Raters and Freebies.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Consumption is not done in a vacumn, nor necessarily for its own sake.

Tell that to Rush Limbogh!  

[SPDB]

Tommy,
Then why seize on it, like you have the last couple of days (in most cases, where I am not making any objectionable  statement)?

I was referring to assessing the quality of a course (in Lou's vacuum).

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,
When you say Friars Head hasn't been rated, do you mean by the magazines or by the MGA?

As far as I can tell Friars Head has had their share of panelists visit from all of the panels. If you mean if they get a place in some sort of Top 100 standing, then simply this, it doesn't matter. Nothing is going to change.

[SPDB]

It's really amusing, anytime the word "rate" falls in the same post as "Friar's Head" you feel compelled to jump in and say "it doesn't matter" or "they don't care!" even when responding to posts that make no such inference to the contrary. Its starting to become a bit obsessive. It almost seems like if you repeat it enough times, it will become true. Even though, as it has been pointed out on the other thread, it flies in the face of human nature and of the opinions of members of Friars Head.

Having satisfaction and contentment with your course isn't incompatible with a desire to see it recognized. Any "proud papa" would want the same for his offspring.

And, how can you say it doesn't matter? It matters to people like Bob McCoy who slavishly plan their play around what these mags write. Won't somebody please think of the Bob McCoy's of the world?  

I also incorporate by reference, what I said in the "Have you ever heard a GREAT..." thread.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Oh yes, I get what yor saying, the same way you react when the Merion gets discussed, speaking of which............

[SPDB]

Produce these posts. You've seized on my relationship with one of the architects to create these conflict claims because it helps your argument, not because I've shown myself to be impartial. Let's leave the California political tactics to the pros (and actors, pornstars and divorcees).

[Doug Sobieski]

Guys, let's not lump everyone into a "catch-all" category!!! I ALWAYS make sure that the host professional knows that I don't expect others in my group to play for free if I'm accompanied by anybody. And as a matter of fact, I often insist that I pay even if when they offer otherwise, because I know that they are a business and I wouldn't impose on them.

I would never expect everyone to do as I do, but I imagine that there are a lot more than I would guess. It just bothers me when so many people on here think that everyone on every rating panel is out there looking for free golf. Because of the panel, I pay more for travel and golf than I ever would solely as a PGA Professional. Please don't overlook the expenses we incur to visit so many golf courses!!!

Regards,

Doug

[Bob_Huntley]

If one were to go back in the archives, one could find a thread about the usefulness of anything the major golf magazines put out. When it comes to instruction, is there one person in the GCA that has reduced his handicap by reading an instructional piece? I doubt it. I think the most egregious pile of crap ever printed in a golf magazine was perpetrated by Golf Digest with their advocacy of the "Square to Square Method' ,  this was possibly before some of you were born. I know of one superb golfer who almost ruined his career because of it.

When it comes to ratings do we read them? Absolutely. Do we agree with them? For the top ten or twenty,yes. The remainder leave us in a great deal of doubt. As George Peper reminded us not to long ago, the suits put on their lipstick and rouge and will print just about anything just short of a libel to sell more ad space. The ratings game is commercial enterprise and has nothing to do with accuracy in reporting.

The idea of measuring the aesthetics of a Cypress Point or any other of our shrines by sheer numbers, is anathema to me.

[Nick Pozaric]

The magazines are behind it!


Of course then youd need something like a magazine expose on the corruptness of the ratings system.  

[Nick Pozaric]

Here is a story I love about the golf digest rating panel.  Severla yrs ago one of the big wigs in the rating system approached one of the owners of our course asking if we wanted to donate $5000 to a charity he established.  The owner politely declined.  Before asking for the donation the course was in the 30s, now its barely cracking 90.  ANother thing  Ilove is how raters rate walkability of the course, how can they do that when they ride 90% of the time and decline the use of a caddy.  One last thing, how can a course rate so high in tradion points and never have a major or anything, i wish i had the list in front of me to point it out.  There are alot of polotics invloved and I have been told that by raters themselves when at my course.  By the way we had more than 15 raters at my course this yr.  Ever yr the course gets better and better and the rating go down and down.

[Mark_Fine]

Bob,
You say you agree with the list of the top 10 or 20 courses from the magazines.  What makes you so sure those are "right"?  Did a rater like Jack Nicklaus tell you that those courses are the correct top 10 or 20?  I wonder if his opinion would change if he had to pay green fees each time he played a new golf course?  

