[Don Mahaffey]

Raters and Rankings, such a love/hate relationship.

I have no patience with course operators bitching about raters once they decide to play the rating game.

Just what did they expect? You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses. Why in the world you all play along is lost on me.  What positive outcome is there for the vast majority of courses that participate? What are you going to do, blow up your course and try to make it like the one 20 spots above you?

Yes, what is your consulting fee? Once finished we can get Bogey down and comp an entire week. Maybe we can jump a spot or two.

Greg, I guess I just don't get your beef. I'm not sure what you are expecting from the process.

[Greg Tallman]

Raters and Rankings, such a love/hate relationship.

I have no patience with course operators bitching about raters once they decide to play the rating game.

Just what did they expect? You allow golfers to play for free and judge your course, and yet most have zero experience with designing, maintaining, developing, or building golf courses. Why in the world you all play along is lost on me.  What positive outcome is there for the vast majority of courses that participate? What are you going to do, blow up your course and try to make it like the one 20 spots above you?

Yes, what is your consulting fee? Once finished we can get Bogey down and comp an entire week. Maybe we can jump a spot or two.

Greg, I guess I just don't get your beef. I'm not sure what you are expecting from the process.

Are you really going to question why I, or anyone else, finds it deplorable that a magazine charges a fee to become a rater and in doing so does nothing to vet potential panelists?

You pay up, you are qualified. At least GOLF and Digest have some requirements for becoming a panelist, net worth not one of them.   

[Don Mahaffey]

Greg,
What I question is why you even participate in the ranking process.

Net worth? $250?

I am not a rater, but if I wanted to be good at it and not just play free golf at courses I might not be able to access in any other way, then I'd spend a lot more than $250 trying to see enough to actually have an opinion that might be somewhat informed.

I don't get your rant. If you don't like what they do, why not just write a letter and cut them off? Otherwise, nothing changes.

[Brent Hutto]

I agree with Don's take. Fancy that ;-)

You're basically saying the whole thing's a racket and the way they conduct it stinks right out loud. If you really feel that way, it's not even a question. You should refuse to participate.

There's no gun to your head. The only question here is how have they managed to convince you that participating in such an invalid, corrupt scheme (by your reckoning) is something you absolutely must continue doing. Are they going to hire the North Koreans to hack your IT system if you tell them to bugger off?

The only conclusion I can draw is that you're hoping some sort of discussion here will force them to do right. Maybe I'm naive but that seems to be spitting into the wind.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,
What I question is why you even participate in the ranking process.

Net worth? $250?

I am not a rater, but if I wanted to be good at it and not just play free golf at courses I might not be able to access in any other way, then I'd spend a lot more than $250 trying to see enough to actually have an opinion that might be somewhat informed.

I don't get your rant. If you don't like what they do, why not just write a letter and cut them off? Otherwise, nothing changes.

Net worth - read the entire thread, not a reference to $250.

Your opinion would carry weight in my opinion. I assume you not only understand architecture but can get the ball in the air, thus meeting my evidently strict criteria for becoming a panelist.

Again, I clearly state that we may well follow the lead of another area course that has begun charging the panelists from the magazine in question thus doing our part to lessen the value of becoming a panelist for that magazine.

[Thomas Dai]

What would be the publications, websites etc that operate on this basis? Not that I may wish to join them, more the opposite!
Atb

[Paul Gray]

Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.

Really.

I thought it was common knowledge that the only independent rating panel of any serious merit was based in Paris and reviewed restaurants. Never mind.

[Greg Tallman]

I agree with Don's take. Fancy that ;-)

You're basically saying the whole thing's a racket and the way they conduct it stinks right out loud. If you really feel that way, it's not even a question. You should refuse to participate.

There's no gun to your head. The only question here is how have they managed to convince you that participating in such an invalid, corrupt scheme (by your reckoning) is something you absolutely must continue doing. Are they going to hire the North Koreans to hack your IT system if you tell them to bugger off?

The only conclusion I can draw is that you're hoping some sort of discussion here will force them to do right. Maybe I'm naive but that seems to be spitting into the wind.

