[ForkaB]

A better rating system would utilise paid raters who visited courses anonymously, pay the full whack and get reimbursed later.  Of course, this is not possible due to both economics and the fact that the exclusivity of many great courses requires that raters have to "out" themselves to get on.

This lack of anonymity, however, leads to a serious problem which I don't think has been mentioned above.  I would be surprised (even astonished!) if a course which knew that a "rater" was coming didn't do their damnedest to "tune up" the maintenance meld, as well as make sure that all the staff was on their very best behavior.  I doubt if raters always get to see how a course plays day in day out, but maybe I am just too cynical......

[T_MacWood]

I agree with the lack of anonymity being a problem. I also think raters play far too may golf courses, courses that have no chance and dull the senses.

I'd go with a very small committee, maybe 12 to 18, made up of heavy weights. Individuals where access would not be a problem, and golfers who wouldn't break their neck to play the newest trendy course (they may not get to the course for 2 or 3 or 4 years if they get their at all). People like Whitten, Crenshaw, Shackelford, Morrissett, Doak, Wind, Klein, Tatum, Campbell, Eger, the late Pam Emory, A.Dye, Lisa Morrissett, etc.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff Fortson,
I'm with you. Enough bad apples to cast a shadow on the whole process from an operators view. I'm not talking about how the rankings come out, but how some go about it. In Arizona, a busy Saturday morning in Feb and some guy slaps some bullshit card on the counter claiming some special treatment because he's a "rater" for god knows who and he and his wife are ready to go to the first tee....happens a lot more then people think.

How come there are no superintendents/PGA guys on any of the rating panels?

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I agree with your assessment.  It seems that those that are either behind the counter or own courses view raters in a totally different light.  As Jeff F. saysTHE MAJORITY ARE GOOD but it only takes a few.
But you struck another chord in  your post.  At a course I am involved with we have always honored the PGA card.  However it was brought to our attention by our CGCS that at many courses they would not honor his Supt card even if he called ahead in proper fashion and let them know he was coming.  And yet he might have a PGA asst with him and he was comped.  The PGA card has sometimes become a problem for us in the winter as guys head south.  And it is soetimes abused by local assistant pros.  We have a policy now of only honoring a PGA card if the facility they are associated with honors the Supt card.

Someone mentions Golf world rankings...aren't they owned by golf digest???...Would you consider ranking and rating two different things???
 GOLFWEEK IS THE WAY TO GO  as most here would agree(I think)...they are the only ones that went out and paid the big bucks $$$$for a real professor.

If someone doesn't think it is a money maker for mags...which issue is the biggest seller each year.....and I don't know if it can be broken out as to how much value it is to a mag but it is expected and is used .  I'm not saying that is bad.....just that is the reason we came up with ratings...as a way to promote a mag....it is no different than a "ten best dressed list" or a "ten worst dressed list"..  or the SI swimsuit issue.  And another example...some of the best movies I have seen were given terrible ratings by the raters...

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Moriarty:

I think you are headed in the right direction, but I would go even further and pretty much ban course raters from playing the courses they rate. The freebie nonsense would then become a non issue.

[GeoffreyC]

David

During your recent trip to New York did you by chance pay greens fees at NGLA, Friar's Head or Fenway?  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David, I do like your point but i do not think it is correct. I would no more say a $250 green fee course is better than any other course whether I paid for it or not. I would be pissed if I did pay to play a course at that price that was bad like most people would. PGA National is such a course. I played it before I was a rater as a guest rate of the PGA Tour at $50.00 instead of the normal $275.00 at that time. My exact quote was that was worth about 50 to 75 dollars and really is at best an ok golf course. And I would never recommend someone to pay that kind of money to play this course. If I had payed $275.00, then I would have felt the same way and said the same thing just felt a little worse for the financial wear. I pay to see plenty of courses now and often just walk or ride the course rather than play. Rating courses to me is alot more than just getting to play at some really nice places. It is an opportunity to see different courses, take the time to understand what the course has to offer different types of players, the architecture, the routing, different types of holes in many settings, how land forms are used, strategy and try to fit the course into some order as to how it rates compared to its peers. As much as I like to play, I really from a rating point of view would rather walk the course and take a detailed look at the holes and maybe play 2 or 3 holes and hit some shots here and there.

