[ChasLawler]

Cabell:

You forget these courses are ASSIGNED.  There's little choice in the matter; not if you want to stay in good standing, that is.

I also understand your point re access to private clubs, also - it is a nice perk.

I'm just trying to explain a bit how this works.  To me, expecting us to pay all of our expenses is just too much to ask.  You might think that's what we ought to do, and hold us to this higher standard.  Fair enough.

But which of us actually does course ratings?

 

When I said don't do it - I meant don't be a rater at all if you're not willing to pay your own way. The benefit of access should offset the cost being a rater.

FWIW - I'm not a rater and have absolutely no interest in becoming a rater.

But justs for sh*ts and giggles, what kind of financial burden are you really talking about?

[Dan King]

George Pazin writes:
Dan-O, I admire your battle, but if integrity is lost in most of the world where it has tangible and often devastating results - and I think that it is - then what chance do you or Geoff have in rediscovering it in the area of golf course rankings, where the results really only matter to a few? It's an interesting intellectual argument, but it has a surprisingly simple solution. The only problem is the parties involved have no reason to implement that solution.

I think your right. I should have probably given up this thread a while ago. GolfObserver is down with some sort of internal problem and a team of trained monkeys is furiously trying to accidentally solve the problem, so I got some free time.

Part of the issue is that there are people I think highly of in this group. And they seem to be unwilling to notice the problems with the system (not you Huckaby. I understand you know the system shortcomings but don't want to give up the perks.) (Oh and obviously not you Jason Blasberg.) They are defending a broken system, saying it works because they are good people.

Probably a lot like religion and politics, not something that can be discussed in polite society. In my family we can discuss most anything other than religion and abortion. Maybe it is time to go back to ignoring all ranking threads.
 
Dan King

It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.
 --Dean Inge

[Mike Hendren]

I lack the discipline to turn away from this train wreck.  Please let it go boys.

Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

 Please let it go boys.

I dont see how we can, when the French are revolting!

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

The "special" treatment starts as soon as the rater announces he / she is coming to the facility. Often times facilities will attempt to pair you with someone associated with the club to give you the lowdown on all the elements there.

I don't blame the clubs in trying to sell themselves though. They are simply trying to position themselves against all competition.

Regarding the identity issue -- I don't see how a person could not be successful. Frankly, the person could easily come in unnannounced and scope out what needs to be looked at without all the pomp and circumstance.

Would such a person be too powerful? So what if he does? The standing of such a critic depends upon how well-reasoned they are and how well they can offer cross comparisons as needed in their writings.

One other thing -- I would believe such a person would be above and beyond the ass-kissing you mention. Clearly, the person doing such reviews is well aware of such attempts and by flying under the radar. With no announcements it would be a clear sign that such attempts would likely be to no avail.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I can say with absolute candor and honesty that the special treatment you describe has NEVER occurred to me, in all the "ratings rounds" I have done.  Not once.  But again, I am peon Huckaby, not the great Matt Ward.

As for the rest, you haven't answered how he is going to remain anonymous, which is required by Basic Reviewing 101.  Furthermore, how is a non-member to swoop in unannounced at a private club, particularly the great ones that are the typical subjects of course ratings?  SOMEONE is always going to know, and the Super Rater as a GUEST will always be beholden to SOMEONE for his access.  No magazine has memberships or contacts at every single club in the country.  And remember, as much as you trust this Super Rater's good intentions, two issues remain:

1. It's still his view and his alone, and I'm never going to be sure that's better than a consensus of many views;

but more importantly

2. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That's a great quote worthy of the end of a Dan King post. It surely bears great relevance here.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I'll take one well reasoned and well traveled golf critic over some peanut galley grouping of golf wannabees any time. Far too many raters are simply in it for the free golf they can grab and Huck, if you are being totally honest / sincere, you would admit as much.

No doubt there are some solid raters -- but in my experiences you can count that number to be less than 50 at best.

You fail AGAIN to see the failure of consensus ratings -- first off you have a number of people who could not rate burgers let alone golf courses. Digest believes that by adding panelists you increase coverage. That's not what's needed. Adding people to be raters only adds more raters. Many of these fine folks are simply regional in their scope and far too often the neighborhood bias shows its head.

When you have consensus thinking you have nothing more than a hodge-podge of different numbers. To believe that somehow the "perfect" score will emerge is fantasy land with all due respect.

Huck -- please help me stop laughing with this drivel abot absolute power -- this isn't Watergate partner. The person occupying that chair would be no less held accountable for their actions as other key critics are. Ben Brantley who does Broadway reviews for The NY Times is an important player in the scope of such reviews. His voice is meaningful because of the platform he has. Does that make him the one and only true critic? Far from it.

