RATER.  I am an architect and a course owner who has just watched it for years.  The opinions are strictly mine and have changed over the years.  Initially I was one who felt I should cater to such but after being burned a few times that changed.  I will say I was never burned by any of the panelists commenting on this thread and have been friends with one of the panel heads who has always reprimanded the bad guys when requested.  BUT it is amazing to see how many hits this thread has gotten...there are some guys out there just hoping their names don't get mentioned...a lot of guys have seen the same thing.
Cheers

[Greg Tallman]

The magazines completely understand the influence of the rankings.

The panelists understand the privileges associated with being a panelist.

The courses understand the benefits and most are desirous of the status and all that comes from appearing on such a list.

The vast majority of the individuals involved are professional and many are highly competent, passionate golf design geeks (Hi MWP).

Some of the panelists are unqualified, others are simply grade A jerks who believe they are entitled now that they have a "card".

Some have turned it into a lucrative business.

Some rankings have been corrupted.

That about sums it up.

 

[Tim Martin]

Give me 200 club pros at 200 top clubs and let me pump them full of sodium pentathol and ask them about this topic -- and are you willing to post a transcript of what comes out of their mouths verbatim?

David,

I honestly don't think Sean, Wayne etc have any idea how lowly regarded raters are. People just see them as scorned golfers who've given up focussing on their golf to focussing on getting their kicks from rating courses.

Mark-I see you are from Australia. Is your opinion based on experiences there or here in the US? Thanks.

[Kalen Braley]

Sifting over all these posts, IMO Sean makes the best points of which the top one is...

In the end, the course has ALL of the power.  If they don't wish to be rated, then don't allow it.  It ends there.  There is no arm wrangling, coercion, or forcing them to do anything.  Its a simple as "No thank you, have a nice day!""

Actually you will have to be more specific.  Clubs do of course have complete control over their own guest policy.  But, as far as I know, clubs are not allowed by the magazines to opt out from being listed at all.  And, so, some may choose to deal with raters entirely because they're afraid they will be rated poorly if they don't.

Tom,


I think Sean gave a reasonable answer, but to me I see it like this:


The vast majority of the courses on top 100 are privates, of which I can't imagine any one of them are hurting for more members/income.  So as best as I can tell, its just plain old massive ego if any of these courses want to be on the list much less rise to the top.


As for publics like Bandon and Cabot, its simple really.  When they show up, if they show their rater card, a simple "we're glad to have you here today, will that be cash or Credit Card?" is all thats needed. If they throw a tantrum about not being comp'd, let them throw em it...they'll pony up, especially if they made all the effort to get to a remote location.  Its no different that dealing with a 2 year old...you don't give em the candy right?


P.S.  If the vast majority of raters are in fact good guys as has been claimed and of which I believe to be true based on a few I know, then their ratings should overcome a few spoiled kids...

[JC Jones]

I would like to go a bit against the notion that it's "clear that the magazines are selling [panelists] something" if I may.


The print publishing business has changed a bunch in recent years, in ways of which I won't pretend to have expert knowledge. But I think it's conceivable to speculate that magazines' operating budgets have changed, such that it would seem conceivable that the golf course ranking departments have needed to become self-sufficient. It costs money for these editors to administrate these panels and produce content around the ratings, so what's nefarious about them generating the revenue to operate them through the panel?


It's certainly possible that these publications break even or better from this enterprise, but it doesn't make their relationships with the country and world's great courses purely parasitic, as you seem to be arguing. It's demonstrably symbiotic, as courses have benefited from the exposure that rankings bring.


Why don't you think these clubs are capable of calculating the opportunity cost of refusing to continue comping raters, or even soliciting rater visits at all? Are these great clubs run by idiots? I don't believe that.


Also, on the comp issue, do you think people who aren't financially able to pay hundreds of dollars a number of times over, per year, should be automatically disqualified from being able to contribute to the evaluation of golf courses? It seems that a lot of people's careers in golf have been sparked by golf courses choosing not to charge them to play.


Again, I'm not arguing that the rating game should be all-free, because that's a level of entitlement I don't hold. But I think there's a spectrum of ability to fund the "rater's lifestyle" (don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes), and I think it deserves some consideration.

Excellent points all, Tim!


People need to look at golf course ratings from an ownership and club perspective. If I'm an owner of a new course that recently opened up or an existing course that was recently renovated which I felt strongly was Top 100 worthy, would I pay to have panelists play if I felt that a Top 100 rating would help me become profitable and successful quickly? Your damn right I would! The cost is nothing compared to what the potential return is. Heck, I'd even consider flying them out and putting them up if I had deep enough pockets. If you're an unknown new or existing course looking to breakthrough the noise and attract play, the quickest and surest way to gain traction (provided your pricing and amenities are appealing) is to have an applique in the window of your front entry or plaque in your pro shop that says Golf Digest or Golf Magazine Top 100 Courses. That's a return on investment you can't get through spending thousands on advertising, as it gives you instant credibility.


