Raters

[Ira Fishman]

I know that this will go nowhere, but it would be helpful if Posters could identify if they are a Rater and for which Magazine/Website. I am not one although I surely would have tried to become one when I was younger if I knew such a role existed.  So I am not anti-Rater, but because I rely on GCA for scheduling trips, it would be helpful to know the source of the views.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Everyone on this site is a rater!  I have yet to identify one person here who doesn't have an opinion about each and every golf course they see or play     That is all a "rater" is anyway.

[Mike Sweeney]

It might be easier to declare that you are a NON-rater.   Doak got tossed right?


As an Advocate for Maine Golf, obviously I am on the "B" Team, but like Mark said, I am a Rater in my own world.


Richard is obviously not reading the traditional rating guides:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64794.msg1545912.html#new





#RatersSuck, and yes I realize that "Golf's Most Beloved" is a Rater.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It might be easier to declare that you are a NON-rater.   Doak got tossed right?

I am pretty sure that Doak is still a rate when it comes to the CG which is far more reputable for ratings than the magazines.

[Carl Rogers]

A good while back, I started a thread about Rater "qualifications" and I quickly decided that I was not qualified.  So I am a non-rater.

[Tom_Doak]

Correct, the only ratings I participate in now are the ones for The Confidential Guide.

[Tim Martin]

#RatersSuck, and yes I realize that "Golf's Most Beloved" is a Rater.

#PoorForm

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm not a rater.   But I have a rater story.


I'm having lunch with a gentleman who is a leader at his club.   The club has a very good golf course.  Very good.


He gets to talking about raters and how a few were demanding access and complimentary green fees.   He was pretty livid - said there was no way they'd be let out for free and unless accompanied by a member, they weren't to set foot on the property.


This account wouldn't be admissible in court, but it's close enough to demonstrate the point:   SOME (probably very few) raters are egotistical jerks that think they have unfettered access to every course and don't have any need to pay to play.   


PS - This is the type of rating I like:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajaqtFR66kI   

[John Kavanaugh]

I would say that I know and have played golf with more raters than anyone outside the industry. They are some of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure to consider friends. It's a dangerous game judging people by their addictions if you haven't been there yourself. I personally would like to see term limits to protect the raters from themselves.

[Kalen Braley]

Like John,


I've played with several raters over the years and in every instance had nothing short of a terrific experience!


I don't have anything against the raters, but the system is not without its flaws...

[Steve Lang]

   Ira,


Ms Sheila and I were GW raters for a little over a year.  I thoroughly enjoyed the interactions with Brad Klein and his staff and others at the one rater school we went to and learning the objectives of the whole effort.  With that said, I think we got comped once, and in the end, while we enjoy seeking out new courses and adventure while traveling, the initial interest and enthusiasm wasn't sustained for us at the time.  So we're incognito raters... capable of name-dropping and comparing things as needed, with no belt notching schedules as we prefer to drive in and play somewhere on the spur of the moment versus plan something a week in advance. 


So only free form unsolicited take away ratings here. 

[Tom_Doak]

I like John's idea of term limits.  Really the only problem with raters is the guys who think their opinion is worth more than other raters' opinions because they have seen more courses etc., and start to believe they are entitled to special treatment.  At that point it's a problem, whether they get the special treatment, or not.

[Sean_A]

I like John's idea of term limits.  Really the only problem with raters is the guys who think their opinion is worth more than other raters' opinions because they have seen more courses etc., and start to believe they are entitled to special treatment.  At that point it's a problem, whether they get the special treatment, or not.

This is odd.  I have never specifically talked or heard talk of an actual rating for a course by a rater.  The form gets filled in, filed away and that is that.  I can't remember exactly what scores were given for each category and I strongly suspect it is the same for others. If raters have high opinions of themselves they must keep it to themselves.  Of course, I think (though I could have been misinformed) Golf does encourage this sort of thinking because it doesn't take on "inexperienced" raters...does it? 

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

There are many organisations out there that rate golf courses and so "rater" is not the same as "rater". Tom Doak is a rater just for writing his book. Sean, you are a rater just for posting your course reviews on here (you may be a rater for other organisations as well, I don't know about that). I am a rater for posting my reviews on my own site. I am a correspondent for Top100GolfCourses, which is in some ways similar to a rater, in others not at all. The "Leading Golf Courses" organisation rates everything about a golf course except its architecture. The variations are endless.

So I'm always amazed at the narrow definition of "rater" that is frequently used here and, as far as I can see, just pertains to two golf magazines. Which, incidentally, aren't read outside the US very much.

Ulrich

[Mark Chaplin]

I still like the well known Surrey course that welcomes raters with open arms then charges them full whack. No limo transfers or dinners with the club president.

[Jay Mickle]

So I'm always amazed at the narrow definition of "rater" that is frequently used here and, as far as I can see, just pertains to two golf magazines. Which, incidentally, aren't read outside the US very much.

Quite true but those ratings direct the significant dollars spent by many Americans abroad.

[Ronald Montesano]

Ira,


God bless your patience. None of these nobs is able to answer in three words or less, it seems. I'll take a crack:


Not a rater.