[corey miller]

I do not know the answer to the problem, partly I am sure because all the raters I know are gentlemen.  However, the stories about raters above by Jeff F,Mike Y, and Don M are pretty disturbing and should be reported to the publications and the people should be terminated.

Another reason why a private club should not let raters on unaccompanied.

[THuckaby2]

David M.:

For a guy who said yesterday he doesn't care a bit about any magazine ratings, you sure seem to think about it a lot.

This whole premise - aimed at me, based on the fact I said I gave a favorable rating to a course you hate - seems to be to be very silly and mean-spirited.

In my own defense, given this was aimed at me:

Dave, how do you know where I've paid and where I haven't?  I'd have to guess I've paid to play golf WAY WAY WAY more than you think... I'd say my ratio is 30 paid rounds for every one "freebie", and that's just since I've started as a rater, a year and a half ago.  Even at the course in question, that Satan of all Golf called Moorpark - I PAID MY FEE, as did my family.  They were nice to give us a reduced fee, which I sure didn't turn down when they insisted... so sue me.  I do have a limited budget for these things - I am a man of limited means.

The rules for GD raters, anyway, is that we are to expect to pay, but if gratis is offered, we can take it.  At least for me, it's never any part of why I do a rating, and it is REALLY never a part of what my assessment comes out as.  

I find this whole thing pretty damn insulting.  Sure, there are bad raters who likely abuse this - but you've aimed this at ME, and you know a whole bunch of others, David.  I know I can speak for all the rest I know, and none of them are causing this "problem" you see.  Nor am I.

One more thing:  the assumption in your post that I don't have the perspective of the real world golfer is ludicrous.  The thought that I don't seek out hidden gems is even more ludicrous.  Maybe some raters act this way - I sure as hell do not.

Enough said.  You've gone way too far this time.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Young-

I suspect that much of this do-about-nothing thread is just to agitate for laughs.  The weather is bad in many part of the country and some of us might be bored.

However, there might be just a tad of underlying envy and sour grapes, to which the last sentence in my earlier reply references.  Of course, this was not directed at you; only to those that it fits.


Geoffrey-

Do you mean that Dr. Moriarty did not receive the Rater Carpet treatment in NY?  Well, at least he got to visit/play some Top 100 courses.  Was he by chance graced with an audience with the Top 100 lawyer now serving your fair state as a junior senator?  I can't wait till summer; Hillary, exorbitant guest fees and all!  Not that I am complaining, but we've spent some serious money on this little hobby for the last couple of years.  What is it about golf that leads grown men to act like we do?
     

[Jim_Michaels]

The problems with the ratings are not due to any conflict of interest, they are due to flaws in the methodology. GM has too few raters on whom they have placed too great a burden. Given their system, a rater effectively needs to have seen 300 of the 400 best courses in the world to have valid input.

GD asks questions that are biased toward harder courses over sportier ones, and the Tradition category allows their editors to manipulate the final rankings. They also have the statistical problems I have discussed previously.

GW artificially divides into the two categories that I, for one, reject. I play golf courses. I don't care when they were built. I want them to be good either way. The GW panelists seem to run the gamut of playing ability, which has its plusses and minuses, but clearly Dr. Klein seems to manipulate these results a bit as well.

At the end of the day, number 10 vs. number 15 is impossible to determine. But what all of these do, in general, is point out courses worthy of play. And that is not such a bad thing, is it.

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:

Dave said

"I am tiring of raters finding the positive in over-priced, crappy courses that are bad for golf and should have never been built."

That was pretty squarely aimed, based on the posts in the "Canyon" thread.

