Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Greg Tallman on December 19, 2014, 12:28:16 PM
-
...be required to at least be able to get the golf ball off the ground? I know we love to promote the ground game on this site but come on, $250 and a willingness to travel does not qualify one to rank golf courses.
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.
-
Greg,
MacKenzie wasn't a great player.
If however we really are talking guys that aren't quite sure which end of the club to grip, I do see your point.
-
...be required to at least be able to get the golf ball off the ground? I know we love to promote the ground game on this site but come on, $250 and a willingness to travel does not qualify one to rank golf courses.
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.
Greg:
Probably so. I have known a couple of fellows in their late 80's whose eye was much keener than what remained of their swings. But I'm pretty sure you would not be one to complain about that sort of fellow.
-
Greg -
I think panelists need to be proficient players. Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players? No. But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course. They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.
-
Greg,
MacKenzie wasn't a great player.
If however we really are talking guys that aren't quite sure which end of the club to grip, I do see your point.
We are talking about soliciting ANYONE willing to pay $250 to the "magazine" to become a panelist. Knowing what a golf club looks like is not a requisite skill. E-Mails from the "rating czar" forthcoming soon.
Trumpeting the average net worth of one's panel speaks volumes. Pure garbage.
-
Trumpeting the average net worth of one's panel speaks volumes. Pure garbage.
Wow, that's a new level of crass. "Our panelists are worth millions, so you'd better let them play for free if you know what's good for you."
-
...be required to at least be able to get the golf ball off the ground? I know we love to promote the ground game on this site but come on, $250 and a willingness to travel does not qualify one to rank golf courses.
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.
Greg:
Probably so. I have known a couple of fellows in their late 80's whose eye was much keener than what remained of their swings. But I'm pretty sure you would not be one to complain about that sort of fellow.
Tom,
One of whom is very near and dear to me.
HUGE difference between a guy that used to play to a 5-7 and simply cannot do that any longer and a guy who buys his way onto a panel even though he/she couldn't begin to discuss the differences between Alotian Club and Sand Hills.
-
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf.
Has MWP's game gotten this bad?
-
Trumpeting the average net worth of one's panel speaks volumes. Pure garbage.
Wow, that's a new level of crass. "Our panelists are worth millions, so you'd better let them play for free if you know what's good for you."
I agree and one reason we laugh at their "ranking", as if these panelists votes are even tabulated. It is simply a money maker for the magazine. One in which we will never spend a penny.
-
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf.
Has MWP's game gotten this bad?
LOL, only when he trying to hoist a 2-iron ( a what?) from a downhill lie.
-
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.
-
Greg -
I think panelists need to be proficient players. Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players? No. But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course. They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.
If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"
-
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 -
I think panelists need to be proficient players. Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players? No. But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course. They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.
If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"
By understanding that good design is accessible (in strategic terms) to a wide variety of abilities. In other words, looking at the hole through multiple sets of eyes.
Joe
-
Greg -
I think panelists need to be proficient players. Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players? No. But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course. They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.
If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"
By understanding that good design is accessible (in strategic terms) to a wide variety of abilities. In other words, looking at the hole through multiple sets of eyes.
Joe
Joe,
That's my point. Proficiency in play has nothing to do with it, proficiency in analysis does.
Sven
-
No.
It is a slippery slope when you begin to quantify what qualities a rater should possess to rate a course. I would bet that the unskilled couple you noticed on the range judged the course not solely through their own game's standards, maybe they imagined they were Fuzzy and Ben playing the course. The arguments that state they should be able to manage their ball around the course, can't you judge a course by walking it and seeing it through different scenarios. Tom Doak mentions often about how walking a course can broaden the outlook over playing.
-
Maybe raters should be required to play at least three rounds; Once w/ their full set of clubs from the appropriate tee, once w/ only three clubs, and none of them shorter than a five iron, and once with those same three clubs from the forward tees. That would help!
-
No.
It is a slippery slope when you begin to quantify what qualities a rater should possess to rate a course. I would bet that the unskilled couple you noticed on the range judged the course not solely through their own game's standards, maybe they imagined they were Fuzzy and Ben playing the course. The arguments that state they should be able to manage their ball around the course, can't you judge a course by walking it and seeing it through different scenarios. Tom Doak mentions often about how walking a course can broaden the outlook over playing.
I think you Seņor Doak a disservice by comparing him to this pair of Chicago businessmen whose motive for becoming panelists was clear (jump in JK). That said if you are reading this as an indictment of only these two player you are completely missing my point.
Any magazine that solicits anyone willing to pay $250 is a joke. Plain and simple.
-
Maybe raters should be required to play at least three rounds; Once w/ their full set of clubs from the appropriate tee, once w/ only three clubs, and none of them shorter than a five iron, and once with those same three clubs from the forward tees. That would help!
Any requisite beyond penning a check for $250 would be good.
-
The entire idea that a panelist would PAY a magazine to be a rater and expect to be comped at the facility is ludicrous.
