[mike_malone]

 Do real raters , slope and course rating, get comped ?

[THuckaby2]

Cabell:

You would expect all raters to always pay all of their own green fees?  Do restaurant raters do that?  Sorry my friend, that's just plain impractical, a standard that's far higher than ought to be expected.  The better answer is the magazines pay the fees their expenses, and at least in the real world outside of Dan King's fantasies, that's just not going to happen.  So what do you suggest be done?

Dan:

OK, I guess we've gone as far as we can with this.  I just believe you're putting WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much stock into me, Mike Cirba, and a few other COURSE RATING PANELISTS (I'm gonna keep putting that in caps  ) arguing against you in here.  Sorry my friend, but I just don't see anyone but the "freaks in here" (and I include myself in this) giving a damn about this issue one way or the other.  The magazines love the ratings as is; the general public loves the ratings as is; the courses love how it's done as it is.  

I'd agree that if "Basic Reviewing 101" were followed, the course ratings and rankings would be more fairly done.  Hell that's just plain logic.

I just don't see that it's ever going to happen.  And I also don't see the huge harm being done as things are right now, so I don't see this as a fight worth fighting.

But you do, you believe, you are Dan Quixote.  That's very cool.

And by the way, I have no doubt you have plenty of fun; in fact I'd guess your life entails more pure fun than anyone I know.  All I meant by saying that before is that it's the sole focus of my life; that is, I don't do "causes."

And I admire those that do.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Do real raters , slope and course rating, get comped ?

Uh oh, the dirty secret is about to come out....

HELL YES WE DO!

I'm wondering why that could possibly be considered as anything but fair.  We're coming in to do a service - which we do.  Would anyone then expect us to PAY for playing the course, which is actually a part of the service?  It helps us confirm the measurements and judgments we make in doing the rating....

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

I have read this whole thread with great interest, as I do every time a rating thread comes up.  I am not a rater, have never been a rater.  I'd really love to be one, but realistically, because of a lack of financial wherewithal, won't be one ever, so I've got no dog in this hunt.

That said, it seems to me that the criticisms of raters and rating systems all boil down to this statement, which I made up just now.

"Your ratings are flawed, at least in relation to how I would rate golf courses.  Either the way you/your magazine rates courses is not what I would do if I were the King of the World, or you don't know enough, or you're on the take and have become a stooge for the golf-industrial complex."

I think ratings are great fun.  I love looking at them, mentally agreeing and disagreeing with them, discussing them with friends, counting courses I've played from various lists, and so on.  I like golf courses a lot, and I've played some that I thought should be ranked somewhere, or ranked higher, and some that I thought were ranked too high somewhere or other.  But I see no need to wake up the night worrying about them, and don't worry or care about whether or not the raters paid to play.  They're just kind of fun to look at.  They provide me with info about places I might want to see someday that I probably wouldn't have otherwise.

My guess is that raters are probably guys like me; they love golf to a greater extent than is probably healthy.  If the main criticism of ratings is that goobers like me don't always get it right, then welcome to life!

What's the harm?

[Mike_Cirba]

A.G.

Bingo.  You're a very perceptive fellow.  

[mike_malone]

 Tom,
   

    That is what I thought. I think the "rankers" are seen as also doing a service  as well by most clubs. We have no problem comping them .


  This whole "rankers" thing pales in comparison with the real problems of the world like how the Eagles have crumbled this year with the T.O. ordeal

   

[THuckaby2]

Mayday, I'm no Eagles fan, but you have very aptly put this into quite perfect perspective.

See why I am so dubious about the real-world chances of Dan's groundswell of indignation?  Who gives a rat's ass about this?

 

[Jason Blasberg]

I think therein lies part of the crux of your problem with ratings.  Philosophically, you don't believe it's possible to compare and contrast say, Pacific Dunes vs Quaker Ridge vs Rustic Canyon.  While each occupies different types of landforms and environments, I do believe it's possible, even interesting, to compare how they each use (or not) the existing land, how they are routed to take best advantage of the property, how interesting and fun the individual holes are, how balanced, varied, and perplexing are the strategies, how the properties are maintained for golf, how clever and coordinated with the land are the greens and their complexes, how are artificial features like bunkers utilized, etc.etc.etc...

