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.


Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #75 on: December 09, 2003, 10:19:40 AM »
Shivas-

Who's logic, yours?  This has little to do with money or value concious, and much more with the perceived preferred treatment which some receive.  Personally, I think that David is just stoking the fire.

BTW, is anyone aware of a "bang for the buck" test?  I've heard about GD's walkability and tradition criteria, but not one about economics.

I do like the one about only rating those course that raters are banned from.  I guess that President Clinton was on the right track when he accepted Saddam's banishment of the international weapons inspectors.  Our good president was just trying to ensure a more fair, unbiased assessment of the situation.  Perhaps if the food critics would pay for their meals those of us who rely on their recommendations would be better served.  Better yet, allow them to look only at the food and give us their best evaluation.

While we are at it, let's make sure that movie reviewers pay for their tickets at the highest rate, and also for their popcorn with no free refills.  Also, start the movie after the opening credits and stop it before the ones at the end.  And make sure that all characters of any note have their faces and voices altered so as not to allow star-worship to seep into the objective analysis.

Fortsonator, Mahaffey, and KYgolfer-

If you guys have been on the front counter at the pro shop, I would wager that you see arrogant SOBs daily.  There are way too many of these in our society at large, and more seem to be coming on stream every day.  For some reason, the game of golf seems to attract more than its fair share.  Being that raters are a subset of people and golfers, I have no doubt that a few have acted badly.  You guys do have recourse and that is to call the publication and let them know of the undesired behavior or abuse.  Personally, I have met many raters from GD and GW, and I can't remember a single incidence that concerned me.  That hasn't always been the case with the non-raters I've played with, and with some of the attitudes and manners that I witnessed from course employees (generally low-level) who are being paid for performing a service.

Last and not least, most raters play during non-peak times, generally during the week.  Those courses who choose to comp the rounds are generally not loosing revenues, as an unused tee time does nothing to ring the cash register.

To David Moriarty-

Tell us about NGLA and FH.  A nice architectural comparison would be refreshing and much more useful than this other garbage.   You agitator, you!


Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #76 on: December 09, 2003, 10:21:48 AM »
Shivas made a good point re: guys with modest income vs. rich guys.  However, I just don't see why golf courses should feel pressured to allow these "modest-income raters" on for free or at reduced rates.  

I understand that certain clubs and courses are looking for a "good" rating from an advertising and macho-ness standpoint.  These place obviously cater to them.  

From my experience, I personally think the few "bad-seeds" in the rating system have made me feel that all comp and reduced rates should be done away with, everywhere for "raters".  Unfortunately, I feel that if I had my way, this ban on free golf and reduced fee golf should stay in effect until the publications that put out these ratings weed out the people on the panel that lack basic human integrity and etiquette.  

Let's be honest, these "panels" aren't a wide ranging representation of the golfing world, they're like fraternities.  Most guys are on these panels because of who they know, not what they know, and they intend to keep it that way.  Plus, I don't care how much someone spends traveling to rate a course.  "Raters" should take the cost issue up with the publication they are working for and stop thinking it's the course's responsibility to alleviate the monetary damage incurred.  Remember, these golf courses didn't put "raters" on panels, the publications did.

This should be a wake-up call to the big magazines in golf.  Many clubs and courses are afraid to complain to the big publications about "raters" abusing privileges, out of fear that their ratings will drop which will drop public opinion of their courses.

I suggest that publications really take a look at who they have rating courses for them.  I know it's impossible to weed all the bad seedsout, but a better job can be done of choosing people for the job.  Maybe, there will be a day when a good system is devised so that "raters" can be comped or nearly comped everytime the play.  I don't see that day coming anytime soon with the abuses I continue to see and hear from other golf professionals.

Unfortunately, there are enough unknowledgable and inconsiderate "raters" out there to give me an overall poor image of "raters" and the rating system from a golf professional's perspective, IMHO.


Jeff F.
#nowhitebelt

THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #77 on: December 09, 2003, 10:29:32 AM »
Robert:

How do you know raters DON'T do this as is?