Interesting turn of events that the content providers PAY the Magazine, and subscriptions are free for the reader::) ::)
but I digress....
-
The entire idea that a panelist would PAY a magazine to be a rater and expect to be comped at the facility is ludicrous.
Interesting turn of events that the content providers PAY the Magazine, and subscriptions are free for the reader::) ::)
but I digress....
Digress more please
-
Greg, If that is indeed your point, then you are correct, I missed your point. I have no idea how any of the magazine ratings work and I hope to keep it that way. Sometimes those topics seem very similar to all the bickering and rule changings about figure skating.
-
I don't pay
any much attention to rankings so it makes no difference to me whether a rater is any good.
-
Greg - somewhat akin to Charlie's point: it strikes me that, ironically, you are giving rankers and the rating process more respect and credence and validity than many of us here would be willing to give. By focusing on the 'unqualified' rankers who are paying for the priviledge but who don't have the requisite skill, you are implicitely suggesting (and reaffirming the value of) their opposites, i.e. presumably 'qualified' rankers who are not paying for the priviledge and who do have the 'requisite' skill. And when you do that, i.e. posit identifiable qualifications and quanitfiable skills, you are a very close to positing some objective value and truth to the rating process. Now, I am the first to admit that anyone on here who is a ranker/rater is much more qualified than someone like me -- invariably they have played hundreds of more courses than I have, and play a much better game of golf than me. But that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.
Peter
-
Greg - somewhat akin to Charlie's point: it strikes me that, ironically, you are giving rankers and the rating process more respect and credence and validity than many of us here would be willing to give. By focusing on the 'unqualified' rankers who are paying for the priviledge but who don't have the requisite skill, you are implicitely suggesting (and reaffirming the value of) their opposites, i.e. presumably 'qualified' rankers who are not paying for the priviledge and who do have the 'requisite' skill. And when you do that, i.e. posit identifiable qualifications and quanitfiable skills, you are a very close to positing some objective value and truth to the rating process. Now, I am the first to admit that anyone on here who is a ranker/rater is much more qualified than someone like me -- invariably they have played hundreds of more courses than I have, and play a much better game of golf than me. But that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.
Peter
No irony involved. It is something that a public facility must pay attention to. To ignore it would be negligent and, quite frankly, stupid.
-
Greg,
MacKenzie wasn't a great player.
If however we really are talking guys that aren't quite sure which end of the club to grip, I do see your point.
We are talking about soliciting ANYONE willing to pay $250 to the "magazine" to become a panelist. Knowing what a golf club looks like is not a requisite skill. E-Mails from the "rating czar" forthcoming soon.
Trumpeting the average net worth of one's panel speaks volumes. Pure garbage.
Wow. I really didn't know what you meant when you made reference to $250 in your opening post. That is utterly incredible/terrible.
Maybe I've failed to read something but can we just name the publication in question. Please.
-
that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.
Peter
This is one of my favorite subjects,,,
we strive for equality in many areas... but an informed 'qualified' opinion carries more weight (I value my cardiologist's opinion more than my grandmothers concerning my heart) but at the same time how do we quantify an opinion,,, for an opinion will always be just that,, and never move into the realm of objectivity.
Honestly, the older I get the more I look at golf course ratings with the same skepticism as I listen to the 'expert' talk about the best horse for Race 6.
and those that argue over ratings,,, you are having the exact same arguments that people are having about what is the best restaurant, the best figure skater, the best 80's rock song, the best sport's movie, the best QB. (which is fine, so long as you realize that what you are arguing about doesn't mean anything) Can we just realize that it is a pointless argument and talk about how much fun we had playing this golf course because .... We will never be able to quantify why Cypress Point is a better golf course than the TPC such and such,,
-
that doesn't mean any amount of 'qualifications' makes their opinions about a given course 'objectively' more valuable than mine.
Peter
This is one of my favorite subjects,,,
we strive for equality in many areas... but an informed 'qualified' opinion carries more weight (I value my cardiologist's opinion more than my grandmothers concerning my heart) but at the same time how do we quantify an opinion,,, for an opinion will always be just that,, and never move into the realm of objectivity.
Honestly, the older I get the more I look at golf course ratings with the same skepticism as I listen to the 'expert' talk about the best horse for Race 6.
and those that argue over ratings,,, you are having the exact same arguments that people are having about what is the best restaurant, the best figure skater, the best 80's rock song, the best sport's movie, the best QB. (which is fine, so long as you realize that what you are arguing about doesn't mean anything) Can we just realize that it is a pointless argument and talk about how much fun we had playing this golf course because .... We will never be able to quantify why Cypress Point is a better golf course than the TPC such and such,,
Can we agree that charging one to be a panelist is wrong?
Best figure skater? Tonya Harding, hands down.
-
Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?
-
To say that we on here my not pay attention to ratings is one thing,but tothimkin the real world that they are irrelevant is like living in Nederland.
We are nowhere close to the "average" golfers who do put a lot of stock into ratings especially when making vacation plans, so people in GRegs position do have to take such things seriously, it is his livelihood, getting people onto the tee and if rankings aid that, they do become important, like it or not.