Mike:

I agree 100% and have realized that for better or worse Dan has a much greater interest in bashing magazine rating lists and those that participate in them than discussing the architectural merits of various courses.  

I went through this with him already on the GCMC vs. Pebble thread.  He offers little substance and lots of arm chair criticism.  

Oh well.  I hope Dan can channel some of his energy toward actual GCA.

Jason

[Matt_Ward]

Jim N:

The issue of comp golf is clearly something that detracts from the actual findings any publication provides. Those courses not selected will always wonder what was offered by those that were selected.

The broader issue is twofold: perception by those being rated and the credibility of the findings / re: the reader. What makes Consumer Reports so powerful is that they don't take outside advertising -- there's no connection whatsoever between the product and the review.

Jim -- with all due respect -- yes, there are people who will be influenced by how they are treated at a given facility and fail to really comprehend the kind of golf course they have played.  


Huck:

If what I say is redundant I have a simple soluiton -- simply bypass it. End of story.

There are very practical ways in doing what I suggested -- it's not that there isn't a way in doing it -- it's simply a mindset by the magazines to avoid doing it.

One other thing -- raters often see the issue from one clear perspective -- as raters -- therefore the self interest trumps all other elements. The point of a magazine or any publication of standing is to preserve, and in many instances, enhance their own credibility. When the issue of credibility is sacrificed on the altar of expediency then the reader is the party who is really compromised.


John VB:

Pipe down please about my "whine." I've done ratings for the top tier magazines for a number of years and understand the process -- pro & con -- better than most -- including you.

You've misfired on a few things --

The glut of information that exists today doesn't necessitate the use of raters. Magazines, particularly those that stay on top of the industry, could easily do all the research and evaluation from an in-house perspective.

When Digest first introduced raters into the process the amount of information concerning second and third tier courses was extremely limited. That's not the case today.

Keep in mind what I said before -- free information is not necessarily informed, consistent or immune from built-in bias to a particular region or courses. Digest is now frankly laughable with their findings as they go with the Zagat Guide's approach to course assessments.

While there are a number of raters who do a fine job for the different publications the appearance of being "bought" by offering a comped round can muddy the waters of objectivity and cause an "appearance" issue for the magazines themselves. What's even more disconcerting is that some of the magazines permit their chief architectural critic to be an active participant in the very industry they critique.

John, I can appreciate your desire to purchase items in a pro shop of a course you visit -- but c'mon let's be a bit more sincere -- you are doing that simply to "pay back" your host for the comp round. It's nice gesture on your part but clearly one "influenced" by the comp round you've been given.

Ratings are not going away for the clear reasons you mentioned. Updating the process can be done and frankly the results will still be subjective but at least the legitimate questions raised now can forever put aside.

P.S. I don't always agree with Robert Parker -- but I do respect what he has to say.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Apologies for that.  It was frustration due to too many "opponents" at once.  I remain VERY interested in your take re this.  So please do explain IN PRACTICAL TERMS why the magazines would change, and what's going to make them do so.  I can't see it happening.  Enlighten me.

Do you really think one or more of the magazines is going to go to a Robert Parker, one-man type of system?

And if they do, isn't there a very inherent danger of these ratings just being HIS view, clouded by HIS biases?

And how would you suggest HE remain anonymous, as would be required if fair ratings are to result - you know, Basic Reviewing 101 principles?  How is HE going to get on all of these private clubs he needs to see?

It's an intriguing idea.  I just find it more of Dan King's utopia.  But please do explain.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Mea culpa accepted. Now back to the issue at hand ...

Information today is clearly present to know what's happening in the field of courses / architecture. Raters were needed years back when such info sources were not readily available for practical reasons.

This is especially so with the second / third tier level of courses that frankly few people -- outside their immediate region -- would have known. The same thing applies to lesser known architects who didn't have the services of publicists or deep pocket developers to spread their successes.

That's not the case today.

Information is available and the idea that magazines NEED raters is not so. The issue is that magazines have gotten comfortable / lazy with the idea in recruiting raters for such purposes and at the same time thrown the relationship they need to nurture with their readers overboard.