A lot of the the time I do so.. in the opposite order - I play first, tour second... Scott's right - time is an issue often... but if time is available, that's what I do....

TH

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #78 on: December 09, 2003, 10:34:29 AM »
Jeff,

So you have no problem with my perception that all PGA pros are all Tour wannabes that will never have a chance in a million years no matter what they think, stuck up preppies, who are nothing more than pro shop and cartball sales clerks that couldn't care less about the membership at the club but fake smile anyways ass-kissing guys based on a few bad apples?  Hmmm?   ;D ::)

« Last Edit: December 09, 2003, 10:39:24 AM by Scott_Burroughs »

A_Clay_Man

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #79 on: December 09, 2003, 10:53:58 AM »
any rater who would expect to be comped at 9 am on sat.. is likely an opinion i could live without.

At Pebble they do it right. They distinguish between revenue times and non-revenue. First off sounds pretty good to me and it's no skin off the courses tee sheet
« Last Edit: December 09, 2003, 10:56:43 AM by A_Clay_Man »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #80 on: December 09, 2003, 10:56:10 AM »
Dave,
 
A suggestion for Brad Klein and Ron Whitten which is sure to be less than popular with your raters.   Why not make your raters start paying green fees and guest fees so they learn to appreciate the perspective of real world golfers?  

I've only read your opening post on this thread and would agree with you 100 %.

It would seem to cull out those seeking to play those courses for reasons beyond evaluation, narrowing the beam of focus to its intended target or goal.

All too often, I've seen raters attempt to gain access primarily for their personal enjoyment, with the evaluation of the golf course secondary or as the key to the kingdom.

Brad Klein's and Ron Whitten's suggestion is on target and produce a better product for their respective rankings.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #81 on: December 09, 2003, 11:07:17 AM »
Why do raters need to play the course?

Their ability or success on the course while playing is secondary to the purpose of the rating.  Course ratings for handicap purposes are done without playing ... and they take into consider the various shot values, strategy, hazards, etc.

Maybe the root issue to the golf rating business is the golf and not the architecture ...

"... and I liked the guy ..."

THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #82 on: December 09, 2003, 11:08:33 AM »
Patrick:

The basic premise is not bad.  Just do understand that the rule, at least for GD, isn't far from that now.  We are to expect to pay all green fees - if gratis is offered, we can accept it - but we are to expect to pay for every single rating round we do.

So the context here and the other assumptions are all wrong - that this doesn't occur as is, that all raters just get freebies every time, that all we do it for is the freebies, etc.

Regarding "All too often, I've seen raters attempt to gain access primarily for their personal enjoyment, with the evaluation of the golf course secondary or as the key to the kingdom."

So we're not supposed to have any fun while we're doing these?  That's a little too calvinist, don't you think?

I get what your saying - becoming a rater should not be looked at as any magic card.  The fact is, it's not.  No rater status will ever get one on Cypress Point... or Garden City, right?

Courses allow us access because they want to.  Many don't because they don't care to.  That is all just fine.  A rater goes to the courses he is able to see, and if some are private and wouldn't allow him access outside of being a rater, well... there are always gonna be 10 others where his rater status doesn't matter for crap.

As I say, the general thought here is a good one.  Just be careful about all these presumptions.


TH



Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #83 on: December 09, 2003, 11:11:09 AM »
Jeff,

Again, as one who knows quite a few raters, I haven't seen that problem.  Perhaps by chance I only know the nice ones, but maybe too your expectations of raters and/or the process are a little unrealistic.

In my debriefings with managers, directors of golf, and professionals the most common complaint that I get about raters is: 1) that many don't play well (to put it kindly; at a well-known course the DoG told me that I was the best player by far among the many raters he had played with after I posted a score in the mid 80s.), 2) that they don't seem to study the course and take notes as I do (to which I reply by saying that some guys like Matt Ward and Geoffrey Childs have near-photographic minds, a talent that I never had, thus my need for memory aids).

