[Matt_Ward]

Jeff Forston:

I'll say this once so even you can get it.

The magazine I edit -- Jersey Golfer -- is provided for free to clubs and courses in the Garden State. That's right -- we simply give it away.

Jeff -- magazines don't have a mandate -- but if people look to read what you print it's a sign they respect what you say. If you don't have credible articles it's very unlikely you'll stay around long. As a regional magazine I can attest to that.

Jeff -- you need to come off the high and mighty approach. You think the "fix" is in is the same lament that gamblers who lose say every Sunday following NFl games. If you think a green fee is going to alter the landscape of courses that are selected you need to pinpoint who is doing such a thing.

Oh -- I'm sorry -- you're from the broad brush brigade. A pox on the entire house you say. How intellectually lazy.

Jeff -- I can't speak for other raters -- but I accepted to be a rater much as what Mike Cirba alluded to -- I was asked. I also made it a point to stay as current as possible by seeing the courses that received much attention because of their design pedigree.

Let me also mention what a good rater should do. Spend some time looking the up and coming talent that is out there. Tom Doak mentioned this on a different thread and I have always tried to do that when playing a broad range of courses.

Jeff -- I'm beyond chasing the "star" courses -- I enjoy playing a wide mixture of courses -- many of which may not be nationally acclaimed but still provide a thrill for even a few holes.

Jeff -- I rate for myself -- if people disagree with it so be it. My opinion is simply merged with those of others. Often I will disagree with the findings for a range of reasons -- coverage being one of them. I'll clue you in on a secret -- ratings will go on whether I do it or someone else does it. People rate things all the time. Frankly, just because you have a piss-fit about the whole thing isn't going to change the fact that assessments through comparisons and contrasts will take place.

Architects don't like ratings because if their courses aren't chosen they will simply whine about the inexperience of the people doing the reviewing. They also complain because of resentment that their fellow colleagues have done well and are getting a good bit more ink than they are.

Jeff -- grow up will you. You throw a deliberate bomb shell at all raters and then you run away with your inane response. Instead of having real b*lls and IDing the people you are speaking about you hide fast behind the generalized comment. Very adult like I might add.

The nerve you struck my good man is the utter lack specifics relating to clear individuals. You attacked using the clever tactic of the broad brush. You didn't ask any questions Jeff -- you simply lobbed charges that all the people doing this only concerned about receiving perks. That is rubbish.

Jeff -- help me from falling over the floor -- you EARNED the right to take freebees. Tell that to the judge when you get a chance! Jeff -- you insult raters with inane comments but then your so upset when someone calls you on it. Wonderful consistency! Keep up the good work for the good of the game.

 

[DMoriarty]

Shivas.  Everyone gets perks, but not everyone gives them.  Plus, not everyone gives perks of the same value.  So there are huge disparities in perks.  

Conflict of interest exists whenever a person charged with impartiality accepts something of value from those about whom he is to remain impartial.  

I dont know what motivates your tight-wad and I dont care.  If he is accepting something of value a conflict exists, whether you think he'll act on it or not.  No need for logic, good or bad; no need to try to understand human nature.  It is definitional.  

As for keeping poor guys on the panel, I dont buy it.  With you guys always saying how expensive it is to be a rater, I cant imagine that many poor people are on the panel now.

Plus, I thought you guys were told to expect to pay for any round?   If this is true, then noone should be on the panel that cant afford it.  Unless of course they are avoiding courses which dont comp, which would mean less exposure for courses which choose not to play the game.

Shivas.  The point isnt whether Brad rates, but whether the rest of you can be objective when rating your leader's pride and joy.  
    Who made you a rater and who decides if you continue to be a rater?  If you are like the rest then the answer is Brad.  So when a rater plays one of Brad's courses and hates it, he has to hand his rating form to Brad.  It is hard enough to be brutally honest about the product of someone's sweat and tears when you are staring them in they eye.  It is even harder when that person put you where you are and has control over your future.  

Shivas if you read my post I said that courses struggling to get on the list had the most to benefit from the raters' gatherings.  I dont think Pebble is struggling to get on the list.

First, you're assuming its done out of economic rationality.  But let's just assume it is.  Do you blame A-Rod for taking the big contract?  Do you blame Barry Bonds?  If they're going to hand me a freebie, I'm a damn fool not to take it.  If I go to a bar and a guy I don't know buys me a beer out of nowhere, though, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking "gay".  What you're saying is that if I take his beer, I better have brought some K-Y.  I ain't buying it.

So then you admit that the courses are trying to buy your vote?  (Of course they are, why else would they do it?)   And you take their payoff anyway.  And you dont see a conflict?  Who are you kidding?  Such behaivor is entirely inappropriate in any circumstance requiring impartiality.

