raters and "freebees" II

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have been a panelist for GOLF DIGEST for ten years.  I have to admit that being able to play some of our highly rated clubs is indeed a bonus.  At the same time, however, free is not the applicable word.  There are many times I am asked to play a new public course that is sometimes over 100 miles away.  I go and if it is publicly owned I pay a greensfee.  Most private clubs will comp me.  I agree. That,however,  is not the reason I am a panelist.  I had played 65 of the top 100 courses when I was asked to be on the ratings panel. I didn't need GOLF DIGEST to get me on most courses.  I had acess many other ways.  I went on the panel because I felt that competent raters were important to the progress of golf architecture.  I have spent more money travelling to obscure courses than I ever would have if I were not a panelist. Some of the courses I was asked to play, especially the new courses were dog tracks.  But I played them. I play about 60 courses a year.
Some of them I play through GOLF DIGEST, the others, however, I play as a guest or as a greens fee paying player.  Most of the panelists I know don't care about free greens fees!!! They can afford to play most anywhere, and did before they became panelists.  I become weary of people questioning our motives.  One does not become a panelist just because of a wish.  Ususally, it is because of playing ability etc.  GOLF DIGEST  makes it very clear that they are not in the business of helping people obtain acess to courses.  Are there exceptions? Of course!!!  But they are exceptions.  Most of us take realize we represent more than ourselves.  It isn't life and death, obviously, but we take it seriously nonetheless.  The game deserves our best efforts.
We try to give it.

[Evan Fleisher]

Very well said, Tommy!!!

I was thinking about a post very similar to this one this morning while driving to work.  Are there bad apples out there that spoil the bunch...sure...but guess what?...they are out there in EVERY walk of life, not just rating golf courses!

The majority of people who are raters, and who get these opportunities are in it for one thing and one thing only...they LOVE the game, are PASSIONATE about the fields they play it on, and WISH TO CONTRIBUTE their input and feelings about which courses are the best to play the game on...period.

[David Wigler]

Tommy,

Very well said.  IMO the other thread is whining by the jealous.  I have rated 161 courses over the past 5 years.  I probably got comped at 125 of them.  I also probably spent $20k in travel to see the courses.  It is hardly free and truly a passion.  That represents the vast majority of us.

[SPDB]

I become w(e)ary of raters who act as they are engaging in extremely tough, selfless work. No one's forcing you to do this. But don't characterize it as difficult, or burdensome. Or that you are doing it for the greater good of the game.

[David Wigler]

But don't characterize it as difficult, or burdensome.

What is that all about.  I think that we all characterized it as a love or a passion for the game!!  I must have missed the part where we said it was a burden or difficult.

[A_Clay_Man]

Sean- Since you've thrown down the gauntlet, are you saying that it's ONLY done for free golf?

Perhaps you are happy with the mis-perceptions and mis-conceptions of what consitutes a great golf course? I am not. The ridiculous boom of the last super cycle has produced more of the 'Robert Kincaid painter of light' assembly line art than anyone with comprehensive sophistication can stomach.

It is my hope that the facts are that of these modern monstrosities, only the courses that have the core prinicples that grew this game from it's roots, survive the shake-up created by the realities of todays world.  

The "Field of Dreams" mentality of 'if you build it they will come' needs to be re-fined to " if you take the time to build it with "the game" in mind" they will keep coming.

[Doug Sobieski]

SPBD:

I thought the same thing as Wigler. Where did any of us say that it was a burden or noble work? I think that most, if not all, of us were trying to make the point that we do it because it's fun, and for that we incur non-reimbursed expenses as opposed to the open vault of freebies that most people think it is.

Again, as a PGA Professional I can play all the free golf I would ever want!! But I choose to spend money because of the FUN aspect of dissecting and analyzing architecture and seeing how my opinions stack up to others when the lists are compiled.

Regards,

Doug

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Tommy W: Do you know how many raters must rate a course for it to have an official rating in GD? 5, 10, 100?

David W: I don't know if "the whining by the jealous" was directed at me among many, but I'm certainly not jealous. I was coming at the issue from purely a journalistic/ethical POV. My issue is with the publications, not the raters.

[Robert Thompson]

Andy: I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, I was told there had to be 10 raters see a course for it to be rated as "best new in Canada." I assume it is a similar number in the U.S., but I could be very wrong.

Robert

[Dan Kelly]

IMO the other thread is whining by the jealous.  I have rated 161 courses over the past 5 years.  I probably got comped at 125 of them.  I also probably spent $20k in travel to see the courses.  It is hardly free and truly a passion.  That represents the vast majority of us.

I echo Andy_Lipschultz.

I, too, wonder who you have in mind when you lump all of us critics together like that.