A third complain that I hear occasionally is that they (course personnel) sometimes get the sense that the raters don't like or appreciate some aspects of their course.  In this area, raters do have to walk a fine line.  Few people appreciate to have their baby criticized, even constructively.  Some know where the warts are and are offended by insincere compliments.  And most know, at least subconciously, when their course is being damned by benign praise.  While my first reaction to all this is that if you ask for an honest opinion, please be willing to accept it in the spirit it was given, I have to remind myself that raters are guests and that there are ways to convey one's views without being offensive (some would say that I haven't always been successful in this area).

Jeff, by all means report the bad characters.  Talk of politics and tinkering with the ballots as retribution is just that.  You may also want to differentiate between the raters which are relatively few in number and others who are normally comped in the industry.  As a group, I would be surprised if raters do not fare very well.

Concerning comping employess of those clubs who reciprocate, I was reminded of a conversation with a head pro of another well-known course in GA.  It seems that during the last week of the spring that ANGC is open, they allow many of the area pros to play the course.  Apparently, the pros at ANGC need a place to play during the summer and early fall and, not without some regrets I am sure, they've had to provide some access to their brethren.  I don't know if superintendents are afforded the same privilidges.

Jeff, are we teaming up again at the KPIII?  I will have a new major swing thought for 2004, #9,501.  And despite all the new techonology, I am still woefully short (but that's more of a personal problem).  I am looking forward to that egalitarian golf mecca, SoCal, and Rustic Canyon, the way of the future.      

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #84 on: December 09, 2003, 11:11:37 AM »
Tom Huckaby,

I've seen too many raters trying to muscle their way onto a golf course, on the cuff.

I understand the generalization I've made, but stick to the concept that it would go a long way toward cleansing or purifying the rating process.

THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #85 on: December 09, 2003, 11:14:25 AM »
Patrick:

I'm sure you have.  I don't doubt that there are some bad apples.

My point remains that it's what Dave is asking for is not wholly different than how it is NOW, at least for Golf Digest.  Need I read to you from our manual?

Hey, make it so - it won't bother me a bit, won't change my life one iota.  

TH

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #86 on: December 09, 2003, 11:15:28 AM »
Shivas-


Bob Huntley-

Those courses you name and several others benefit from reputations that may have been earned in part when guest access was not as difficult.  If I was a member of CPC or SFGC I would be protective of my club, but I would not have objections to limited outside play so long as it does not diminish my enjoyment of the club.  Exclusivity and deriving enjoyment from the mere act of whitholding the same from others may be important to some folks.  It is not for me, and it has been my experience that it is not as well for most people whom I've met on this site.  Sharing something really good, be it a golf course, a single-malt scotch, a meal, or a witty story with others who can appreciate them is much more meaningful.  BTW, I do think that many of the members at those hallowed clubs know quite well where they stand on GD's list, and care to the extent that they take pride in belonging to the best clubs and owning the finest things.  Consumption is not done in a vacumn, nor necessarily for its own sake.  

Lou,

Lou,

As you know, the clubs I mentioned do allow non-member play. But it is done by invitation and not because of the inprimature of a passport issued by a commercial enterprise.

I think that you will agree that one of the trininty has treated us rather well.

THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #87 on: December 09, 2003, 11:16:50 AM »
In my debriefings with managers, directors of golf, and professionals the most common complaint that I get about raters is: 1) that many don't play well (to put it kindly; at a well-known course the DoG told me that I was the best player by far among the many raters he had played with after I posted a score in the mid 80s

Lou - quick point, one I think I neglected to mention when we talked about this before - at one VERY famous, VERY private course near a den of iniquity, the DoG told me the exact same thing as he later told you, and I shot 75 or so.  Perhaps this happens elsewhere but at least in this example, it was just a very nice guy making niceties.   ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #88 on: December 09, 2003, 11:18:51 AM »
Tom Huckaby,

The manual is a guide,
But, in practice, in the field, in reality,
I've seen many examples of raters trying to muscle their way onto a course, and raters trying to gain access, gratis.