Now, if I'm an Oakmont or Pebble Beach am I going to go to the same extreme to attract a favorable review or rating? Probably not, as these are well-known, established clubs/courses that don't require giving panelists the same degree of hand-holding. You would only go through that exercise if you were concerned about your ranking slipping or if you entertained thoughts of moving up in the rankings. If your course or club is currently ranked between 100 - 80 you're probably comping panelists to play your course in the hopes of staying there and not falling out of the Top 100. That's just the way the business world works. I don't blame the panelists or the magazines for this. It's simply a byproduct of the way the system is setup and it's not going to change anytime soon. Magazines, panelists and owners each have their own agendas. Often those agendas coalesce. Other times they conflict. That's the nature of the beast. It's an imperfect system and always will be, but it's the best we've got for now.

Mike,

I don't think most owners think about the Top 100.  I think in most cases they hire a marketing firm and that marketing firm suggest the "Top 100" or "Best New" avenue as a marketing strategy and in most cases is never questioned by the owner.  Most of thes big RE developer types aren't that concerned with the golf other than attracting lot sales or hotel rooms.  These marketing firms get aggressive with the mags and they might have two or three clients at the same time wanting rankings.  That's when all the games begin....I mean many of these marketing golf marketing firms are representing equipment companies, balls, golf cars etc and it puts a lot of balls in the air for a magazine....

I don't know, Mike.  In the hype video for The Loop the Forest Dunes people couldn't stop talking about the number of courses Doak has in the Top 100.  It's clear architects use it in their sales pitches.  And, considering the number of websites for courses that advertise their ranking, my guess is the owners care.

[Jim Franklin]

The magazines completely understand the influence of the rankings.

The panelists understand the privileges associated with being a panelist.

The courses understand the benefits and most are desirous of the status and all that comes from appearing on such a list.

The vast majority of the individuals involved are professional and many are highly competent, passionate golf design geeks (Hi MWP).

Some of the panelists are unqualified, others are simply grade A jerks who believe they are entitled now that they have a "card".

Some have turned it into a lucrative business.

Some rankings have been corrupted.

That about sums it up.

Unfortunately this is all too accurate. I really wish that the courses would let the publications know when a grade A jerk comes to visit. I have heard stories that amaze me. I am not sure why people act like that.

[Frank M]

Unfortunately this is all too accurate. I really wish that the courses would let the publications know when a grade A jerk comes to visit. I have heard stories that amaze me. I am not sure why people act like that.

I'm not sure either.. 

I wouldn't expect any club to go out of their way for a rater or anybody for that matter, even members. I'm one of those people who requires very little from a club other than a good golf course. But in the end, I do think everyone who plays/visits a club should be treated equally....member, guest, rater, employee, whatever.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

The magazines completely understand the influence of the rankings.

The panelists understand the privileges associated with being a panelist.

The courses understand the benefits and most are desirous of the status and all that comes from appearing on such a list.

The vast majority of the individuals involved are professional and many are highly competent, passionate golf design geeks (Hi MWP).

Some of the panelists are unqualified, others are simply grade A jerks who believe they are entitled now that they have a "card".

Some have turned it into a lucrative business.

Some rankings have been corrupted.

That about sums it up.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

The magazines completely understand the influence of the rankings.

The panelists understand the privileges associated with being a panelist.

The courses understand the benefits and most are desirous of the status and all that comes from appearing on such a list.

The vast majority of the individuals involved are professional and many are highly competent, passionate golf design geeks (Hi MWP).

Some of the panelists are unqualified, others are simply grade A jerks who believe they are entitled now that they have a "card".

Some have turned it into a lucrative business.

Some rankings have been corrupted.

That about sums it up.

Mucho gracias for the complement....I can only vouch for the passionate and geek portion of the complement though

[Declan Kavanagh]

Any world 'top 100' with Whistling Straits in it is an absolute joke to me.  Most contrived course in the world. 

[Declan Kavanagh]

Sorry for the non-sequitur there I just simply disqualify these top 100 lists when you start seeing any course where the owner has unlimited funds and hires one of the big architects and bam its a top-100.  If I had to pick a top-100 that has any merit it would be GolfWeek's.


I often think about a weird scenario in which you had a good golfer with a knowledge of what makes courses good but no knowledge of history or prestige and then you had that person play 200 courses, how he/she would rank them without all the pre-existing biases of the classic vs. old courses. 

[Kalen Braley]

Declan,


Surely you jest.  I can't think of a course thats had more benefit from access to funds than ANGC, which is always right at the top.  With all the changes that have taken place there and the one of a kind maintenance program where you can't find even the smallest weed anywhere, that course is closer to Joan Rivers than a Halle Berry..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()