I, for one, have never doubted that rating and ranking courses is "hardly free" or that it is anything less than "truly a passion" for you, for Tom Huckaby, for Lou Duran, or for anyone else here who is a rater/ranker. (Sorry. I don't know who-all rates here.) I don't doubt that you guys represent the "vast majority" of raters.

This isn't about YOU, as far as I'm concerned. It's about the SYSTEM.

My position is simple: In the interest of its editorial integrity, Golf Digest should pay your expenses -- including the green fees at every course you rate.

Please don't tell me this is much ado about not much; I already know that.

Please don't tell me the reforms I propose won't happen; I already know that.

I'm dealing here in the realm of how things should be, not of  how they are or will be.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Robert: Thanks.

Does anyone know if courses allow unlimited amounts of raters from a publication?

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

I agree with every word you write.  That is how it should be.  

I doubt any would disagree with you, and if they do, it will just be to point out the logistical or other problems with making the system so.

But let's assume that the magazines aren't going to start paying expenses - a very fair assumption.  Are we to just sit and wistfully wish for this perfect world, or might it not be better to try and come up with improvements that have a real chance of being effected?

I don't know what those would be, btw.  To me your take is like saying "world hunger should be ended."  Great, concur.  But how does one make it so?

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Dan:

I agree with every word you write.  That is how it should be.  

I doubt any would disagree with you, and if they do, it will just be to point out the logistical or other problems with making the system so.

But let's assume that the magazines aren't going to start paying expenses - a very fair assumption.  Are we to just sit and wistfully wish for this perfect world, or might it not be better to try and come up with improvements that have a real chance of being effected?

I don't know what those would be, btw.  To me your take is like saying "world hunger should be ended."  Great, concur.  But how does one make it so?

TH

You -- and anyone else who works as an agent for one of these publications and agrees with every word I wrote -- could begin by telling your magazine that you think you should always pay green fees and that the magazine should reimburse you for your expenses.

When they say that would be too expensive, you could say: Why in the world do we need so many raters rating so many courses -- especially when, even with so many raters, some courses deserving of consideration don't get enough raters to be ranked?

My solution: Reduce the number of raters; assign each of them to rate a list of specific courses, so that no course will have 50 rater visits and another will have 3; pay all of their green fees for their assigned rater visits, plus a reasonable travel stipend.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Again, I agree, that's a heck of a good idea.

I just see no chance of any magazine agreeing to that.  From their side, the rating systems as is cost them next to nothing, and they are achieving everything they want them to achieve.  Just what incentive does any magazine have to take on that kind of cost, which would be pretty significant, btw?

So this gets back to my "issues" with the guys who want to fight the fight and effect change in other parts of golf... I just don't take on fights that I see as unwinnable.  I don't have that kinda of nobility nor am I that quixotic.  On the one hand I wish I were... but on the other, I'm pretty happy with how things are.

Do you see this as a winnable fight?  

TH

[Brian_Gracely]

"quixotic"?  I read the book but had no idea that an adjective had been created to glorify our stumbling hero.  

are we close to the creation of "huckabilic"?

[THuckaby2]

Brian - oh man I hope that's a word but if not, I'm sure the fine editor Mr. Kelly will correct me!

Off to avoid tilting at windmills....
TH

[Brian_Gracely]

it's a word, but I had to look it up.  I usually only have to look up words from TEPaul's posts, so I had to double-check that you weren't just punch drunk from the last few days threads  

[THuckaby2]

 

Well then I consider today a success.  My Dad - he of unlimited vocabulary - would be so proud.  I sent you to the dictionary....

 

TH

[Matt Vandelac]

I agree that the comp situation is not a winnable one.  Too many variables and we should all feel fortunate so many are indeed honorable in their intentions.  Should the publications train these folks on how to act and what details should be important? Yes.  Should they bring a guest?  No way.  From my experience the largest peeve I have is who are these people?  Does Golf Digest/Golf World/Golf Mag. etc. raters all carry credentials?  I'm curious to know what questions are asked when these people call and is it standard practice for 'legitimate' raters to write first.  From an owners perspective many are unwilling to take the chance to piss anybody off in fear of bad publicity.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

If there is a problem I believe you have addressed some of the issues, but not all the issues relative to protecting the integrity of the system.  You must know that architects know whom the raters are, and I personally witnessed one encounter where it was clear the architect had given as a gift an expensive camera to someone whom figures prominently in rating courses, and whom relies heavily upon cameras for their work.  By the way all whom have participated personally in this thread are not connected to the above event.  Not that it matters and the event may be irrelevant to the issue.  Ratings are important in the sense that for a struggling architect , a best new, or rated course can be a major boost to their marketing effort, and makes them legitimate.  In many eyes those that have not attained that status are not legitimate, or irrelevant.  So you can imagine the incredible efforts an architect will undertake to influence the voting and rankings.  In fact the aforementioned person whom received the gift related to me that I would not believe the butt sniffing he gets from architects.  Boy I was doing so well with my language until the end!  I am trying to be better.

