2017 Golf Digest Top 100/200

[Greg Tallman]

If you are a panelist who claims they abhor comps and those that take/solicit them why would pay money to be a panelist?

I'm not a rater, and have zero dog in this fight, but I thought the primary draw for some would be access rather than comps.

I'd be skeptical that there are many after one and not the other. Surely somone but the majority?...

[Greg Tallman]

For the record all of the panelists from GCA I have met have been perfect gentlemen and beyond passionate and professional. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Anyone qualified to rate the courses in the world against each other can already access every course that a rater card gets you through the gate. That is a simple absolute fact that I would love to prove given agreeable terms.

[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!""


Everything else is secondary.

[Tom_Doak]

Anyone qualified to rate the courses in the world against each other can already access every course that a rater card gets you through the gate. That is a simple absolute fact that I would love to prove given agreeable terms.

I agree 99%, but there are exceptions to your rule, like most every rule.


If you disagree, what are your terms?

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Bill Seitz]

I realize that JK and Shivas will brand raters as douchebags by definition, but there's nothing I can do about that.

That's simply not true.

Ok, withdrawn then.  That was the tenor I was getting from both of your comments, as they seemed to paint with a pretty broad brush, but I'll take your word for it.

[Tim Gavrich]

Before raters started paying to be raters, one could make the argument that their motives aren't clear.  With them now paying for their access and their freebies, it's clear that the magazines are selling them something, so the volunteerism possibility is pretty much out the window at this point.   The conflict for the magazines is irresolveable: they're in the business of usurping value from the very same courses they write on in their publication.   
 

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.

[Sean_A]

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.

Thats on clubs for not trusting in their product. Again, I think the idea that Joe Bloggs is gonna slam Club X because it didn't let him see the place...afterall...how can it be rated if wasn't seen?...is far fetched. 

Ciao

[Wayne_Freedman]

Why did I disappear, David?
Because you're a seemingly bitter blowhard, bully, and antagonistic waste of time who just wants to fight, not to listen.
You assume, presume, and accuse just for the sport of it.
Now you're calling the process extortion?
That's hilarious.
C'mon.
Get over yourself.
 

[Sean_A]

Deleted post because David's post is missing.

Ciao 

[Wayne_Freedman]

David,


You're cyberstalking people, now?
Better to Google a therapist.

[Sean_A]

Deleted post because David's post is missing.


Ciao

[BHoover]

This is all a fascinating discussion...

[Mike_Young]

 People are people, raters aren't special, but neither are course owners, pros and managers. When you fail to limit your accusations to specific people you paint with a broad brush which includes all the folks who make up the institution.

Ciao

Sean,
With respect to the good guys...
I think you mention something here that I see so often in raters.  They actually consider themselves in the business just like the owner, pro, manager, architect etc.  They are not part of the institution.  Same goes for most of the bloggers etc....

[Sean_A]

 People are people, raters aren't special, but neither are course owners, pros and managers. When you fail to limit your accusations to specific people you paint with a broad brush which includes all the folks who make up the institution.

Ciao

Sean,
With respect to the good guys...
I think you mention something here that I see so often in raters.  They actually consider themselves in the business just like the owner, pro, manager, architect etc.  They are not part of the institution.  Same goes for most of the bloggers etc....

Its odd to think of oneself in the business if he isn't earning money from the business.  However, I disagree about the institution aspect, raters are part and parcel of the ranking institution. It doesn't matter if they are in the business or not.  Raters perform what I am quickly learning is a dirty and deceitful job in creating rankings   

Ciao   

[Mark Pavy]

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.

[PCCraig]

Sean:  just stop. Seriously.


All the smart "Panelists" are running for the hills (at light speed) from this thread.  Notice any Minnesotan slanderers anymore?


Just like looters run when the cops show up.


A thief who is smart enough to not get caught is in a weird way somewhat respectable, at least to some.   Just not to me.

Ha. Keep it up Dave. This is great. Pure gold. The former rater who once argued that comped golf doesn't influence rater votes is now calling himself a cop and is calling other raters "hookers." You can't make this up.

[Tim Gavrich]

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.


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? 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.

[PCCraig]

Baseless? As you would say "LOL"

So you go from this, when you were a rater:

JC Jones raises an interesting point: when you've played tons of comped rounds already in your life, how in the world could one more possibly sway you?I never really thought about that, but even if I put rating aside, when I look back at the past 25-30 years of my golf-life, I've played for free WAY more often than I've paid. As a kid, I never paid - dad paid.  And that was every day, all day, all summer. Then, for 4 years straight, I never had to pay. We're talking about thousands of rounds from age 12 to 21. Usually 36 a day. And even if you consider tournament entry fees to be "paying", (A) I didn't pay them and (B) I didn't pay them.   And what about all those free range balls?  So, OK, that's college and that's different, but even as a adult, when I think about it, it's amazing how many times you don't pay:  charity events your firm sends you to, playing with your friends who happen to be pros, client golf, "thank you" rounds, last-minute calls to fill in on so-and-so's scramble team, and plain ol' invites where the host won't even consider letting you pay (and gets pissed at you when you try to sneak a C-Note into his shoes when they come back from the shoe shine guy). It all adds up to a ton of comped golf - rater or no rater.When JC said that getting comped couldn't possibly affect his rating, I believe him 100 percent. At a certain point, there's just no way it CAN because you're basically just immune to it.

To this, now that you're not?:

when you strip away all the rationalization and justifications and flawed freedom of contract arguments, what you have is good people in a lousy system built on a foundation of tacit pressure on folks with inventory to give it away - or else. 

[BHoover]

It's impressive that someone has so much free time to waste. Wow.

[Peter Pallotta]

An aside:

No surer sign that the internet and social media has changed *everything* -- ie this thread has had more views/hits than the Golf Digest Top 100 list itself!

[BHoover]

It's impressive that someone has so much free time to waste. Wow.

On ranking?  I agree.  Particularly on the "free" part of your observsation.

I'm impressed that you have nothing else to do with your time. Congratulations.

[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.

[JC Jones]

Wait, all these years I thought I was right only to find out that Shivas has changed his mind and now I am wrong?