My distaste for recruiting raters is tremendous as it serves only one motive, raise money for the rating entity ie the magazine it represents ,that simply cannot create a good enviroment for accurate and meaningful raters or ratings.
-
Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?
More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?
Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.
If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it? ;)
-
To say that we on here my not pay attention to ratings is one thing,but tothimkin the real world that they are irrelevant is like living in Nederland.
We are nowhere close to the "average" golfers who do put a lot of stock into ratings especially when making vacation plans, so people in GRegs position do have to take such things seriously, it is his livelihood, getting people onto the tee and if rankings aid that, they do become important, like it or not.
My distaste for recruiting raters is tremendous as it serves only one motive, raise money for the rating entity ie the magazine it represents ,that simply cannot create a good enviroment for accurate and meaningful raters or ratings.
Yeah but what if you got a kickback for signing up 20 of your buddies? Not that far fetched is it?
-
Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?
More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?
Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.
If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it? ;)
Greg,
my book will be better
maybe we could do several editions ;)
-
Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?
More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?
Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.
If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it? ;)
Greg,
my book will be better
maybe we could do several editions ;)
"Golf Course Rankings, Corruption from The Hamptons to Los Cabos"
-
Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.
-
When the course feels it can't possibly opt out of the ratings racket because to do so would cost it money...
When the magazines feel they make money from publishing the ratings...
When the raters routinely get comped rounds at courses they would never reach into their own wallet to play...
And when rating "czars" can have a lucrative gig getting paid to advise clubs on how to maximize their ratings...
In my view adding the additional wrinkle of payments from wanna-be raters directly to the magazine is a bit "dog bites man" is it not? It's all money grubbing we're just quibbling over which form seem more, well, grubby.
-
Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.
John, If only I had a mentor as wise as you.
I can spot you the $250 if finances are an issue. ;)
-
Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.
John, If only I had a mentor as wise as you.
I can spot you the $250 if finances are an issue. ;)
It would more like John's style to splash for the $250 out of his own pocket, then immediately resign from the rating panel because "they'll let just anybody in".
-
Greg, If you believe that a rater needs to be a low handicapper you have just eliminated Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, and Brad Klein. All adequate golfers but far from scratch players. Which of the 3 gentlemen mentioned do you feel should be disqualified from being a rater due to their average ability to play the game? I'm not sure what club you work at but there is no rule that says you must allow or for even comp raters. My club allows them but doesn't comp their golf - we are still top 100 classic and have no shortage of rater visits annually.
-
Greg. Do you think Golf Digest or Golfweek's ratings are more accurate in the US?
More or less if only due to familiarity of the "product". Then again... Alotian?
Rankings are great in that they encourage discussion/debate yet so wrong in that most are in some form wither corrupt and/or misleading.
If I ever exit the business I may write a book, or at least a detailed article... but who would publish it? ;)
Greg,
my book will be better
maybe we could do several editions ;)
"Golf Course Rankings, Corruption from The Hamptons to Los Cabos"
Mine won't be about raters ;) you can write those chapters.
In fact I'm all for corruption if I can profit ;) ;D, especially if a rating or 2 are the only things impacted.
-
Another of many subjects where I was way ahead of the curve. I do love watching people play catch up.
John, If only I had a mentor as wise as you.
I can spot you the $250 if finances are an issue. ;)
It would more like John's style to splash for the $250 out of his own pocket, then immediately resign from the rating panel because "they'll let just anybody in".
That made me LOL, literally. Love it. JK, I will comp you based on your "former rater" status if you'll do it.
-
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.
First, I'm compelled to ask: Why do you currently comp raters?
Second, I note that Golfweek's annual rater fee is $250 and your advertised fee for a winter round before 10:20 a.m. on the Ocean Course is $365 (with no "complimentary" shirt I assume). Follow-up question: Do you know how to identify the fool in a poker game?
Why don't you cut the crap and come right and say what's bothering you? It's likely legitimate.
Kindest regards,
Mike
-
Greg, If you believe that a rater needs to be a low handicapper you have just eliminated Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, and Brad Klein. All adequate golfers but far from scratch players. Which of the 3 gentlemen mentioned do you feel should be disqualified from being a rater due to their average ability to play the game? I'm not sure what club you work at but there is no rule that says you must allow or for even comp raters. My club allows them but doesn't comp their golf - we are still top 100 classic and have no shortage of rater visits annually.
Trust me all three of those gents can get the ball in the air, and you miss the point.
Recruitment of raters on the basis of paying an annual subscription, is that the best way to recruit meaningful raters.
That is Gregs point
-
Greg, If you believe that a rater needs to be a low handicapper you have just eliminated Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, and Brad Klein.Where did I state that a low handicap was required? I simply question whether the ability to get a ball off the ground might be a prerequisite. I'll take 100 Doaks and Keisers to every Jack Nicklaus or Justin Rose
All adequate golfers but far from scratch players. Which of the 3 gentlemen mentioned do you feel should be disqualified from being a rater due to their average ability to play the game? Due to their golfing abilities? None.