[Dan Kelly]

... there is really no reason to change things...

Here are a couple of reasons:

(1) If magazines, raters, rankers, and (especially) travel writers had to start PAYING their green fees, maybe they'd begin to notice, in print, that green fees at too many places are getting too high for too many people -- and are out of line with the inherent virtues of many of these courses.

The PRICE of golf might become a major focus of their coverage -- as it should be, IMO.

And if golf-course owners and operators began to notice a serious interest in PRICES and VALUE, in print, maybe, just maybe, they would be encouraged to own and operate golf courses offering lower prices and better values.

Maybe we'd have a future with more Rustic Canyons and Wild Horses and fewer Cart Ball Corporate Outing CCFADs.

Maybe.

(2) If magazines, raters, rankers, and (especially) travel writers had to start PAYING their green fees, they would feel considerably freer to call a piece-of-crap course a piece of crap.

When was the last time you read a golf travel writer offering any serious criticism?

Being bought and paid for (or even just paid for) carries with it a serious chilling effect. T'ain't fittin', after all, to bite the hand that feeds you.

So: Feed yourself!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Dan,

Some of the articles you read in magazines are paid for by the architect.  Not directly to the magazine, but indirectly through their marketing consultant or directly to the writer whom they hire to review their course, and then shop the article to magazines.  Reminds me of a prominant landscape architect in Florida who invented awards and then put out press relaeases announcing that he had received the award!

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

You seem to have fallen prey to the incorrect basic presumptions you asked about yesterday.  That is, you are assuming that all raters play all of their golf for free.... and from what I can tell from experience and from the many raters I know, that is VERY far from the truth.  Cost matters to damn near all of us, that's for sure.  You really think we are so far above things we don't understand the costs of things?  That's silly.

I absolutely agree that the PRICE of golf should matter - it should be considered without a doubt.  In fact in my world we'd have two separate lists - one where cost (bang for the buck) is considered, and one where it isn't - the latter being necessary because cost is certainly not an issue as to why Pine Valley or many other private courses are what they are.  So you'd have one list for one purpose - absolute greatness, let's say - and another where bang for one's buck is considered.

THAT would achieve the ends you seek, I think.

And raters would obviously have to see both types of courses... they could just consider such in terms of bang for buck and without this consideration.  It wouldn't be too tough.

In any case, this doesn't address the "freebie" issue, but I really don't think it has to.  I still don't see why the magazines would want to pay raters' expenses, even under this two-list system, as much as they SHOULD.

As for your #2, again your presumption is that we DON'T call courses a piece of crap when they deserve such.  Speaking for myself, my good-natured positive attitude precludes me from doing so verbally, but the ratings I submit do call a spade a spade.  I'd have to guess the vast majority of raters do the same.

I sure would love a world with more Rustic Canyons & Wild Horses and less overpriced boring CCFADs.  I'm just not sure that what you are suggesting is going to cause this change.  And I also remain cynical as to why the magazines would take on the expense you suggest... Until such a time, as shivas says, that public outcry suggests distrust of the ratings.  That sure hasn't happened yet, and no signs point to it, do they?

TH

[ChasLawler]

Tom - your bang for the buck idea should be pretty simple for any of the magazines to produce.

I'm assuming Golf Digest, for example, has a list of hundreds of courses beyond their top 100 which have been rated. All you have to do is:

1. add another column to the ratings criteria which lists the cost of a greens fee (peak season, weekend play for simplicity's sake). Private clubs would obviously not be eligible.

2. Once the ratings have been tallied, break the entire list out according to price (for example: under $50, under $100, under $150, under $200, and above $200)

3. and let the ratings speak for themselves amongst each price group.

This could be done on an excel spreadsheet in minutes - all you need to know is the cost of the greens fee.

The cost criteria would not factor into in any of the actual course ratings. Each course would be evaluated for it's design only, and only after those ratings had been tallied, would you then break them out and sort by price. Leave it up to the consumer to decide whether he thinks #5 in the under $100 bracket is a better value than #1 in the under $50 bracket.

[THuckaby2]

Junah:

I concur, it would be very simple to do.  And I see no good reason for the magazines NOT to produce such a thing.  GD already sort of does, with "Places you can Play".  If I were king I'd just make a list using exact same criteria GD already does, and adding another column/criterion like you suggest.

This doesn't at all address the "freebies for raters" issue, but I'm not sure it has to.

TH