Form versus substance ?

I can only attest to my personal experiences, and not the sum total of rating experiences throughout the country.

Andy_Lipschultz

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #89 on: December 09, 2003, 11:20:25 AM »
Assume every rater is on the up-and-up and is not requesting prime times, 3 guests, et al. That is all irrelevant. What is at stake here is credibility with the public which is why certain media outlets--NYT, LAT, WSJ, CBS, NBC,ABC (any major player)--pay for everything and accept nothing.

Mimi Sheraton the former NYT food critic would show up at restaurants annonymously. She got away with this because she would not allow anyone to photograph her. Years ago she did a article for Premiere magazine, rating the various movie set caterers and when the set photographer tried to take her picture, she turned away.

In theory (which is always easier when the media outlet has deep pocketbooks), this leaves the outlet above reproach. No one can say they have been bought and paid for.

BTW, how many raters must play a course for the magazine to give it a rating?



THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #90 on: December 09, 2003, 11:23:13 AM »
Patrick:

I understand that, and I don't doubt your experiences.

My question is then, what exactly would you change?  Just make all gratis rounds absolutely prohibited?  You obviously know how problematic that would be, logistically, in terms of etiquette, and otherwise..  

I guess my point is this is really much ado about nothing.

TH
 


THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #91 on: December 09, 2003, 11:27:18 AM »
Andy:

Your assumption is that these ratings have any credibility with the public, and that it matters if they do....

I'd venture to say they don't, and it doesn't.  These are lists of courses used to sell magazines, nothing more, nothing less.  They have come to mean WAY more than they should, obviously.

Riddle me this, though:  if a gracious man offers to host me at his club, and won't take no for an answer when it comes time to pay for greens fees, what am I to do?  My answer has been to buy something in the shop, and most definitely give him some sort of gift in return...

I aim to learn though - what is the proper etiquette there?

TH

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #92 on: December 09, 2003, 11:27:28 AM »
I once witnessed my home course's former pro get off the phone with a local golf shop or range employee (not a pro) who expected to be comped.  At least he was turned down.  And my home course has no tradition, no high ranking, no sex appeal, etc. for there to be any mass attempts to play there.

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #93 on: December 09, 2003, 11:31:04 AM »
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?  

Mark

Mark,

I must say that I feel I am in the middle of a dialectical discussion on angels and pinheads.

Because I said I probably agree with the first ten or twenty course ratings, I did not opine that I was right. Did Jack Nicklaus tell me what I should like or not? No.

There once was a course in Rhodesia by the name of Mashaba G.C. It was run by the local asbestos mine. A nine holer with superb greens and more architectural merit than some of the vaunted courses on the so called top 100. I would willingly play it daily for life. I make this observation to convey that I do not need someone to tell me how to judge the merits of a golf course.  :)

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #94 on: December 09, 2003, 11:44:03 AM »
Bob,

No one needed to tell me how good CPC was.  I experienced it myself, after knowing virtually nothing about the course that wasn't holes 8,9,or 12-17.  It was those other holes that I'd never seen that had me astounded at the quality.

(Heresy alert!):  And that tree on #17 is way too big!  It's more of a 'problem' with the course's architecture than the big tree in the way on the left of the approach shot on #18.

ChasLawler

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #95 on: December 09, 2003, 11:44:38 AM »
My question is then, what exactly would you change?  Just make all gratis rounds absolutely prohibited?  You obviously know how problematic that would be, logistically, in terms of etiquette, and otherwise..  

Tom - how would this be a problem if you didn't tell them you were a rater?

and even if you did use your rater status to gain access to a private club, or if a public or daily fee venue already knew that you were a rater - would it really be that hard to tell whoever is offering you a discount that you are REQUIRED to pay the guest fee.

A simple "thanks - I really appreciate it, but I could lose this job if i don't pay for the round" should suffice in all instances.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2003, 11:45:27 AM by Rannulph_Junah »

Andy_Lipschultz

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2003, 11:46:44 AM »
Andy:

Your assumption is that these ratings have any credibility with the public, and that it matters if they do....

