[David Wigler]

As further proof of the manipulation of the list, I submit the stubbornly high ranking of PDGC. It's good. Probably about twentieth on this list. And, it is somewhat inaccessible out in West Virginia, yet somehow it stays at the same ranking. Has Brad consulted on this one yet? And John Conley, I think your suggeston for Golf Digest is an excellent one.  Tradition affects score in a subtle way, even without a distinct category, and I believe the bizarreness of the actual tradition scores has been discussed here in the past.

Jim,

Do you even read what you write?

You say PDGC proves the list is rigged because it differs in your opinion by 15 spots from the opinion of 250 raters and about 18,000 courses.  That means you believe that GW's raters are incorrect by .000833 of the courses in the US and this proves that the rankings are rigged.  WOW!!, your a freakin genius.  Then is your next brilliant insight, you back it up by mentioning that the purpose of the list is to sell ads and that is why it is rigged.  Sorry, I must have missed the ad for PDGC (Maybe it is there).  PDGC is #5 because it is that good.

[Jim_Michaels]

Wigler,

Your understanding of statistics is about as good as your grammar. I am sure that GW recycles old votes in a way that Digest and GM do not, which explains the lack of movement on the list, if one understands how small the differences in score probably are for each course. Recycling old votes makes for very poor statistics. And let me guess...you, just like every other apologist for this absurd exercise, are affiliated with the process as a rater yourself. How about we have a one week moratorium on posts by GW raters? I'll agree to shut up for a month in return for some peace.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Mr. Michaels- You show a deep understanding of the process at GD. Would be by chance a GD panelist? If so, your position will at least be understandable.

[David Wigler]

Jim,

That grammer comment hurt.  My statistics are accurate.  GW has 250 raters (None of whom are paid by the magazine).  A course needs 10 rankings to eliminate the statistical anomolies of one rater loving or hating a course.  Assuming 2,000 of the 18,000 US courses are worthy of being considered, than without some recycling each rater would have to play more than 80 courses every year for statistical validity to the rankings.  

Again, GW disagree with you by .000833 on PDGC.  Bottom line is that (I'm guessing) Brad turned you down as a rater and you have a bone to pick.  PDGC is not that bone, it is good enough to be #5.   BTW, have you played it?  Please answer, because, if so, you are the first person I have ever heard of who did not fall in love wiht the course.

[Jim_Michaels]

One notion of which you can be disavowed, Brad never had the opportunity to turn me down for anything. What a childish comment to make.  Perhaps I have a problem with your rankings because I disagree so vehemently with your results and am attempting to discern a rational explanation for the poor quality thereof. No chance I would ever have any desire to in any way affiliate myself with your magazine or its process.

[David Wigler]

Jim,

I have nothing to do with GW and BTW you ducked the PDGC question?  Have you played it or were you just disagreeing based on some knowledge vested to you from above about how good the course could be?  Bt the way, you are a special man to "Disagree so vehemently" over .000833

[Doug Sobieski]

Jim:

Isn't insulting someone's grammar a "childish thing to say"? Since you must be an accomplished wordsmith, can you help me with something? I'm trying to remember the word for a person who thinks their opinion is the only correct one, dismissing all others. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with that word since this thread started.

Thanks in advance.

Doug

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Jim--

You've got to believe Dave on his math.  He went to U of M which has the ugliest girls in the Big Ten...  So, he wasn't wasting his time with women in college.  He was busy studying his math.  (Then on weekends he'd come up to MSU where the good looking girls were...).

[David Wigler]

Hey, I thing our girls were better looking than the 50 who went to Purdue.  

[Jim Franklin]

Has Jim played PDGC, that is the important question. I played it and most definitely fell in love with it. Awesome!

[Jim_Michaels]

Played Pete Dye. Digest doesn' t even rank it in the Top 100, which might be a shade harsh. It had one appearance on the list a few years ago at 97. Probably should be 75th-90th? Kiawah is a lot better than PDGC. No contest.

I find it pathetic that your only criticsm of my views has to be that either I haven't played the course in question (which I have) or that I was refused a spot on this 3rd rate panel (which I wasn't).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wigler,

Your understanding of statistics is about as good as your grammar.

I am sure that GW recycles old votes in a way that Digest and GM do not,

Could you describe that method for us ?
Could you tell us exactly how GW recycles old votes ?
Could you also tell us how GD and GM do it ?

which explains the lack of movement on the list,

Is that the ONLY possible explanation ?

if one understands how small the differences in score probably are for each course. Recycling old votes makes for very poor statistics.

What if old votes aren't recyled ?
How would you then account for lack of movement ?

And let me guess...you, just like every other apologist for this absurd exercise, are affiliated with the process as a rater yourself.

I am not a rater, nor am I affiliated with the process or the magazines.

How about we have a one week moratorium on posts by GW raters? I'll agree to shut up for a month in return for some peace.

I'd prefer that you remain active on the site, and that you'd address the questions raised by your statements.
 

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

Why are you bothering with Jim Michaels.  He is not a real person but instead another one of the alter ego logins of a regular poster who is not man enough to stand behind this crap that he spews out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

If you know his identity, could you please post it.

If you are correct, then this is a further reason to have either a limited access area for discussion, or the requirement that emails can't be hidden and must be verifiable in order to post.

[David Wigler]

Geoffrey,

That is really sad and I hope you are wrong.  I at least thought Jim Michaels was man enough to criticize a large group of posters while using his own name.  In truth, he is the worst of Chickens.  He bashes others and hides behind a pseudonym that he hopes is real enough that no one calls him on it.  I wonder if he is bright enough to get the irony behind criticizing Brad for what he might be doing behind closed doors while hiding behind those same doors to spew his criticisms.