Critics in such positions would need to demonstrate a capacity for solid analysis and clearly there would be times when disagreements are assured. However, the isolation of one critic beats by a large margin the idea that some huge grouping of people / raters will know more and are capable in providng the kind of cross comparisons that are ultimately needed and can only be accomplished by someone fullyable to play the candidates in question.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

We shall agree to disagree re the worth of one v. the worth of a consensus.  OF COURSE some raters are in it for the free golf or more correctly, access to more golf - hell I sure am and I've admitted it many times already - but that also doesn't automatically make my views worthless.  The point anyway isn't the quality of the reviewers - the point remains that a consensus or many views just does have its worth.  However knowledgeable, honorable, wonderful the Super Rater is, well it's always going to be just his view.  I assume he is human, right?  Thus he is subject to moods, whims, ass-kissing, good days, fights with the wife, getting a ticket on the way to the course, whatever.  

That's the point.  It's rather hard to have those things happen to a consensus.

But ok, let's say this Super Rater is above all that.

He still can be corrupted.  Learn from history, Matt.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea.  I'm just not agreeing it's so cut and dried better than what exists now.

In any case, yes he will make cross-comparisons better than will a consensus.  No need to state that again.  I get it.

I'm just not at all sure that benefit outweighs the other very real potential negatives.

Interesting how we are both arguing for our self-interest here, btw.  At least I admit it.  Make ME the super-rater, pay me for it, allow me to continue living here in God's country, and I'll agree with every word you say.

 

[George Pazin]

Matt:

I can say with absolute candor and honesty that the special treatment you describe has NEVER occurred to me, in all the "ratings rounds" I have done.  Not once.  But again, I am peon Huckaby, not the great Matt Ward.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that remembers all the welcome signs at Black Mesa, the money changing hands, the young ladies waiting at the hotel....

You're mighty opinionated for a newbie.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

HA!  Gotcha.  As you'll recall, I showed up late for that.  I was given the comp - later than all the rest - but I was not given any other preferential treatment.  If welcome wagons were out, they sure weren't for me.  And the only "lady" waiting in my room was my friend Freddie.

And yeah, I really do need to be put in my place.  How rude I am.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

PS - I guess it is just me.  I sure as hell remember the "welcome wagon" put out for the course rating panelists at the Barona outing... but at that point I was not yet one of them!  Oh I gave massive shit to those who were.

And then when I organized the Pasa and Stevinson outings, they gave no breaks to such slimey people.....

This is getting more and more funny the more I think about it.  Oh sure, I don't doubt such things occur.  Just not for me.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

This whole idea of a single, super, mega-rater who is well-travelled, benevolent, wise, experienced, and fair is complete hogwash.  How many courses could this one person play, for starters?

If anyone believes that the wisdom of a single individual is somehow superior to the collected wisdom of the average of a few hundred well-travelled, benevolent, wise, experienced, and fair individuals then we should be presently praying to Emperor George Bush or Emperor John Kerry (trying to remain non-partisan) and put the rest of our collective wisdom to bed.

[Dan King]

I've decided I'd like to nominate Jason Blasberg for this ranking czar position. He's a thoughtful guy. He sometimes puts so much thought into his posts that they don't even include words, just punctuation.

Jason Blasberg writes:
...

Dan King

Many people have delusions of grandeur but you're deluded by triviality.
 --Eugéne Ionesco (Exit the King)

[Mike_Young]

Huck:

I'll take one well reasoned and well traveled golf critic over some peanut galley grouping of golf wannabees any time. Far too many raters are simply in it for the free golf they can grab and Huck, if you are being totally honest / sincere, you would admit as much.

No doubt there are some solid raters -- but in my experiences you can count that number to be less than 50 at best.

You fail AGAIN to see the failure of consensus ratings -- first off you have a number of people who could not rate burgers let alone golf courses. Digest believes that by adding panelists you increase coverage. That's not what's needed. Adding people to be raters only adds more raters. Many of these fine folks are simply regional in their scope and far too often the neighborhood bias shows its head.

When you have consensus thinking you have nothing more than a hodge-podge of different numbers. To believe that somehow the "perfect" score will emerge is fantasy land with all due respect.

Huck -- please help me stop laughing with this drivel abot absolute power -- this isn't Watergate partner. The person occupying that chair would be no less held accountable for their actions as other key critics are. Ben Brantley who does Broadway reviews for The NY Times is an important player in the scope of such reviews. His voice is meaningful because of the platform he has. Does that make him the one and only true critic? Far from it.

Critics in such positions would need to demonstrate a capacity for solid analysis and clearly there would be times when disagreements are assured. However, the isolation of one critic beats by a large margin the idea that some huge grouping of people / raters will know more and are capable in providng the kind of cross comparisons that are ultimately needed and can only be accomplished by someone fullyable to play the candidates in question.