By the way, isn't it true with most any list, as you move further from the top, the more controversial they become?  Is that a surprise to some?  

Who is the best quarterback in the NFL?  Who is the tenth best?  How do you know?

Mark

[Paul Richards]

Doug:

You make a great point when you say:
>Please don't overlook the expenses we incur to visit so many golf courses!!!

It amazes me to no end when people find out I'm a rater that their only point is that I get "free golf."  In reality, I already play at one of the great golf courses of this country and could play there all summer long - for free!  I'm already paying to belong there, so by playing another track, I'm costing myself money.  In addition, by traveling to see certain courses, I am incurring hotel expenses, gas, plane tickets, dinner money, etc - all in the name of "free golf."

Trust me, I am very fortunate to be able to do this.  But, in no way is it "free."




Tommy:

In your defense, I know of quite a few raters who have played Friar's Head. Most were very impressed.  Same with the Bear's Club and certain other courses who "don't allow raters."  Many times they gain access to clubs thru friendships and business contacts rather than as raters.

Just because a course doesn't feel the need to be rated doesn't mean it won't be visited by rating panelists - and, hence, receive a rating.

[Nick Pozaric]

Paul, what course do you belong to and who do you rate for?

[Paul Richards]

dear ky

please read the section of gca entitled "My Home Course"

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Ky-Why not tell us what course?

Bob- I'm not a magazine aficionado but it would appear one of the mags that gets lumped into these stereotypes has about one millionth the amount of advertising as the other(s).

[Nick Pozaric]

Paul, thanks for the link.  

[Steve Lang]

 

PlayersValue Number.. a dimensionless dollars ratio that's part of the game
                      ($/round (public) x (# public rounds/yr)
 PV Number =    -------------------------------------
                      ($/round (rater) x (# rater rounds/yr)


what makes it high what makes it low, find the optimum and dollares will flow.

[jim_lewis]

I must say that I am a little offended by the implication (or accusation) that raters are on the take.  I travel extensively at my own expense to play courses, many of which I would not bother with if I were not a rater. I almost never bring a companion (twice in 8 years) and if I do, I insist that they pay.  I always offer to pay. Sometimes I pay and sometimes I don't. Whether I do or not has no influence on my rating. In fact, I don't care how much the fees are. I am there to rate the course, period.  The cost is not relevant. As I think back, some of the top ratings I gave to courses this past year were courses that I payed to play.  In the past 6 weeks I took two trips to Michigan and New York. Each cost me more that $1200.  I can stay home and play some of the best courses is the U.S. for the fees I already pay.  I think most raters I know share my approach.  If you don't agree with my ratings, fine. I make a sincere effort to do the best job I can, and I think most raters do too.  Just be careful whom you accuse of dishonesty.

[Mike_Young]

Ratings are for one purpose....to sell magazines....I have seen raters from some mags that don't even know what they are seeing unless someone has already planted an impression.  And then I have seen some very knowledable sincere raters with the ability to extract every little detail.  But in the end it is still the mags that gain from rating.
IMO, the mags should issue vouchers to each rater for the course or courses they are visiting( whether the mag request the visit or the rater chooses to visit)  The course can then decide whether to send the voucher to the the mag for payment and the raster will never know.
When we learn to play ecause we enjoy it and don't need the opinion of another to tell us what to play then we will be where we need to be with the game.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike,

When you buy a car or perhaps recommend a type of grass to your clients, do you first try each or do you go to the literature and do some research?

Sure the magazines benefit, but only because readers want this information.  When I travel, I do try to see the best that an area has to offer.  My time and resources are limited, and I just can't play every golf course.  Others who are not so lucky to participate on this site and gain knowledge from the experience of the many members probably rely even more on the magazines for suggestions.

I don't know why we are getting our panties so bunched-up, but this rating thing is going nowhere useful.  To those who hate the ratings, I say don't pay any attention to them.  They are no more than a concensus of opinions from lay people mostly, many who do study, understand, and love the game.  If one is of the mind that the ratings are corrupt, take a contrarian approach and only play those courses not on anybody's list.  Prediction: those people will still have something to bitch about.   My free advice is not to begrudge those who seemingly have it better than us.