I'm not sure what club you work at but there is no rule that says you must allow or for even comp raters. My club allows them but doesn't comp their golf - we are still top 100 classic and have no shortage of rater visits annually.
-
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.
First, I'm compelled to ask: Why do you currently comp raters?
Second, I note that Golfweek's annual rater fee is $250 and your advertised fee for a winter round before 10:20 a.m. on the Ocean Course is $365 (with no "complimentary" shirt I assume). Follow-up question: Do you know how to identify the fool in a poker game?
Why don't you cut the crap and come right and say what's bothering you? It's likely legitimate.
Kindest regards,
Mike
Mike, does he really have to, it is not clear?😀
-
A recently opened course in our area has changed their policy on "panelists" from one particular magazine and is now charging them to play the course after observing a pair of "panelists" spend 30+ minutes on the practice tee without successfully separating ball from turf. I believe we will follow suit as well. Hard to charge folks to be a panelist when their "privileges" go away.
First, I'm compelled to ask: Why do you currently comp raters? We comp MOST raters. If you have played here 30 times and are not a personal friend then you do not need to "rate" the course and thus I am not buying your vote. Why? because it is part of the game and the vast majority of panelists from the respected publications are serious about their role and given their roles carry a bit of weight away from their panel duties, particularly those from GOLF where Doak molded a pretty good concept and process of how to go about it. His successors have carried on in the same manner
Second, I note that Golfweek's annual rater fee is $250 and your advertised fee for a winter round before 10:20 a.m. on the Ocean Course is $365 (with no "complimentary" shirt I assume). If you are looking for a complimentary shirt when playing one of the world's better golf courses that happens to occupy land worth hundreds of millions of dollars you'll have to look elsewhere. You also conveniently omit that you can that course for $165 later in the day
Follow-up question: Do you know how to identify the fool in a poker game? Having covered the expenses of my recent honeymoon by playing poker with fellow hotel guests I am going to say yes, I do know. More difficult at times is identifying the rating whore on the discussion board. Yes I unerstand our policy contributes to the "whoredom"
Why don't you cut the crap and come right and say what's bothering you? It's likely legitimate. In good time, to do so this early on would stifle discussion and even contempt which bothers me not and was fully expected. Interesting to see how many who know exactly what I am saying will call me out or defend the publication without identifying why
Kindest regards,
Kind indeed! ;)
Mike
-
Brad is no ones fool. He would kick me off his panel quicker than I could resign.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I think all panelists should be able to play a hole the way it was meant to be played to really appreciate the architectural merit.
Mark
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
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.
-
What would be the publications, websites etc that operate on this basis? Not that I may wish to join them, more the opposite!
Atb
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Greg,
Honest question...If Cabo Del Sol Ocean had shot up to 7th in the 2015 ranking (http://golfweek.com/news/2014/nov/06/golfweeks-best-caribbean-and-mexico-2015/), would this thread have come about?
-
Greg,
Honest question...If Cabo Del Sol Ocean had shot up to 7th in the 2015 ranking (http://golfweek.com/news/2014/nov/06/golfweeks-best-caribbean-and-mexico-2015/), 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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
Please point out anything dishonest
-
Greg, Besides the $250, you do have to fill out a form and submit it too, and keep the responses within the lines!
We did join up one year and thoroughly enjoyed the rater retreat based out of Biloxi! Did we get our cash money's worth out of it? Close, if not, as very rarely asked to be comp'd, as never really plan much golf in advance as set out in "the rules".. Interaction with the leader and others, and being exposed to the process, experience, and challenged to think about all the factors involved was, however, worth the cost and all... once.
One needs to be able to think and compare what is being presented to one's own benchmarks. The more diversity probably the better the ratings are, but after you play a course once, you know whether you'd want to play it again and whether to recommend it to a friend,.. its the condensed take-away opinion that's important. Not quite comfortable with making that a number.
Pay your money, ya take your chances...
-
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
Please point out anything dishonest
Nothing, if you really believe anyone with $250 can become a GW rater.
-
Greg, Besides the $250, you do have to fill out a form and submit it too, and keep the responses within the lines!
We did join up one year and thoroughly enjoyed the rater retreat based out of Biloxi! Did we get our cash money's worth out of it? Close, if not, as very rarely asked to be comp'd, as never really plan much golf in advance as set out in "the rules".. Interaction with the leader and others, and being exposed to the process, experience, and challenged to think about all the factors involved was, however, worth the cost and all... once.
One needs to be able to think and compare what is being presented to one's own benchmarks. The more diversity probably the better the ratings are, but after you play a course once, you know whether you'd want to play it again and whether to recommend it to a friend,.. its the condensed take-away opinion that's important. Not quite comfortable with making that a number.
Pay your money, ya take your chances...
Steve, I have no doubt there are any number of "golf junkies" like yourself that do it for the right reasons and the $250 is more about being part of a like minded group as well as interacting with and learning from Brad... etc.