This is what I dont get.   Surely you and others understand why I and others see a conflict.  Yet not one of you is even willing to admit that it looks questionable from the outside.  I would think that if everything is as clean and pure as you all claim, then you all wouldn't be so quick to dismiss our concerns.  I am surprised that some of you arent in favor of at least cutting off the freebies, since you all claim you arent in it for such.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  no one is questioning your integrity, I can assure you.  So there is no need to defend yourself.  I for one am talking about a system in which real conflicts exist, whether anyone acts on them or not.  

You can dismiss this all as personal if you like, but I dont really know why it would be personal for me.  In fact, if I recall correctly, you and I discussed some of the problems I have with the rating system the first time we ever had a conversation, during and after our round at LA, two years ago.  I've disagreed with the rating system ever since I was told how it worked.  

If you are still around, perhaps you can answer me this:

Wouldnt you still rate even if you were prohibited from ever accepting a perk?   Wouldn't almost all of the raters who you know and respect do the same?   If so, then why not support taking this step if only to assure the readers that the raters are impartial?

[Mike_Cirba]

Wouldnt you still rate even if you were prohibited from ever accepting a perk?   Wouldn't almost all of the raters who you know and respect do the same?   If so, then why not support taking this step if only to assure the readers that the raters are impartial?

David;

Of course I would.  I consider it an honor to have been asked and try to do the best job I can.  

However, I can tell you that if it were decreed tomorrow that no raters could accept gratis rounds, the ratings would suffer for a very simple reason.

Many of the raters are hardly wealthy people (your's truly included) and would simply get to see and rate fewer courses.  I can tell you that I can't afford to do more than I'm doing now, which usually involved several plane flights (paid out of pocket) per year, hotel accommodations, along with MattWardian mileage being put on my car.  If sometimes the golf is comped, it gives me greater flexibility to perhaps see another course or two.  

I don't feel that I'm being bribed, nor have I ever felt that was implied by anyone, anywhere that I've met.  In fact, many of the courses that comp know that they have very little chance of being selected for the America's Best Courses list.  Instead, I believe the courses do it out of a sense of goodwill and respect for the publication.    

If that's naive, then that's how I prefer to approach it and I've never seen it proven or even suggested otherwise in my travels.

[THuckaby2]

David:  haven't read the entirety of this thread, just the end.  I appreciate your take here - as I did the last time you brought it up, after some persuading - , it does make sense, if we can separate it from the personal... but you have to understand that is difficult to do.

Nevertheless, taking it at face value, there is one part I don't understand.

Wouldnt you still rate even if you were prohibited from ever accepting a perk?

Yes, without a doubt.

Wouldn't almost all of the raters who you know and respect do the same? 

Yes, without a doubt.

If so, then why not support taking this step if only to assure the readers that the raters are impartial?

Because at least some of us, myself included, would necessarily never get to see a significant portion of the courses we are assigned to, or would like to, see.  I for one am not ashamed to say that at many of them, I couldn't afford the green fees or guest fees.  So I would still want to do it, but my depth of courses seen would be significantly curtailed.

So maybe I shouldn't be a rating panelist?  Fair enough, I guess golf really is a rich guy's game.

Do you really believe this?  Is not the viewpoint of the golfer of more modest means valuable also?  Or should it be limited to those who can afford the very steep fees at a lot of the places we see?

BTW, I don't have to answer to Brad Klein for anything.
 

TH

[THuckaby2]

Hey Mike - crossed in space and said basically the same thing.  I knew there's a reason I dig you...  

In fact I am so pleased by your answer here, I won't once again remind you of how wussy your panel is for taking the easy way out of these comparisons.  I swear I won't say it.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Huck;

Great (or is that Addled?) minds must think alike.  

As far as being a wussy, I did the comparison, starting at the top.  I told you that Sand Hills is better than Cypress Point, but not as good as Pine Valley.

Did I miss your response?  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

DAMN!  Missed it.  I was too busy trying to solve the handicapping issues of the world to follow these raters and ratings suck threads that closely.

But you regain your place in the manly pantheon of golf heroes for that answer.  Well said.  Of course I won't ask you to try and fit NGLA and Shinnecock and Pacific Dunes into this; manly golf heroes, like Rome, weren't built in a day, and we don't want your brain to explode.

 

BTW, I go back and forth re the ones right at the top... willing to just accept PV as #1 and work from there, or more appropriately just leave it off as I haven't seen it... My 1-2-3 change all the time, just can't get a firm grip on it, it is so freakin' close.  So 'tis I who is the wuss, but then again we knew that already.