[GeoffreyC]

Jeff

The "secret" might just be that McCarthy-like broad based indictments of well intentioned enthusiasts of the game, golf courses and their architecture need to be exposed for the crap that they are along with the hidden agenda of the mythical non-existant Jim Michaels.

[GeoffreyC]

Jeff- If you are posting as Jim Michaels then yes you are.  If you really think that 99.9% of raters are corrupt and in it for free golf then yes I do.

[David Wigler]

All I see is a bunch of people unwilling to live up to some legitimate challenges.  Jim Michaels, while not the most subtle of posters, is striking a nerve that I see so many "raters" are sensitive to.  Even if Jim Michaels is a fake name for a regular, there has to be some truth in what he is saying.  I think a lot of you guys on all of these "ratings" threads are proving Mr. Michaels to be hitting on some deep secret you have.  I don't know what that secret is but I have a good guess as to what it is.


Jeff F.

Jeff,

You and I have spoken several times.  I amazed you are defending a chicken like Jim who wants to hide behind a pseudonym while blasting things he knows nothing about.  At least I respect that you use your own name.  Before replying, please reread Jim's posts.  He makes 2 points in this entire thread:

1. GW manipulates the list with the fact that PDGC is 5th.
2. GW only created modern to sell ads

Point 1 is absurd.  I suspect you have played PDGC.  If yes, you will almost surely agree that it is good enough to have raters consider it 5th.  PDGC does not advertise, so what would be the agenda behind its inflation?

Point 2 is probably true.  I suspect that the idea to seperate classical from modern was based in the thought that the classical list really never changes that much, GD does a good job at it and it will never be a vehicle to highlight great new courses and architects.  If that process happens to generate ad revenue all the better.  What he does not prove (Nor Shackleford) is that the ad revenue is adjusting the list.  GW raters are certainly not privy to the ad revenue of the magazines sponsors and told to vote accordingly.

You have made you case for dislike of raters many times.  It has been debated ad naseum.  I think that in this case, you are in bed with the wrong fighter and this is the wrong fight.

[Jim Franklin]

Jeff -

I am sure you have posted this before so I apologize for asking again, but what golf course do you currently work? I must admit that I have met some raters that have been a-holes, but most of them have been pretty decent guys and want to provide an accurate assessment of the courses they play. I tell my pro if a rater calls I'd be glad to host them.

[Top100Guru]

For those that feel the list is tied to "free goodies" and other "perks" for the raters, I will respectfully submit, that there are:

17 Resort and 16 Daily Fee courses out of 100 on the Modern List and that number in and of itself is very "questionable" at best.........I can guarantee you that at least 1/3 of those "Resort & Daily Fee Courses" are not as good as the likes of some of the "private clubs" that are either no longer on this list or have not even made the list in the past.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

"I'd venture to say that 99.99% to 100% of people that become raters do it because of the perks that come with it."

That's your direct quote partner ... it isn't me or anyone else putting words in your mouth. If you didn't mean it -- real or otherwise -- how bout putting at minimum a smiley after you posted it. If you truly meant it all I asked was for you to ID the people who set such a bad example during your time as an assistant pro at La Quinta.

You now revise what you originally said by the following statement ...

"When I said "99.99% of raters" (which Matt Ward seems to want to pin on me as my factual data), of course I don't think 99.99% of all raters are in it for the freebies.  When someone says 99.99% of the time I thought it was known that that could be a metaphor for a great majority.  It seems that in this "science lab" of data that we discuss in, you must not only present EXACT percentages but also all names, ranks, and serial numbers too."

Help me and others out -- I'm not "pinning" anything on you good buddy -- it's you who lobbed the broad brush grenade the first go around. Now, when you post a revision you want people to NOW believe it was a simply a "metaphor" on your part. OK. So which Jeff in the future should we believe?

Jeff -- if people acted like idiots in LaQuinta fair enough to expose them but how would you like it if I had a bad experience with a PGA professional and simply lobbed the inane charge that 99.99% of all PGA professionals are nothing but jerks. Sounds like the same unfair track to me as your original post about 99.99% of raters in it only for perks doesn't it? If you don't mean something why go through the trouble in seeking to tar all raters with the same brush. I don't doubt there are bad apples -- there are in all walks of life and professions. There are also honorable people -- my opinion -- who can assist you in eliminating such people from the process.

I always call or send a correspondence at least 10-14 days before I come to a particular course. If for some reason the facility is unavailable because of other commitments I work with the staff in securing another date / time that works for all concerned if possible. Anyone assuming they can simply show up and demand anything is simply dead wrong. They are guests and should act accordingly.

If you say it's a figure of speech well it might be best next time to "shoot from the hip" with a bit more clarity and accuracy in your thought process.

P.S. I do agree with you regarding Pebble Beach and its rating position -- the top 10 in the USA is very competitive lot and I see PB being on the other side of the second 10 -- not the elite first ten.

[Jim Franklin]

Jeff -

Thanks for the response. I can't imagine a rater just showing up and wanting to play. I would highly recommend sending their names to whatever publication they are rating for. I imagine I would be turned off to raters too. I am not familiar with your course, but I hope you have a great season. The weather is starting to turn so it shouldn't be too long.

Jim

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Y'all act like ratings are some sort of Holy Grail.  They're simply a tool to sell magazines.  I'm not sure about Golfweek or Golf Magazine, but I've been told that the Top 100 issue is Golf Digest largest selling edition.  Raters are nothing more than a tool to sell golf rags, not some sore of all-knowing, infallible high priests of turfgrass.  Don't overplay their importance...

[JohnV]

Isn't it funny that Golf Digest's biggest selling issue is there Top 100 list but they can't find more space for architecture?

What's wrong with this picture?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Vegis;

I've been called a "tool" before, but never so lovingly.  Thank you.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()