I'd venture to say they don't, and it doesn't.  These are lists of courses used to sell magazines, nothing more, nothing less.  They have come to mean WAY more than they should, obviously.

Riddle me this, though:  if a gracious man offers to host me at his club, and won't take no for an answer when it comes time to pay for greens fees, what am I to do?  My answer has been to buy something in the shop, and most definitely give him some sort of gift in return...

I aim to learn though - what is the proper etiquette there?

TH
How do people pass information to one another?
"Hey, did you hear that the (name a movie, restaurant, hotel, golf course) is just horrible? I read a review in..." Of course they have credibility within the public--maybe not for people on this DG--but, hell, don't the magazines have cross promotions with the networks televising golf? "Here's ---- a Top 100 Golf/GD teacher to show you the proper..."  The magazines are selling themselves as credible in how they present their product and content. Howard Stern, while presenting the news  on the radio, does it under the auspicies of a comedy show and does not pretend to be anything else.

Vis a vie your riddle? Are you there professionally or personally? Actually, it doesn;t matter because GD has its way of doing business and unless they change their policy, it's not your problem. You're doing your job. In my previous post I was alluding to the fact that certain media outlets are thought of in more regard that others, simply by the fact that they accept nothing.






Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2003, 11:47:22 AM »
Bob,

I am eternally grateful for the courtesies extended to me by the subject club, and to those who've made my time there possible.  I think that you know of my near pathological obssession with the place, and how much my life has been enriched by having had the opportunity.

Philosophically, I have no problem with private clubs wishing to remain ultra-exclusive for whatever reason or reasons the members might have.  I don't resent having to pay green fees, and at places such as the courses in question, the cost does not prevent me from playing them.

I do think that some members at the more exclusive clubs do derive some pleasure simply from possessing a unique, highly desirable object that very, very few are ever allowed to enjoy.  It may be analogous to the connoisseur of fine arts who keeps a private collection of well known pieces for only him and his inner-circle to enjoy.  Perhaps I do envy these folks slightly, but I am reminded of an acquaintance at a very private club who plays most of his golf at a much more proleteriat facility because he can't find much of a game at the former.  I am sure that it is possible to gain great satisfaction from standing at the 16th tee at CPC in the late afternoon alone with your caddy.  But how much better is it with a group of guys like you, Huckaby, Goodale, Shivas, Moriarty (pre-layup), Hendren, Childs, Cirba, Strawn, Bernhardt, McBride, et. al.?  Like a nice Monet, priceless!  

THuckaby2

Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2003, 11:50:46 AM »
Junah:

Unfortunately in my case, my rater status is too well-known.  My fault.   ;D

And while your response is a good one, you also have to remember that nearly all the times I'm hosted, it's not because I'm a rater... this is with friends.  

So the etiquette remains somewhat murky, for me.  I guess the bottom line is under this system, I make it known straight from the start that hey, I'm a rater, I need to be above reproach, I gotta pay.

And then I insult the hell out of many hosts, for whom the money is nothing and it's the thought and graciousness that counts...

I am very naive about these things, obviously.  I still think that at least in my case, things have worked well and there have been no issues.  I guess to weed out the bad apples, a draconian system like this might be necessary... But man it creates problems for the raters who treat this the proper way, though.

TH

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Raters and Freebies.
« Reply #99 on: December 09, 2003, 11:51:39 AM »
Rannulph,

I said it once above somewhere, but I'll say it again.  If all fees were required to be paid, many courses would simply never get enough raters to see.  Look at the PGA National example above.  How many are going to pay the $275 to play what supposedly is your typical Matt Ward Florida golf course?  Some guest fees at private clubs are $150-$200.  CordeValle is something around $300.  Even $100-$125 10-20  times a year is a heck of a lot of money to play a course that you might not otherwise play if you weren't a rater - hence not enough votes.