I don't doubt there are a number of fine raters who provide good information. However, too many are simply in it for the access issue. Huck -- you can disagree with me on this -- but frankly it does happen a good bit more than you are inclined to believe.

Free information is also limiting because of issues dealing with parochial concerns / regionalism, etc, etc.

The magazines could easily go in-house and have their chief architectural critic do the work -- but also insisting that such person not be out in the field doing design work for themselves.

Good reporters / critics can easily find out what's happening within the field. I know this to be so because I have my sources throughout the country / world that I can regularly touch base within terms of what is happening in their "neck of the woods" and I relay information on concerning places in my section of the country and elsewhere.

Digest has lost plenty of ground in terms of course ratings. As the publication with the greatest standing it can amend how it handles the process used. Unfortunately, the Orlando love-fest / schmooze is more about the magazine making $$ from those attending than any real effort in seeing what is happening within architecture / course design today.

[Jim Nugent]

Guys, I understand and agree with the potential problems from comping.  Would like to see the real-life evidence of it.  Which courses are overrated, because they gave some freebies to some raters?

I've asked several times, but haven't seen any examples yet.  Do you have liability concerns?  

[A.G._Crockett]

Matt:

Apologies for that.  It was frustration due to too many "opponents" at once.  I remain VERY interested in your take re this.  So please do explain IN PRACTICAL TERMS why the magazines would change, and what's going to make them do so.  I can't see it happening.  Enlighten me.

Do you really think one or more of the magazines is going to go to a Robert Parker, one-man type of system?

And if they do, isn't there a very inherent danger of these ratings just being HIS view, clouded by HIS biases?

And how would you suggest HE remain anonymous, as would be required if fair ratings are to result - you know, Basic Reviewing 101 principles?  How is HE going to get on all of these private clubs he needs to see?

It's an intriguing idea.  I just find it more of Dan King's utopia.  But please do explain.

TH

I would add that if the concerns include comped rounds unfairly influencing the rater(s), then wouldn't it be VASTLY easier to influence one than a panel?

[THuckaby2]

AGC - absolutely.  That's a VERY BIG landmine for what Matt seems to be suggesting.

But he's good at this stuff; let's give him a chance to explain.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I get all of that.  I also have absolutely no doubt that some, if not most, raters are in it for the access and/or free golf.  I am absolutely not ashamed to say that's at least part of my motivation.

But you didn't address any of the practical concerns.

So I'll try again:

Do you really think one or more of the magazines is going to go to a Robert Parker, one-man type of system?

And if they do, isn't there a very inherent danger of these ratings just being HIS view, clouded by HIS biases?

And how would you suggest HE remain anonymous, as would be required if fair ratings are to result - you know, Basic Reviewing 101 principles?  How is HE going to get on all of these private clubs he needs to see?

And as AGC asks, wouldn't it be VERY easy for a course to influence HIM with favorable treatment, at least more so than influencing a larger number of panelists?

It's an intriguing idea.  I just find it more of Dan King's utopia.  But please do explain.

2nd try.

 

[Dan King]

Mike Cirba writes:
You claim to only want to "fix" the system, yet you also say that "The rankings might be a decent idea (I personally think courses that have nothing in common competing against each other is a bad idea)".  

I think therein lies part of the crux of your problem with ratings.

I don't think that is true. I believe my problem is integrity. There are lots of people here and elsewhere who I think very highly of that have apparently been bamboozled into thinking integrity doesn't matter.

I got no problem with reviews, I got no problem with information on great and near great courses. I think ranking the actual courses is silly and a waste of time, but if you are going to do it why not try and do it with integrity?

Isn't it Spring City in China that had all sorts of cool junkets for Golf Digest rankers that now sits at No. 51 and No. 52 on the world golf list?

If I'm remembering the course correctly, didn't they buy their position on the list?

Your premise is also based on the very faulty assumption that raters are selling out to the highest bidder, so to speak.  Dan, if a rater is willing to take a full day and drive 3 hours each way to play and rate a course, or fly across the country to see courses that need seeing (which all raters I know do on a regular basis), then the comping of a 50-100 green fee is a very small part of that financial equation.

So then stop accepting it.