Right now I have it:

Sand Hills
Cypress
NGLA
Pebble
Shinnecock...

then after a few more


Pacific Dunes

Just threw in #4 and 5 last two in case Matt Ward or Jeff Fortson were listening.  

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I haven't played ANGC or Oakmont (although I've walked it multiple times, so let's discount them).

My top five would be;

Pine Valley
Sand Hills
NGLA/Shinnecock (one's pure fun and one's nearly perfect)
Cypress Point
Pacific Dunes

Ok, that's six, but who's counting?

Merion used to be my #1.  But, change happens.

[THuckaby2]

Love it.

But come on Mike:  we want you back at the top of the pantheon where you belong.

NGLA or Shinnecock.  You can't possibly call that a tie.

BTW, change happens big-time.  For many, many years, I didn't think a golf course could possibly be better than Pebble Beach... and if there was one, it would either be in Scotland, Ireland, or right next door (Cypress)... the fact that the best course on the planet is in the middle of freakin' Nebraska remains mind-blowing to me.  BUT, change does happen... especially as exposure continues.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

If I had to repeat the old adage, I LOVE National, but I respect Shinnecock.

Forced to choose, I'm a sentimental and emotional guy.

And yes, I have to admit that I'm having a debate between #1 & 2...especially as work continues to "clean up" and formalize the formerly rugged waste areas at Pine Valley.  

[THuckaby2]

You and me both, bruthah.  GREAT answer.

God I hope Matt Ward see this...

BTW, by my rocket-science calculations, it's 9:23 eastern time.  You really MUST be engaged.. the old Mike Cirba would not be at a computer at this time on a Fri night.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I think you may have missed the second part of my answer, which I appended after thinking more about your "in the middle of freakin' Nebraska" comment.

As far as Friday night, yes, you're dead on, and I couldn't be happier about it!!  

[THuckaby2]

You have just risen from hero to god.  I often wondered if the PV v. SH comparison might swing the other way... didn't think it could be possible...the fact you are open to consider this, well... damn I like your course opinion.

Give my best to the woman keeping you at a computer tonight.

BTW, it hurts me as much to put any course over Cypress... I do favor the locals, one kinda has to if one has a heart... as you must re PV... putting courses above beloved locals, well... that to me is what makes this fun.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

The par fives at Sand Hills are superior to anything on the planet, by a landslide.

The par fours at Pine Valley have the edge over Sand Hills, but it's simply because there are a greater variety of them, not due to any vast difference in quality.

The par threes are clearly in PV's court, although 14 is not the greatest.

It's coming down to intangibles like aesthetics and atmosphere and it's here where I dally back and forth.

[THuckaby2]

Makes perfect sense.

What's amazing to me is that it's even a race now...

TH

[DesDouglas]

Didn't the raters get free Ping putters at a GW event at Kiawah?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many people allege that they don't care about ratings, and then get bent out of shape when they come out.

Should YALE have been excluded ?
Doesn't its brilliant architecture still shine through despite poor maintainance and a half-baked restoration attempt ?

Is Brook Hollow in Dallas better then YALE ?
How about Champions in Houston ?
How about Wykagyl in New Rochelle ?
How about Firestone in Akron ?
Aronomink, Baltusrol upper and lower
Somerset Hills ?  

We live in an imperfect world.
Each rater is a unique individual,
Each golf course/club is unique.
The dynamic between the two is likewise unique.

Forget about perks for a second, and ask yourself these questions:

If you were a rater, and rated two nearby golf courses, and at one course you were treated like dirt by the staff, and at the other, you were treated very well, would that not have an influence, consciously or subconsciously on your assessment of the golf course ?

And, if you played well at one golf course and poorly at the other, might that not have an influence as well, conscious or subconscious ??

If one course was in poor condition and the other terrible condition, would that sway you in the slightest ?

Let he who is without influence from any extraneous sources cast the first ballot.  Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

If you're seeking perfection, or absolutes you won't find it.

Preconceived notions and biases are likewise difficult to omit from any subjective process.

And, the law of large numbers should override wild votes.

But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is still wrong  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

Your questions are all legit, and my concerns realize that there is no perfect rating, nor will there ever be a perfect process.

But what does concern some is the effort to portray the Golfweek list as being conducted fairly and under strict guidelines, when in fact, there are some blatant violations of the rules being condoned (or violated) by the panel leadership. This, sadly, taints the many panelists who go about their business and love evaluating architecture. I fear the trend of outings and courses being eligible that also are tied to the editor of the ranking will only force golf courses, architects and pros to resort to various means to get their courses ranked.