1. They are making money openly selling access and preferred rates to a number the best golf facilities in the world. Direct competition for the Outpost Clubs of the world.

2. They take any Tom, Doak and Harry willing to cough up $250 annually, without regard to golf ability or knowledge, after all this is a thinly veiled access/discount program with zero cost basis.

I have no issue with the truly knowledgeable folks on this panel and enjoy spending time with many, that doesn't change the fact that it is a sham.

[Brent Hutto]

Well of course it's all a sham. Like yourself, some of my favorite people are or were raters for one panel or another. Including some who know 10x more about golf architecture than I ever could learn. But like any system consisting of people, this magazine based rating-panel system serves its own purposes quite independent of the individuals who choose to participate in it. For better or worse.

[Don Mahaffey]

1. They are making money openly selling access and preferred rates to a number the best golf facilities in the world. Direct competition for the Outpost Clubs of the world.

While I don't know exactly what you are talking about here and would love for you to explain it, I always go back to the courses being willing participants.





 

[Brent Hutto]

1. They are making money openly selling access and preferred rates to a number the best golf facilities in the world. Direct competition for the Outpost Clubs of the world.

While I don't know exactly what you are talking about here and would love for you to explain it, I always go back to the courses being willing participants.





 

Don,

He says you in effect purchase a "rater" credential from a magazine for $250 and it entitles you to multiple rounds of complimentary golf, including at some places where a single round's rack rate is more than the $250 you just paid.

It's like giving GolfNow a bunch of your tee times without them even offering the service of taking internet bookings for you. Like yourself I am incredulous that successful, otherwise well run golf enterprises will cooperate in this racket.

[Rob Curtiss]

If I am not mistaken - I thought I read that each panel has between 250- 500 raters.
If they charge 250.00 per rater at 500 - that equals 125k.
That doesnt seem like much to me.

Why arent the magazines taking out full page adds and recruiting as many raters as possible?
If they are in it for the money?

[Sven Nilsen]

My new-to-golf access whore friend is going to be fired up this year when I buy him a GW Rater card for Christmas. 

That's how it works, right?  Anyone know the website where I can order one?

[Greg Tallman]

If I am not mistaken - I thought I read that each panel has between 250- 500 raters.
If they charge 250.00 per rater at 500 - that equals 125k.
That doesnt seem like much to me.

Why arent the magazines taking out full page adds and recruiting as many raters as possible?
If they are in it for the money?

Not their only revenue stream coming from panelists and I believe there are far more than 500.

By contrast GOLF Magazine has just over 100 well vetted panelists.

[Greg Tallman]

My new-to-golf access whore friend is going to be fired up this year when I buy him a GW Rater card for Christmas. 

That's how it works, right?  Anyone know the website where I can order one?

My guess is you will receive a couple PMs detailing how to sign up.

[Eric Smith]

Greg,

Honest question...If Cabo Del Sol Ocean had shot up to 7th in the 2015 ranking, would this thread have come about?

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

Honest question...If Cabo Del Sol Ocean had shot up to 7th in the 2015 ranking, would this thread have come about?

Absolutely. We have never put much stock or importance into the rankings from that publication, even when we were #2.

Whether we are 2, 5 or 15 in that magazine is not going to move the needle for us whatsoever and it is flattering to be listed anywhere on any such list. That doesn't change my distaste for them having turned into a profiteering venture selling access/discounts.

[Sven Nilsen]

If I am not mistaken - I thought I read that each panel has between 250- 500 raters.
If they charge 250.00 per rater at 500 - that equals 125k.
That doesnt seem like much to me.

Why arent the magazines taking out full page adds and recruiting as many raters as possible?
If they are in it for the money?

Not their only revenue stream coming from panelists and I believe there are far more than 500.

By contrast GOLF Magazine has just over 100 well vetted panelists.

If you want to have an honest conversation, why don't you start by describing the process honestly.

Not a rater.

Sven

[Tim Martin]

Should the President of the United States be a former military person since he is the Commander in Chief?  Should movie critics be actors?  Should food critics be chefs?  

I played a few years ago with a panelist who was terrible.  To my surprise he had a really great eye for architecture, maintenance and agronomy.