Why give the smell of corruption when it is such a small part of it? Not only are you guys selling out, you are selling out cheaply. It makes no sense to me. For the lousy 50-100 green fee you could have a ranking that is beyond reproach, but you'd rather get the special treatment of a comp round.

If votes were up for sale, I can assure you we'd see a much different listing from all of the magazines.

I'll just try it again. Comp'ing a round can't shine sh&% and it won't necessarily add or detract from the best. But when you are ranking courses, and some courses are convinced there is some monetary difference between being a top-30 course and a top-100 course, then you open yourself up to be bought. And you guys welcome the invitation and allow the courses to buy you cheaply. Doesn't matter if the comp round influences your decision personally or not, it still stinks.

They comp rounds because in the long run it works. Perhaps not with you, perhaps not with Adam and perhaps not with Huckaby, but you guys are just small cogs in a system.

It works.

Frankly Dan, I don't see the darkness you're portraying.  Instead, I see a 13 year old golf-struck kid who only knows golf courses thru what is portrayed by the PGA tour weekly sitting somewhere is Oshkosh, WI, or Boise, ID and getting his monthly or weekly magazine and wondering about places like National Golf Links, and/or Fishers Island, and/or The Kingsley Club and being intrigued about what makes them great.

I just quickly read through the "Who are you guys" thread. I saw lots of reasons for getting into golf architecture. I only saw one mention the rankings. It's a marketing tool, that's all the publications want it to be. If you truly ever want it to be more than that you are going to have to start to recognize the darkness in the way the lists are created.

I would also point out that the VAST, VAST (90%) majority of courses that raters end up visting to play NEVER end up on any ranking listing, comped rounds or not.

How would the conspiracy theorists explain that one?

I don't know. Either they are doing this as a public service, or they would like to be ranked. Maybe not in the top-100 but aren't there also lists like best in the state and best in the area?

What do you think, are they comp'ing you as a public service or because they want something in return?

Jason Blasberg writes:
I agree 100% and have realized that for better or worse Dan has a much greater interest in bashing magazine rating lists and those that participate in them than discussing the architectural merits of various courses.

Jason has figured out my ulterior motive. Is makes no sense, but what the hell, he has this theory.

He also thinks I don't put enough thought into my posts. Hey Jason, how much thought did you put into your post?

He offers little substance and lots of arm chair criticism.  

Your still a funny guy.

Oh well.  I hope Dan can channel some of his energy toward actual GCA.

Please first supply a list of subjects you think are valid for discussion. I'd hate go to the trouble of channeling my energy only to accidentally criticize one of your sacred cows.

Dan King

Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
 --Samuel Johnson

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Tell ya what?  I'll stop accepting comps when restaurant reviewers start paying their own tabs.

Why you expect us to pay 100% of our own freight - to live to this higher standard, not allowing ourselves any benefit of the doubt - is mind-boggling to me.

But the again, I don't do causes.  You do.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Guys, guys, guys ...

Wake up and smell the coffee.

You totally bypassed my original point. Years ago raters were needed from an information point because few people really knew about quality courses beyond the first tier (e.g. Medinah, Pebble, Oak Hill, Southern Hills, etc, etc).

The information sources today are vastly superior to what we had no more than ten years ago -- forget about 30 years ago. One other thing -- too often raters are too directly tied to their region or selected courses. They see the picture in their backyard but not the broad national overview.

Huck:

No doubt if Digest or other magazines had one person doing the assessing it would be that person's viewpoint. So what. When Frank Rich of the NY Times used to opine on a Broadway play or musical I knew it was HIS opinion. I didn't have to receive some sort of CONSENSUS ASSESSMENT that often times is simply ill-reasoned because it's nothing more than a hodge-podge of comments -- many of which are badly informed.

Frankly, the consistency of one person's reasoning would be front and center instead of this oatmeal stir-it-up in the bowl formula you see now. At least that one person could provide the kind of CROSS COMPARISON assessments that very few raters are able to do today.

Regarding access -- Huck c'mon. I have access to a multitude of private courses and I don't possess the kind of gravitas that a top editor at Digest, or Magazine has. There are plenty of ways to get the access you mention through a range of contacts / sources within the industry. What is an issue to you and others is not that big of a deal.