[Mike_Young]

Lou,
If I am researching a grass or car I do obtain information.  But I try to analyze based on objective information.
I just can't find it in me to see how ratings can be objective.  The only way it could have any objectivity at all would be to place a bindfold on the rater, have someone take them to the first tee of a course, play the course without going in clubhouse or knowing name of architect.
I do agree...ratings are going nowhere...I would like it much better if someone such as Brad at Golfweek would just have a list of courses that they feel the golfer would enjoy and no numbers beside the name.
Please explain your last sentence.  I'm sorry I missed it.
Mike

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty----my man:

I believe, without a scintilla of a doubt, you've just created a thread that has gotten more attention and by far more responses and posts in the shortest amount of time than any thread in the history of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!

It makes me sad, though, that it's on the subject of raters which is a long, long way, but obviously only in my own opinion, from the constructive and interesting discussion of golf course architecture!

[Scott_Burroughs]

David,

Many raters just like to travel and play new golf courses regardless if they were a rater or not.  Someone at a magazine apparently thinks they have a good eye for rating courses and this thus simply adds a new task to be done once they've played the course they perhaps were already going to play anyways.  Their rating of the course usually has no effect on if their charge account got hit for a few $.  I've played 274 courses in something like 21 different states, and not one of those courses was played as a rater.  I've even been comped a few times and had hosts pay for me, but my personal feelings of that course aren't any different, even if I could remember which courses were gratis.


Sean,

The $100 "flat tax" rate for raters would never ever possibly be enforced on any course under $100.  Why?  Because raters don't have to identify themselves at any time and would just pay as a regular player anonymously, which is exactly how every single one the top private courses that don't allow raters gets rated (such as Friar's Head), they just play anonymously as guests.

Adam,
Kygolfer stated his course on the "Im [sic] new here" thread.

Kygolfer,

I can give you two possible and probable reasons why Valhalla sunk in the ratings:

1.  The course just isn't a top 30/40 course no matter what improvements have been done.  The initial high ranking is very common on GD's lists for hotsy-totsy new "high buzz" designs, then the ranking eventually goes down as the initial buzz fades and doesn't get factored in raters' evaluations after that.  Shadow Creek started at #8, has fallen quite a bit, and settled more or less.

2.  The Tradition rating points.  When GD factored this in, several younger courses fell in the ratings because it is impossible to have tradition without age - a big bias.  Hosting 2 majors will help Valhalla some in the long run.

[Jeff Fortson]

I have to jump in here.  Being a golf professional myself and having worked at some high-end resorts in the past I have to say that most raters are great but there are some that ruin the image of the rater for all of you.  

I can't tell you how many times I was approached by guys who didn't call and wanted to get comped because they were from some panel, or guys calling on a busy seasonal weekend morning expecting that we would get him and 3 buddies out at peak time, FREE!  

I understand there are quite a few raters in here that are great guys and would never do any of things I mentioned but it does happen more than you think.  I would get these calls in season at least 5 times a week.  Now, if someone set something up with management well ahead of time, then no problem.  The problem comes when some guy thinks he just got the golden meal ticket to every course in the world.  Sorry, but you have to work for that card, and it's called a PGA Professional card.  Until you have that, hit the road or pay up buddy.

As for the expenses everyone here has mentioned that they rack up while "rating", well I have to say that it really doesn't move me any.  No one put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to be a rater.  Just because you have the luxury, honor, and pleasure to be a "rater" should not give you free-access to anywhere.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I have had enough negative experiences with raters to hold this position.  

Also, why are there not more PGA Professionals on panels?  It seems like a very systematic and intentional exclusion.


Jeff F.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

The fact that magazines do this to "sell magazines" is bandied about here. Does anyone here have concrete numbers to support this? If rankings are such money makers, why do GOLF and Golf Digest (the two goliaths of advertising dollars) not feature the number one course on the cover? Why is this cash cow reduced to either the header space, or a mere sentence beside the slice cures?

Golf World's spread when they ranked the UK and Ireland courses last year was very solid, with some text on each course (something they did not do with the recent European rankings )

Clearly Golf World is the only one who really has the method down. Why GOLF and Golf Digest are doing this bi-annually (imagine any other business only wheeling out the cash cow one month every two years) and the space is VERY limited to really draw it out since it is so capturing...

I do not believe these are a clear money maker - certainly not comparable to instruction or equipment. Magazines provide the lists because people have been doing it themselves since the second course in the world opened.