Thus my personal defense.

It's gonna be tough for me to argue this in a vacuum... But I do understand your logic, and concur with it.  I just wanted to explain why I posted as such above.

TH

[Doug Sobieski]

Jeff Fortson:

As far as not crying for people because of the expenses they rack up, I'm not sure if you read my reply or if I didn't make myself clear.

I am always willing to pay for something that I normally don't pay for because I ENJOY the rating process. I incur these expenses because I like to have a reason to go visit golf courses. I don't want people to feel sorry for me having to spend money. I just want it to be clear that we spend money on the process voluntarily because it's fun!!!

You probably understand where I'm coming from more than most people. As a PGA Professional, I could play golf without paying as often as I'd like if I wanted to impose on fellow members, but I choose to spend money seeking out courses on the ballot because I enjoy the process!!!!

Regards,

Doug

[corey miller]

Why is it necssary that a rater identify themselves at a course or club?  Wouldn't this solve the problem?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
I have no problem with comp golf for raters, writers, PGA, GCSAA if they simply call ahead and realize that I'm not going to give them a time I can sell. I have plenty of open times in non-peak periods to get anyone out. My beef is with the guy who makes a tee time with no mention of a comp, then walks in and throws his card on the counter and expects us to honor it. I told my staff in AZ, where it happened a lot in the winter, and my staff here in TX, where it never happens, to not honor any comps not approved by me. Simple curtesy is all I ask, and to be fair most understand and try and follow protocol. But, it's a bummer when you have a confrontaion at the counter on a busy day. I don't honor any comps from PGA or GCSAA that will not comp my staff. Again, it happened a lot in AZ with PGA guys who made a time without ID who they were and just showing up and dropping the card on the counter. Sadly, they know better but still try it and it can be an embarrasing situation and not at all fair to the guy behind the counter. The folks who abuse the system are in the minority, but it does happen often enough to be an issue that every course has to have a plan in place to handle.
No one ever admits to slapping the card on the counter or pulling the pro aside "btw I'm a .....", but then in 10 years I've never met a slow golfer.

[THuckaby2]

Doug:

I look at it much the same.  My financial reality is such that fees MATTER.  So if someone offers me a gratis round, I am loathe to turn it down... That's a strange etiquette going on there anyway, where it's impolite in some manner to then insist on paying...  But when I play golf - in and out of the rating process - I always expect to pay, always prepare to pay - BECAUSE IT'S FUN and in the case of a rating, because I enjoy the process!  It is a kick to go beyond just playing and really think about a course this way, as one has to do in a rating... It's different from me because much of the rest of my golf is spent in competitive play, which is an entirely different kettle of fish, obviously.

On top of this, I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but at least for me when I get a freebie, I tend to make sure and spend at least some money, if not more than I would have on the fee, in the pro shop... Sure, I like to get logo stuff so that works for both parties, but damn I have more golf shirts than Imelda Marcos does shoes, primarily for this reason.  

Bottom line is raters don't really need to defend themselves, despite Dave's complaint.

The gratis rounds help things for me... but if that was taken away as even possible today, I sure as hell wouldn't resign from being a rater tomorrow.  I can safely say no one else I know would either.  That is NOT why we do this, again despite what others might think.

TH

[T_MacWood]

BillV/redanman
That elite group would be out of my league. I'll be in charge of counting. You could be in charge of monitoring the committee's behavior--to insure they act in a gracious and courteous manner. I don't think you'll have much problem with them.

(I may have to forgo the super short shorts idea for panelists, but of course you'll be required to wear them on all official business)

[THuckaby2]

Mike,
I have no problem with comp golf for raters, writers, PGA, GCSAA if they simply call ahead and realize that I'm not going to give them a time I can sell.