The magazines don't go the one-man way because they are getting free information now from people who would grovel to get on the courses in question. It works for everyone -- save the reader.

[mike_malone]

 I played last week at my club with a ranker from "way out West". Needless to say he would not have played our course if he were not on a panel.


    He was comped , but did not ask for it. He was a +1. He travels in his job. He loves to experience new courses.He played Merion and Aronimink on the same trip.He was a gentleman who was a pleasure to be with.

  It seems that the magazines and this type of guy have a marriage made in heaven. He gets to play some neat places. We get a chance to impress someone who appeciates good courses because he has experienced many of them. The magazine gets input without paying for it.

   I guess there are abuses to this arrangement , but they get wiped out in the final analysis if enough data gets collected.

    I doubt that the solutions proposed would lead to significantly better lists.

[David Ober]

I believe raters should not be comped.

I like rankings.

I want to be a golf course rater.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Ok, that makes sense to me.  That's real-life, practical discussion, staying out of utopias.  Many thanks.

So it could be done.  But I concur with you that they have no interest in doing it - very well said here:

The magazines don't go the one-man way because they are getting free information now from people who would grovel to get on the courses in question. It works for everyone

up until this part:  

-- save the reader.

Where are all of these readers complaining about the ratings?  Who really cares if they aren't done as perfectly as they could be?  That part I don't get.

Also, say we do go to the one-man system.  I'd still be leery of one guy's take, but at least we'd know about him, know what to expect, take the rankings in that light.  I also think the potential for ass-kissing him and thus overly influencing his opinion would be HUGE.  Do you also so quickly give up the ANONYMOUS part of Basic Reviewing 101?

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
It's an intriguing idea.  I just find it more of Dan King's utopia.  But please do explain.

All sorts of publications manage to have top lists without relying on the items being reviewed paying for the reviews. If integrity were to suddenly be important to Golf Digest they could have a team of trained rankers go out and measure courses using the exact same technique they use now, only paid now by the publication.  Who knows, maybe the list would look exactly the same, but it sure would smell nicer.

What makes golf so special that it can only create lists that stink of corruption? What makes golf unqiue that they can ignore Basic Reviewing 101?

It is more than likely Richard Nixon would have won the 1972 election. Does that somehow make the dirty tricks okay?

Tell ya what?  I'll stop accepting comps when restaurant reviewers start paying their own tabs.

Restaurant reviewers do not pay their own tab, the publication pays. This has been mentioned numerous times and it is only you choosing to ignore it.

I'm sure that Golf Digest thinks they have a good thing with courses paying for their own reviews. Hopefully someday their readers will force them to grow some ethics (highly unlikely with Golf Digest and their new partnership with the PGA Tour. Watch for many more TPCs.)

Dan King

There will be no whitewash in the White House.
 --Richard Nixon

[A.G._Crockett]

Guys, guys, guys ...

Wake up and smell the coffee.


The magazines don't go the one-man way because they are getting free information now from people who would grovel to get on the courses in question. It works for everyone -- save the reader.

I'm a guy.  I can smell the coffee.  I'm a reader.  It works for me.  What am I missing?

By the way, Matt, whom do you have in mind as the one-man rating czar for the world of golf?

[THuckaby2]

Dan, Dan, Dan.

I am NOT ignoring anything.  I have agreed MANY TIMES that if the magazines pay, that's a huge improvement.

I've just tried to show, and others have concurred, the many reasons why that is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

So please, let's get this straight, once and for all.  IT'S A GREAT IDEA.  I agree with you.

But can we live in today's reality, PLEASE?

And in today's reality, I'll stop accepting comps when someone else pays the fees for me.

There, is that better?

 

Oh man, you are a tough nut when you have a cause.

[Michael Moore]

Years ago raters were needed from an information point because few people really knew about quality courses beyond the first tier (e.g. Medinah, Pebble, Oak Hill, Southern Hills, etc, etc).

The information sources today are vastly superior to what we had no more than ten years ago -- forget about 30 years ago.

Ward brings up a very good point here.

The proverbial muni-raised yet curious thirteen year-old is going to end up on golfclubatlas.com and, like many of us, spend seven or eight hours blasting through each course review.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()