-
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.
::)
-
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
Please point out anything dishonest
Nothing, if you really believe anyone with $250 can become a GW rater.
"Anyone"... of course not. Anyone who purports to play golf and knows someone who knows someone who knows someone? Sure.
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
I actually do not have an issue the concept as it was originated... a smallish group of well travelled, golf knowledgeable people who compiled their take on the finest courses around the world for publication in a golf magazine. Heck Tom's new CG is nothing different, just a very small group, and it is wildly popular among most everyone GCA.
That is not what is being discussed here however.
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
I actually do not have an issue the concept as it was originated... a smallish group of well travelled, golf knowledgeable people who complied their take on the finest courses around the world for publication in a golf magazine. Heck Tom's new CG is nothing different, just a very small group, and it is wildly popular among most everyone GCA.
That is not what is being discussed here however.
Greg,
Maybe we should sign up.
Cheaper than PGA dues!
But doesn't come with a Masters ticket ;D ;D
-
Would it have been better if they just walked and rated the course instead of playing?
-
I tapped out when at the GCA outing at Barona the pro shop asked us to form two lines. One for people being charged and the other for raters being comped. In the mean time I've been comped close to 50 rounds because of the process. I love free golf more than life itself. It's addictive.
-
Would it have been better if they just walked and rated the course instead of playing?
I suspect it would be a lonely panel if this were the recommended procedure!
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
I actually do not have an issue the concept as it was originated... a smallish group of well travelled, golf knowledgeable people who complied their take on the finest courses around the world for publication in a golf magazine. Heck Tom's new CG is nothing different, just a very small group, and it is wildly popular among most everyone GCA.
That is not what is being discussed here however.
Greg,
Maybe we should sign up.
Cheaper than PGA dues!
But doesn't come with a Masters ticket ;D ;D
LOL, I should respond to one of the e-mail solicitations just to see the reply. Honestly I would enjoy being on such a panel.
Speaking of "evaluating" golf courses I would love to put a camera and mic on a couple unsuspecting golfers who might have the misfortune of being paired with golf geeks like MWP and myself as we discuss every tiny (sometimes meaningless) detail of a golf hole whilst we beat ourselves up for hitting a shot a groove thin and 5 yards off line (OK mine is 15 yards off line and MWP's is 2).
-
Would it have been better if they just walked and rated the course instead of playing?
I suspect it would be a lonely panel if this were the recommended procedure!
Better though?
-
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.
For a guy who's just recovering from a hurricane this was a poor turn of phrase.
I thought I understood your dilemma ... you think it's wrong and you should reserve the right not to comp raters, but you aren't the owner of the course ... but when you said you guys don't really care where you finish on their list, I got lost.
-
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.
Ah, I do recall that "evening". Nary a margarita for me though.
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
I actually do not have an issue the concept as it was originated... a smallish group of well travelled, golf knowledgeable people who complied their take on the finest courses around the world for publication in a golf magazine. Heck Tom's new CG is nothing different, just a very small group, and it is wildly popular among most everyone GCA.
That is not what is being discussed here however.
Greg,
Maybe we should sign up.
Cheaper than PGA dues!
But doesn't come with a Masters ticket ;D ;D
LOL, I should respond to one of the e-mail solicitations just to see the reply. Honestly I would enjoy being on such a panel.
Speaking of "evaluating" golf courses I would love to put a camera and mic on a couple unsuspecting golfers who might have the misfortune of being paired with golf geeks like MWP and myself as we discuss every tiny (sometimes meaningless) detail of a golf hole whilst we beat ourselves up for hitting a shot a groove thin and 5 yards off line (OK mine is 15 yards off line and MWP's is 2).
Greg,
I have a golf buddy who is "into" golf clubs and equipment the way Lou Duran or Craig Disher are "into" golf course architecture. It would be unfair to say golf is just an excuse for him to own the equipment but it's a pretty close call.
Generally when he and I play it's just the two of us. But yeah, when there's another guy in the group he must think he's stumbled into some kind of arcane den of half-crazed geeks.
Don't know what would happen if those two worlds ever met. If I play with that guy plus one of my GCA buddies. Any fourth member of the group would be in serious danger of his head exploding!
-
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.
For a guy who's just recovering from a hurricane this was a poor turn of phrase.
I thought I understood your dilemma ... you think it's wrong and you should reserve the right not to comp raters, but you aren't the owner of the course ... but when you said you guys don't really care where you finish on their list, I got lost.
The irony of the weather comment was not lost on me!
I have no problem taking care of panelists as a general rule. I simply do not agree with how it has been turned into a "1000 member international club" of sorts by GW.
In all honesty their Mexico/Caribbean list is not something we are going to hang our hat on even if we were #1. Would it be nice? Sure. Better than 14? Certainly, but it's not something we are going to focus on and actively pursue.
-
Then tell your bosses not to comp the GOLFWEEK guys anymore, because you have nothing to lose.