This is good if your, say, a consultant running the list, not good for those who'd like to see the focus devoted to architecture.

Geoff

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike Hendren might have summed it up best: "Go play golf."

However, I do care about ratings as it has a great deal to do with my relationship with my profession. Occasionally it gets in the way — or assists — the access I have to new clients and new projects.

Which got me to thinking...

With all this talk of Pro-V-1s, lunches, travel costs and other perks, try these apples:

At The Hideout (Utah) we had a modest luncheon about 18 months ago. Two rates showed up. We served BBQ beef by the local Lions Club Auxiliary Crew...and lemondade. The coleslaw was ripe and the beans, well, they stewed for several days.

There was no alcohol.

Everyone got a keychain and a scorecard. Our office ink-jet printed some photos of the 15th hole and gave those out. It rained. There was small talk. And lot of passion expressed about what golf means to a small town.

Today the green fees are $20 for 18-holes. About 30 people play per day. The course has seen a few raters, but not many venture to southeastern Utah; especially to such a remote place as Monticello.

I continually have to remind "best lists" to include the course. Some still list it as the old 9-hole that was there since 1960. The owner — the City of Monticello — hasn't even the money to send packets out inviting raters to show up for a free round. They probably don't know of GolfWeek. If they receive the magazine it likely sits on the end table in the 2,000 s.f. City Hall office.

Quite honestly, the local residents would probably rather have everyone stay away. Raters included.

None of this helps the course. So, how does a place that was built with sweat and passion cut through the clutter of everthing expressed in every post above this one?

No clue.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mashie1:

Why would architects avoid the site?  For fear of offending a rater and getting snub?  Those things do not factor in, they are totally unbiased, w/o any outside influences.  You should be ashamed of assuming the worst.

[A_Clay_Man]

Forrest- I was one of those raters and I never considered all the freebies that were lavished on me as perks, for me, personally to sway my rating. As Pat has asked, I'll speak now, just because it is so ridiciulous.

Speaking if ironies.. Or maybe you legal types can debate this one, and that is that the only one who has admitted to impropiety, is the one who is throwing all the accusations.


BTW Forrest, Rumor has it,the hideout's in great shape. And to be honest with you, as a courtesy, if the criterior were different, the hideout would rate extremely high. Because there is more to golf than the architecture. And the real improtant things, have nothing to do with amenities, as much as attittude.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam — I don't know enough about the politics of ratings, or the evolution of the criteria, to agree or disagree. I'm glad you didn't consider your "coleslaw-by-the-pound" to be a perk...I'm sure the City of Monticello didn't either. Thanks for your comments.

[Michael Moore]

Did you continue rating for Golfweek after you found the process to be corrupt?

I was let off the panel (thankfully!) when I started writing for Golfdom five years ago, as Dr. Klein and Dave Seanor couldn't have someone from a "competing publication" on the panel. I was disappointed at the time that they put magazine politics ahead of building a diverse panel and was thrilled to be part of what started out as such a promising ranking. But I would have quit anyway once I became involved with Rustic Canyon as I thought Golfweek was correct not to have architects or consultants voting (they've since changed this policy to my surprise).  I couldn't afford to be a panelist now, with the once-every-two-years required appearances at outtings (despite the freebies and cheap hotel rates), nor could I stand Big Brother looking over my shoulder wondering why I voted for some courses and gave not so great scores to others.

I'll take that as a yes . . .

[ian]

That was a fun, albiet, long. Your all nuts!

I have no issue with comped golf, free balls, etc, etc.
Freebies are fine by me, and they are important to the people who's job it is to promote thier golf course. I personally think it is their right to do what they need to do to get people to play thier course.

(Unfortuneately) Ratings are very important to a lot of people. The reason: the "collectors" aim to play a list, and for a course, being on that list is important. The "collectors" outnumber the purists by a huge margin (likely more here than you think) and for a resort they are massively important.

Ratings can be hugely important for marketing courses, developers and architects. Even private clubs need to attract members through marketing. Only the already elite are in a position to not care.

Like them, or hate them, they matter. That's why the process should be more transparent. So here are my suggestions to make it better:

1. List all the raters and their picks/scores on the web site so that everything is right up front. It will also help avoid any intentional "strategic" ratings to bump or lower a course.

2. Provide the "spreadsheet" with all the totals so that there is no question that the results are true.

3. "Rater Outings" have potential conflicts on many levels, there is no real need, so eliminate them.


I am not suggesting that these changes would change the rankings, or there is anything rotten in Denmark. The funny part is I still haven't looked at the rankings. I do think clarity ends the conflict written above.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()