Matt,
You sum it it.  
If one was to ask the question..Why would a course comp a rater?  the truth to tis entire subject comes out.
Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

-- I'd say yes, it would effect my feeling about that day. I think I would still think I played a great course that day, but I know damn well I would have been more critical than I was.
Dan, Sorry I missed this response, Yes it was a great day, however, I do not follow. You're saying you'd have been more critical of the GCA, if it had cost you more $ ? Do you recall what I said as we walked off the 12th green? I hope so, because I cited you as a witness, to Sir Thomas of Huckaby, as to the jarring impact I felt due to the changes made at that point in the rouing. Most people would consider what I said to be critical. I just viewed it as speaking my mind. Would I have been more aware, or more critical, if the round had cost me more than the twenty I slipped your caddie? I don't think so.


For some reason the courses still seem willing to comp raters. Guess why? Can you think of any reason for their motives other than public service?

It seems more like a professional courtesy, than a bribe. Since the real cost to the golf course for comping any round is so small, and so far sunk, making it inconsequential to them.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Hogwash.

Really?

Mike -- the explosion of golf course information today advances the knowledge a good deal more than in years past when raters were necessary in order to provide a Lewis & Clark assessment of the terrain.

Let me point out in 1981 when Frank Hannigan authored a public course ratings article for Digest. Hannigan opined information on the top courses was rare / limited and likely no one had played the listing Digest published in that March issue (I had as well as several others).

Mike -- I know the number of courses I have played over the years and I don't think it would be onerous or outrageous for such a person to visit the key 50-75 courses in a given year. C'mon Mike -- you make it sound like the task is akin to finding coal in the hills of Pennsylvania.

When you say the "collected wisdom" of the group it's really stretching the point you are making. I mean do you really beieve such folks are like Jedi Knights!

In my experieces as a rater I would say no more than 20-25% at the very best of the people I have met are really capable in doing the kind of analysis / cross comparisons needed. Many are fine people but simply clueless for the most part. Yes, they enjoy golf and in most cases make for wonderful company but they have really little to offer. In many instances a number of these people have been asked to become raters for other reasons -- e.g., the club they belong to, the company they keep, the orbits they travel, etc, etc.

Information today is readily available on where the next wave of new and exciting courses is coming. Like I said before years back it wold be necessary for raters because there was no Internet or other mechanism available to gather the course information and provide some sort of critical cross comparisons. That's not the case today.

Mike, information today is known about courses EVEN BEFORE they open (e.g. Sebonack, Liberty National / Bayonne, the layouts at Bandon, etc, etc, etc).

Let me also point out that enterprising / smart critics would also have their own well developed sources throughout the country and can easily keep pace with what is happening. I do such a thing now and know of other folks who do likewise.

The issue many raters have with the singular all encompassing critic is that it would eliminate their role. No doubt someone like you Mike does a fine job. However, there is so much missed because so few raters really see the big picture. Too much is centered around neighborhood parochialism and the inability to really offer clear cut / insightful analysis that goes beyond the lame adjectives (good / bad) that are standard far for the bulk of those who do participate in such a role.

Magazines have critics now for a range of subjects and it does not take away one iota what is then published within their pages. I don't see golf course ratings being that different / unique for such a change to be made.

[Mike_Young]

For some reason the courses still seem willing to comp raters. Guess why? Can you think of any reason for their motives other than public service?

It seems more like a professional courtesy, than a bribe. Since the real cost to the golf course for comping any round is so small, and so far sunk, making it inconsequential to them.

Adam,
Professional coutesy?.....I just can't see it.  Yes, a few raters may have the ability to actually rate a course but many do not.....Until they try making a living in this golf business I can't see them being considered for professional courtesies.  Now someone will come on and say I am talking down to the people that do not do this professionally but that is not intended.   Maybe it is just that I have seen more abuse in the last few years than before...don't know.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike Y:  When I was in charge of the GOLF Magazine panel, more than half of the panelists were comped at courses as a professional courtesy, because they were in the golf business.  (That has changed substantially over the past few years.)

Others:  To take Mr. Huckaby's side for a minute (sorry the troops are late, I just got back from Mexico), I am aware of only a few courses which refuse to comp panelists out of principle, and practically all of them are ranked very highly in all the magazine lists.  If freebies are so important, why is that the case?  I will agree that freebies can make a difference when you are trying to split hairs [say between the 20th and 30th best course in New Jersey], but at the top of the scale it makes no difference.  The real problem with the rankings is that they try to go too deep and that everyone takes that seriously, when we should all know better.

Matt:  I agree with you that there is lots of information available on new courses nowadays, and that someone with a yen for travel [and some yen to pay for it] could get out and see all of the relevant courses every so often.

In fact, the thing about your proposed system is that the free market allows for it.  A respected critic doesn't need to hide his reviews behind GOLF DIGEST's masthead ... there is a market for this stuff, he could write a newsletter or a blog or a book   and sell it.  And if that critic is above being bribed, then it doesn't really matter whether he reviews courses anonymously or not.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()