[BCowan]

I like John's idea of term limits.  Really the only problem with raters is the guys who think their opinion is worth more than other raters' opinions because they have seen more courses etc., and start to believe they are entitled to special treatment.  At that point it's a problem, whether they get the special treatment, or not.

Very good point and I agree.  It also extends past raters with the "seen more courses'' attitude.  With nothing of substance to back up.  Plus why is having criteria a good thing?  As if one needs some central figure to tell them what to like and to put items in boxes.  ''Beware of the man with the yardstick''.  I think a good start is to read Anatomy of a Golf Course and be able to articulate why you like or dislike something.   

[Sean_A]

I like John's idea of term limits.  Really the only problem with raters is the guys who think their opinion is worth more than other raters' opinions because they have seen more courses etc., and start to believe they are entitled to special treatment.  At that point it's a problem, whether they get the special treatment, or not.

Very good point and I agree.  It also extends past raters with the "seen more courses'' attitude.  With nothing of substance to back up.  Plus why is having criteria a good thing?  As if one needs some central figure to tell them what to like and to put items in boxes.  ''Beware of the man with the yardstick''.  I think a good start is to read Anatomy of a Golf Course and be able to articulate why you like or dislike something.   

Ben

I agree that raters should be left to their own devices in terms of evaluating courses.  However, I don't think rating should be based on what one likes, but instead what one thinks is good, bad or indifferent.  I know to some this may sound pedantic, but I think there is quite a bit of difference in evaluating based on quality compared to what one likes.  This distinction forces people to look at what is in the ground and instead of what they want to be in the ground.

Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean,


    I agree mostly with u and this is more semantics.  Reward of angles, green contours, using land features properly.  These all are nuts and bolts.  You may like left to right legs, I may like little mounds tied in around greens that do nothing for u. It was assumed we were evaluating what is in the ground.  No need to post sign "wash ur hands after u go to the bathroom". 

[Sean_A]

Sean,


    I agree mostly with u and this is more semantics.  Reward of angles, green contours, using land features properly.  These all are nuts and bolts.  You may like left to right legs, I may like little mounds tied in around greens that do nothing for u. It was assumed we were evaluating what is in the ground.  No need to post sign "wash ur hands after u go to the bathroom".

I was thinking more in terms of course styles.  We all lean toward certain styles, but a rater has to look for the merits in styles which personally don't appeal.  I think of a place like Woodhall Spa, Celtic Manor, Lytham or Muirfield etc.  These are not courses which I would want to play on a regular basis, but I still need to figure out why they tick and evaluate based on the purpose/intent...not my personal preference.   

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,


God bless your patience. None of these nobs is able to answer in three words or less, it seems. I'll take a crack:


Not a rater.

Ronald,


Thanks and LOL.


Ira

[Terry Lavin]

Raters provide lists, which provide controversy. Most that I've met have knowledge and discretion. The rest strike me as belt-notching, access whore idiots. Thankfully, I believe the latter are in the minority.

[ward peyronnin]

I am a new(within the last year) rater.

Today on a drive from Indiana to Philadelphia I stopped at a cracking little golf club called Hickory Hills outside of Columbus, Ohio.
This course is delightful in many ways which I hope to find the time and energy to post separately.

Jack Kidwell, the mentor to Dr. Hurdzan, designed this course in the late 70's and built it for under a million dollars. He is a very honored golf fixture in this state but I don't believe well know elsewhere. The routing, hole variety, parkland/upland setting, firm and fast greens and bent fairways, golf cart path placement, green complexes, and tree management are all exemplary. No housing and peaceful natural surroundings of mature mixed hardwoods and fields.

I would not have found or considered playing this analog to the affordable lower maintanence UK clubs if I didn't feel obliged to not just cherry pick marquee courses to access and "sponge" from. I would not be sitting in my hotel room preparing to spend >20-30 minutes to transcribe on course scoring and notes to the rater input page if I was doing this just for easy golf.

The professional and then a couple of members were interested and pleased to hear my complements for some of the things they are doing well seemed very glad to be on my polite, grateful, general impression feedback only radar.

There exists a systematic approach and a respectful protocol for this activity and raters who follow these should be a positive and valuable influence.

I am a rater

[BCowan]

Sean,


    I agree mostly with u and this is more semantics.  Reward of angles, green contours, using land features properly.  These all are nuts and bolts.  You may like left to right legs, I may like little mounds tied in around greens that do nothing for u. It was assumed we were evaluating what is in the ground.  No need to post sign "wash ur hands after u go to the bathroom".

I was thinking more in terms of course styles.  We all lean toward certain styles, but a rater has to look for the merits in styles which personally don't appeal.  I think of a place like Woodhall Spa, Celtic Manor, Lytham or Muirfield etc.  These are not courses which I would want to play on a regular basis, but I still need to figure out why they tick and evaluate based on the purpose/intent...not my personal preference.   

Ciao

Sean,


   If you are referring to rating a penal golf courses which u don't like, like anything there are good ones and poor ones.  There are things outside of the check box that u should be able to include in the rating.  That's why I don't like defined cookie cutter evaluations.


Ira,


   So does someone who rates for a magazine have more credence in their evaluations?  Would your opinion of Sean write ups change if you found out he wasn't a rater?


I'm not a Magazine rater. Armchair MICHIGAN top 25 rater