-
Then tell your bosses not to comp the GOLFWEEK guys anymore, because you have nothing to lose.
If you read the entire thread you will see that this is being considered.
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
John, I'll have you as my guest only if you'll join me for an evening on the town. I'm thinking you could be quite entertaining after a Don Julio or two. Not quite Tom Dunne, but entertaining nonetheless.
-
Greg
While I think I do get the point you are making, I would ask you the following:
As a golf destination, what is your target market?
Are suggesting the opinions of those who aren't better than average players with no knowledge of golf architecture are not to be considered?
Being that the majority of all golfers are in fact poor players who don't care much for architecture and all its sub topics, are you not effectively restricting your options by placing less value on their views?
Wouldn't the greatest ratings cover a wide range of abilities and agendas and having a couple of complete hacks leave your facility having thoroughly enjoyed themselves and your course be the best outcome or are you only interested in having a bunch of GCA type golf nerds play at your course?
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
John, I'll have you as my guest only if you'll join me for an evening on the town. I'm thinking you could be quite entertaining after a Don Julio or two. Not quite Tom Dunne, but entertaining nonetheless.
Would I have to play golf with you to? My usual group doesn't mind playing 5. Who's Tom Dunne?
-
[REMOVED]
-
...
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
John, I'll have you as my guest only if you'll join me for an evening on the town. I'm thinking you could be quite entertaining after a Don Julio or two. Not quite Tom Dunne, but entertaining nonetheless.
I love this interaction.
I think John understands his hypocritical stance on the subject in the fact that he openly acknowledges his addiction to being comped and even subtly solicits comps.
Not sure Greg sees his stance as hypocritical.
Personally I've thought about contacting the ratings organizations because it logically makes sense. I don't have access to private courses, and the ratings panel would grant some access. I haven't because I'm not sure I can dedicate the required time and because I have reservations about the racket that is run.
I am glad to see the last post saying applications are rejected.
-
GREG,
As do you , I have plenty of rater friends. I don't comp raters just because they are a rater. If there is one thing this site has done for me over the years it is show me how dorky this side of things can become when the barrier to entry is miniscule. People write pages on this site and yet they have not taken the time to learn to grip a club properly. I'm not talking about 80 year olds who could play at one time. i'm speaking of guys that have played for a few years and feel they know architecture and decide they will chime in and start hyping courses.
Over the last few years it is obvious the mags are rating all type of categories since there are not enough new projects to rank each year.
As JK, I despise it but know it's not going away....I just have to take them on an individual basis. Most are good but there is often an unjustified arrogance conveyed to staff etc for no reason....for me I just want the golfer in a 25 mile radius and I can therefore piss them off more easily than a major resort...
Merry Christmas and hope to see you guys in Feb...you never showed up down here in CR...
Mike
-
It is a great way for a married couple to cut into the high cost of green fees.
I personally try to avoid any course that comps raters unless I am being comped myself. Greg knows that is one small reason I won't visit his resort. This thread is a good start to the end of that.
John, I'll have you as my guest only if you'll join me for an evening on the town. I'm thinking you could be quite entertaining after a Don Julio or two. Not quite Tom Dunne, but entertaining nonetheless.
Greg,
Please be fair. There isn't another person I know as entertaining as Tom Dunne. Don Julio or not.
Wyatt
-
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.
What experience does Robert Parker have of growing grapes or making wine? What experience does Jeffrey Steingarten have of running a restaurant?
-
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.
What experience does Robert Parker have of growing grapes or making wine? What experience does Jeffrey Steingarten have of running a restaurant?
Conversely, there are plenty of folks who consume a lot of Reunite Lambrusco and McDonalds food, but that doesn't make them a reliable source for what is good and what isn't when it comes to wine and food.
Joe
-
Yes and if everyone could eat free at McDonald's the future of modern civilization would be more bleak than it is. It's the free golf that kills your ability to discern crap from granola.
-
Yes and if everyone could eat free at McDonald's the future of modern civilization would be more bleak than it is. It's the free golf that kills your ability to discern crap from granola.
It's more than just the free golf. It's the regurgitation process that gets me so often....have you ever been in a men's grill and listened to some of these rater type pontificate when they have no idea that anyone that can argue with them is in the area? And so often their friends consider them experts or at least God's gift to golf as they know it. I should not let it bother me but the air that surrounds the entire process is not good...there are good guys in the process but the bad just set me off...
-
I guess what amazes me the most is the entire culture built around rankings.
Imagine playing comp basketball/softball in return for rating the facilities.
Another thing that consistently nauseates me is when I am asked what's the "best" course in a particular city, state or region, rather than where's a fun place one can play.
I'm far more into playing the game and enjoying the nuances of the playing filed than I am at evaluating them ::)
-
Jeff, and I ask this highly leading question with respect, if you consider the best as different from the most fun, then doesn't that make you the golf mags' willing executioner? Why perpetuate the magazines' definition instead of the right one? I will note these people are asking your professional advice. If they want the magazines' advice just send them to their websites.