With all that said, yes they should be able to play but don't discount their ability to look at architecture and understand it.  

Disagree, If you cannot get the golf ball off the ground I have zero interest in what you have read on GCA and can subsequently regurgitate in the grill room after carding your 136 whilst cheating a bit.

Beyond that sending out solicitations for ANYONE WILLING TO PAY $250 is ridiculous.

I do not agree with Digest's "good player policy" either. There are a bunch of 10-20s that play the game and understand. You don't have to be a 5 but you do have to play to a certain level or you simply cannot evaluate a course.... "that bunker is at 257 and thus is a good strategic placement..." Sorry does not work that way.

Greg-Can you produce one of said solicitations or is this heresay?

[Peter Kelly]

I hate to be the naive newbie, but which magazine is this?  And why haven't I received one of these "crass" solicitations??? I guess I lack the net worth minimum?  
From some of the comments, I assume it is Golfweek. Does the magazine tout this net worth "feature" to the courses when urging the courses to allow rater play? I've seen the GW rater application and, to my recollection, it doesn't ask the rater's net worth. It does have a number of detailed questions about the rater's golf history, handicap, courses played, and what is important to the rater when playing/rating a course.

I understand the questions could merely be designed to make it appear to be a competitive process to get to pay GW $250/year, but I also know raters whose card was not renewed when they didn't rate enough courses and/or attend off-sites. I think GW has about 650 raters which would mean about $160,000/year in revenue. Seems hardly worth the effort if its goal is "accept everyone" and create a cash cow for the magazine.

[Frank M]

I live in place where golf is a 6 month season. Last year, I played a round in Florida and it took me 60 minutes and 6 holes before I could get the ball up in the air and I'm a 10 handicap who as a junior played to a 2. Event then, I went through a period of shanks that lasted 6 months where the only thing I could hit was a driver.

All that said, I'm won't judge an entire program based on two guys hitting balls on the range for 30 mins.

[Eric Smith]

Absolutely. We have never put much stock or importance into the rankings from that publication, even when we were #2.

Whether we are 2, 5 or 15 in that magazine is not going to move the needle for us whatsoever and it is flattering to be listed anywhere on any such list. That doesn't change my distaste for them having turned into a profiteering venture selling access/discounts.

Greg,

Cheers for answering my question.

[Tom Dunne]

Seņor Tallman is omitting a crucial detail--that these goofballs were probably definitely pounding margaritas down at the Baja Cantina until 2 AM the night prior. Whether they were aided and abetted by the man himself is another question.

[Greg Tallman]

Should the President of the United States be a former military person since he is the Commander in Chief?  Should movie critics be actors?  Should food critics be chefs?  

I played a few years ago with a panelist who was terrible.  To my surprise he had a really great eye for architecture, maintenance and agronomy.

With all that said, yes they should be able to play but don't discount their ability to look at architecture and understand it.  

Disagree, If you cannot get the golf ball off the ground I have zero interest in what you have read on GCA and can subsequently regurgitate in the grill room after carding your 136 whilst cheating a bit.

Beyond that sending out solicitations for ANYONE WILLING TO PAY $250 is ridiculous.

I do not agree with Digest's "good player policy" either. There are a bunch of 10-20s that play the game and understand. You don't have to be a 5 but you do have to play to a certain level or you simply cannot evaluate a course.... "that bunker is at 257 and thus is a good strategic placement..." Sorry does not work that way.

Greg-Can you produce one of said solicitations or is this heresay?

Not certain though I assure you the multiple sources are as reliable as the Cabo weather.

[Greg Tallman]

I live in place where golf is a 6 month season. Last year, I played a round in Florida and it took me 60 minutes and 6 holes before I could get the ball up in the air and I'm a 10 handicap who as a junior played to a 2. Event then, I went through a period of shanks that lasted 6 months where the only thing I could hit was a driver.

All that said, I'm won't judge an entire program based on two guys hitting balls on the range for 30 mins.

Nor would I or have I and I trust my ability to tell the difference between a guy who is struggling versus one who does know how to play at all. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()