That's another part of this that bears repeating.  At least for me, and everyone I know who does this, it's assumed you go at off-peak times and do not take times the course could easily sell.  Or maybe that's just me... No way did I ask for any help in that Friday after Thanksgiving round at Rustic, for example.  I asked Tommy what the normal public process was for getting times - ie when do you call, what's the number - and I tried and tried and tried and failed for such.  No way would I even think of trying to do that as a GD rating, on that one of the busiest days of the year... not to mention because I have already done such once there, and repeats to me also are unseemly.

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

To once again prove that golf is a business, let's do the numbers. I just received a Golf Magazine Top US 100 plaque from a friend, which is $150. If they sell 10,000 per 2 year period (seems reasonable for 100 people per 100 courses, the gross is $1.5 million. My guess is it cost them $20 to make and ship it. Lets assume the expenses of part time staff and some expenses of their "Advisory Panel" are $300,000. They net $1.0 mm. Now add in the Top 100 World list for additional sales and advertising dollars (see Mike Vegas @ Kiawah).

Those are nice round numbers, but unless they are accurate they do nothing to lead me to think otherwise. The number of people that would have played 10 courses on the top 100 (I assume the minimum before you would make the purchase is already small. Secondly, I know a number of people would make the criteria of 10 rounds and they do not have the plaques.

As for advertising dollars, not sure what the correlation to Mike Vegis is. Kiawah advertises seemingly every month, I know rankings matter to them, but I cannot believe this is the reason they pull out a full page glossy.

Mike Young,
"If someone doesn't think it is a money maker for mags...which issue is the biggest seller each year....."

IS it the biggest selling issue for Golf Digest or GOLF, or are you assuming, I do not know for sure. Why I am suspect is it seems that devoting three pages to it - as GOLF and Golf Digest seem to do - doesn't really fit with the biggest magazine of the year.

Readership is continuously more interested in equipment and instruction than courses/travel. Since this is the case, I would imagine the person who is not interested in reading about courses does not really care whether Pine Valley is number one or not.

[A_Clay_Man]

Grat insight to the realities, Don. If someone is deserving of a comp round they should have the courtesy to call and/or write ahead of time.

Having the counter person make you the heavy is a great way to do it. Making sure your not available for the touch seems prudent, too.

Don, I do have one question. When you do see an abuse do you make any attempt to inform the publication of the unacceptability of one of their raters?

[T_MacWood]

BillV/redanman
Why?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Corey,

If a rater didn't identify himself to the private clubs that aren't the cream of the crop and do accept raters, then most of the time the raters wouldn't ever have access to the course for it ever to be rated.  Yes, some raters might already have access through a friend, but far too few raters would probably play the fringe courses.  Same with the expensive publics courses that aren't the cream of the crop, they might never get enough people to be rated otherwise.

[Robert_Walker]

If I were in charge of course analysis, I would require "my" raters to tour the entire course before playing it, write a preliminary report without subjectivity, and then get a signature from the greenkeeper that this had been done.
Then, "my" rater would be allowed to play. This would assure a more objective look at the course, and the analysis would be more thorough.

[T_MacWood]

Statistcal significance is very important when you have a certain percentage of goofballs. If the panel is small and equally astute, it really doesn't matter.

All that would be necessary is to set a minumum number of votes or quorum for elligibility. For a pannel of 15 to 17, I'd say 5 votes would be fine.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Robert,

Touring a course before playing would limit the number of courses raters could rate severely, as 2 in a day wouldn't be possible, and one in a day would often not be possible, with the added 2 hours or whatever it takes to tour.  Not everyone has 6+ hours to kill at one facility, especially in the late afternoons.   I've never played a course as a rater, but I  know I never have extra time to do anything like that.  So often, I finish courses at sunset, when if I toured the place first, I'd only get a few holes in of actual play.

In terms of a preliminary report, do you really want a rater to make quick, first impression judgements, perhaps after just spending "quality" time with the DOG, pro, or GM breathing down their neck?  I believe raters are encouraged to take a course in after playing to fully think about every hole and feature, not to rate after the initial high (and club personnel lobbying) might cloud their judgment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()