-
I guess what amazes me the most is the entire culture built around rankings.
Imagine playing comp basketball/softball in return for rating the facilities.
Another thing that consistently nauseates me is when I am asked what's the "best" course in a particular city, state or region, rather than where's a fun place one can play.
I'm far more into playing the game and enjoying the nuances of the playing filed than I am at evaluating them ::)
Isn't the best and the most fun the same thing? I know you and Sean seem not to think so, but I don't really get it.
-
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.
What experience does Robert Parker have of growing grapes or making wine? What experience does Jeffrey Steingarten have of running a restaurant?
Conversely, there are plenty of folks who consume a lot of Reunite Lambrusco and McDonalds food, but that doesn't make them a reliable source for what is good and what isn't when it comes to wine and food.
Joe
So what? If your logic is that you do need to know how to make wine to be a fine judge of wine then it is clearly flawed. In fact, aside from equisite for being able to judge them, as Don Mahaffey was suggesting. Or do you believe that only architects can have a valid view on good golf?
-
Eating food and cooking food are separate endeavors, as is wine making and wine drinking, or golfing( golf course evaluating?) vs. golf course design/ building. We all know that.
My own opinion is that the most important quality of a discerning evaluator of things is that they have many varied experiences with the subject of which they proclaim to be an expert.
As an example, I have worked and learned a tremendous amount about golf courses/ design/ construction from Mike DeVries. One of the things that separates us in the ability to evaluate golf courses is that he has traveled FAR more than I have, specifically to study golf courses, their design and construction. I certainly can have an opinion about anything that he has an opinion about, but I think his should be more trustworthy due to his vast and varied experiences in this particular area of expertise. Also, there may be raters who are well traveled, but still don't possess much in-depth knowledge merely because they weren't fortunate enough to have a knowledgeable tutor willing to teach them what they can't otherwise learn on their own. Self-taught experts are the ones I would trust the least.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it is a complicated thing. The whole ratings/ rankings thing is rooted in money, for other than publicity and profit, there is no reason to participate. On the other hand, it is silly to expect any business (which, to my knowledge, every golf course is) has to make at least a certain amount to exist.
Joe
-
Joe,
I would regard both your view/opinion and Mike DeVries as equal. Why? Because you're both golfers (I'm assuming).
Golfers play the game and pay the green fee...therefore it makes sense if anyone should be rating courses- it should be golfers.
-
Joe
While I understand where you are coming from, I would still say there is a big difference between designing/building and playing. One would naturally assume the two are connected in some way and they probably are, but so what? In the case of playing, its the end user who ultimately decides on the merits of courses and of course, we are all different in that regard.
Mark
For me the biggest difference between fun and best simply comes down to taking on board the opinions of others I trust. I don't know as much as many people so I value their opinion even if I don't quite get it. But I am not gonna spend a lot of time listening to a guy tell me that because a course is fun that it must be among the best. Only I decide what is fun for me...its very personal. However, running down a list of the best courses isn't personal...its part of group think...otherwise everybody is just pissing into the wind. Best courses may have stuff on them I don't like which I think takes away from my fun factor, but I wouldn't say they aren't among the best merely because I don't like some of the stuff. Variety is important even if I don't care for some stuff....others may like it.
Ciao
-
I guess what amazes me the most is the entire culture built around rankings.
Imagine playing comp basketball/softball in return for rating the facilities.
Another thing that consistently nauseates me is when I am asked what's the "best" course in a particular city, state or region, rather than where's a fun place one can play.
I'm far more into playing the game and enjoying the nuances of the playing filed than I am at evaluating them ::)
Isn't the best and the most fun the same thing? I know you and Sean seem not to think so, but I don't really get it.
Mark,
The best and most fun usually mean the same to me, but I'd say not to Sean who definitely makes a distinction.
I think Sean would definitely give you two different answers for "favorites" and "best".
But then I consider Pennard, North Berwick, and Brora three of the best courses in the world, and others would rank their well known neighbors well ahead in their respective areas as well as the world.
-
I'm already pulling this idea apart while writing so please don't think I'm not aware of some of the many shortcomings but......
.....in view of all the nonsense going on with ratings generally, would it be such a terrible thing, such a truly, utterly terrible thing, if this forum produced some sort of ranking? This site, after all, has to be the only global union with the knowledge and wherewithal to produce such a thing without being sucked in by less than virtuous influences.
Just saying.
-
Greg -
I think panelists need to be proficient players. Do they need to be scratch or low single digit players? No. But they need to be able to manage a golf ball around a course. They should be able to hit golf shots and generally play a hole the way it was designed to be played.
If you subscribe to the oft-repeated GCA mantra that "good design" is creating golf holes that are playable by a range of golfers, how do you go about defining how a hole "was designed to be played?"
By understanding that good design is accessible (in strategic terms) to a wide variety of abilities. In other words, looking at the hole through multiple sets of eyes.
Joe
Joe,
That's my point. Proficiency in play has nothing to do with it, proficiency in analysis does.
Sven
If this is so, then I argue the rater "proficient in analysis" must have sufficient experience watching golf shots by players of varying abilities, which implies they have significant experience playing the game.
For the purpose of rating top golf courses, one does not have to discern between a bad course and a good course. He/she has to discern the difference between very good and great.
I also think that architectural features should be considered in the context of how they affect experienced golfers. How they affect the beginner golfer is not very important.
Finally, I think a course should be evaluated on more than how fun it is. For instance, I consider the quality and beauty of the walk or journey through the park as a significant factor.
-
I'm already pulling this idea apart while writing so please don't think I'm not aware of some of the many shortcomings but......
.....in view of all the nonsense going on with ratings generally, would it be such a terrible thing, such a truly, utterly terrible thing, if this forum produced some sort of ranking? This site, after all, has to be the only global union with the knowledge and wherewithal to produce such a thing without being sucked in by less than virtuous influences.
Just saying.
Been there done that.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27002.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29061.0.html
-
Greg
While I think I do get the point you are making, I would ask you the following:
As a golf destination, what is your target market? Covers the spectrum of golfers ability wise though narrowed based on income
Are suggesting the opinions of those who aren't better than average players with no knowledge of golf architecture are not to be considered? When defining and ranking courses supposedly based on primarily architectural factors... yes, there are some who have no real input to such a discussion
Being that the majority of all golfers are in fact poor players who don't care much for architecture and all its sub topics, are you not effectively restricting your options by placing less value on their views? Not interested on a course being ranked higher because they have a great clubhouse or great food stations on the course.
Wouldn't the greatest ratings cover a wide range of abilities and agendas and having a couple of complete hacks leave your facility having thoroughly enjoyed themselves and your course be the best outcome or are you only interested in having a bunch of GCA type golf nerds play at your course? That is an entirely different scenario and something we obviously work on as well given the fact that the overall experience for the vast majority is probably <20% golf course design and >80% other factors.
-
Greg - would it destroy your argument if you were to find out:
1) Said publication actually has a lengthy application that must be filled out (and I assume is vetted/reviewed, see #2) prior to acceptance.
2) A good friend of mine, who thoroughly filled out said application, was denied by said publication this past year.
I don't believe they accept every Tom, Dick and Hairy as you state. In fact, it appears to be just the opposite.
The fundamental premise to your argument is potentially flawed...........................just sayin'.................
Interesting but not destroying my "argument" which is simply stating that monetizing the system beyond selling hits and magazines is a bit much. Again, they have created what amounts to a very inexpensive international golf club going that not only includes access to some private facilities but comp or discounted golf at any number of high end public/resort facilities.
The fact that someone was turned down is surprising and would actually restore some respect for the system.
-
I'm already pulling this idea apart while writing so please don't think I'm not aware of some of the many shortcomings but......
.....in view of all the nonsense going on with ratings generally, would it be such a terrible thing, such a truly, utterly terrible thing, if this forum produced some sort of ranking? This site, after all, has to be the only global union with the knowledge and wherewithal to produce such a thing without being sucked in by less than virtuous influences.
Just saying.
Been there done that.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27002.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29061.0.html
Should have made reference to these and explained that I was thinking of something a little more public and, as well as a World's Top, say, 100, national and regional lists to boot.
The most recent review I've seen of British courses was offered up by Golf Monthly and was able to poor as usual.
-
Greg:
I think the quality of a panel is a valid and interesting topic. Here are some thoughts:
1. Magazines should first ask any applicant to the panel for a list of every golf course that he has played to date. Simply put, I have played with panelists with little experience on great courses and their opinion is usually flawed. Everyone has been there at a time. Just think back to "that course" that you once thought was as good as golf got. It is usually embarrassing.
2. Magazines should next ask what you have done to enhance your knowledge of great golf courses. If one hasn't at least read the books by Thomas, Mackenzie, Doak, Tillinghast, Colt, Ross and others, they shouldn't be rating a course. Without being educated on a topic, how can you be asked to apply the necessay standards. You would be surprised how many panelists can't discuss basic architectural principles.
3. While it is not necessary for a panelist to be a great player (in fact I don't think most pros know much about great architecture), there has to be a base skill level.... and Mike Keiser, Tom Doak and Brad Klein all qualify. You need the ability to see different shots and the value of those shots based on the design of holes. Often the better players can see these types of options and thus rate the variety of shots needed for a course. Average players that have this ability are usually based on their love for the topic of golf architecture. However, I do agree that a 20+ handicap shouldn't be involved unless age has caught up with him.
4. I would never comp a rater if I was a course. If you are Shadow Creek or Pebble Beach and you want to offer a discounted rate so it is not so expensive, that is fine, as a rater shouldn't have to go broke rating courses. However, courses shouldn't buy ratings, just as magazines shouldn't profit off ratings. There has to be some middle ground on this issue. If members don't play for free, neither should a rater.
Don't know if this is of any value. Just some thoughts.