[Ruediger Meyer]

This is something I thought about for a while, but was renewed by recent discussions. When you play different courses in short succession, does it matter in which order we play them? Especially if you are in a place with more than one course.

For instance I played Lost Farm before Barnbougle Dunes and thought it was terrific and in my book maybe even a tiny bit better than Kingston Heath, which doesn't seem to be the consensus. I wonder if it would be different had I played BD first since I wouldn't have been exposed to the setting for the first time at Lost Farm.

The same would probably be true for the courses at Bandon, St. Andrews, Pinehurst, Royal Melbourne et al. So might we subconsciously downgrade a course when we play it on our first visit after the better sister course and vice versa?

[jeffwarne]

It's an interesting question, given all the subjective criteria that go into one's perception/evaluation of a course, though few would be aware/willing  to consider it or admit it.

When setting up itineraries, I definitely try to get a rhythm going more in terms of player stamina and balance, but also variety.(which I think can be critical in remembering a course played as one of 8-12 in a week)
That said , geography and scheduling (as well as my own selfish personal tastes ) can interfere what I determine to be an ideal itinerary.

Very difficult for many people to remember the first course off the plane on an all night transatlantic flight, unless it's exceptionally memorable, but I prefer to err on the side of walkability and subtlety as I'd want players to at least have their B game going. and/or mind somewhat decobwebbed when tackling one of the highlight courses of a trip.

At a multicourse destination such as Bandon I would think the order could influence one's perception, but there are many things that can subtly and insidiously influence one's impression of a single course.

As Bandon's # of courses grow, and players only play each course once in a trip, you have to wonder what impression a single play of many courses leaves, as opposed to having a repeat play on less courses.

Of course based on the number of threads going about prices of golf at the moment, none of this may matter at all

[Tom_Doak]

Ruediger:

Good question.  And the answer is yes, I think it does.

I played Merion for the first time the day after Pine Valley.  I thought Merion was great, but I wouldn't have rated it as highly then as I do after many more visits.  I think the same would hole for any course that had to follow Pine Valley.  [Likewise, I saw Aronimink for the first time the day after Merion and Pine Valley, and it took me years to think it was any good at all.]

Your example is also a good one.  When you play a course on a new sort of terrain for the first time, you are wowed, and that experience tends to elevate the course over subsequent courses in the same setting.  This is one reason why the oldest great course in a region [say, Sand Hills] is usually the highest rated of all.  Today, a few people may play one of the other courses first, and tag that "first experience" to them rather than the original, but still the majority of raters gives the extra point for originality to the first course.  So, that generally helps Barnbougle over Lost Farm, but hurts Ballyneal vs. Sand Hills.

Other beneficiaries of this trend are Sunningdale vs. other heathland courses, Royal Melbourne vs. the sand belt, Desert Forest and Desert Highlands vs. the rest of Arizona, etc.

[Wade Whitehead]

Adventure on the Atari 2600 can't hold the attention of a someone who's just played Madden 25 on the PS4.

WW

[Ronald Montesano]

1. Order of courses played
1. Value of your caddie (optional)
1. Measure of your proficiency that day (undeniable)
1. Weather and other conditions (unpredictable)
1. Company you kept (predictable, except that they are exposed to the first four above.)

I think that if you participate on this site, you need to commit to elevating your perspective and judgement in this way: step back, truly assess all the elements and throw out emotional impact factors. Reduce it all to cold and hard fact, then make a judgement.

[Sean_A]

I don't think it holds true for me Rued.  As an example of my summer trip to Aberdeen, I placed Trump #3 behind Aberdeen and Cruden Bay even though it was the first course I saw on the trip and I was treated more than generously.  

Generally speaking, I don't think there is a huge discrepency in quality between destination courses which in a way makes me immune from upgrading or downgrading courses.  I also don't tend to fall for the eye candy or fantastic site.  Sure its nice and it may help me boost a course over the top, but I still want to see good golf - otherwise I would fall for the likes of Nefyn.  There are the odd times where I really didn't understand why a course is generally thought of much higher than my opinion.  Rolling Hills is a prime example, but I would like to see it again if a convnenient opportunity arose.  At some point, each person has to think about what it is they think makes a course great and then use those criteria.  We all have our top 3-4 things we look for.  

Ciao  

[John Percival]

R,
human nature being what it is, it would almost have to.
Taking it a step further, if one starts at 10, thus playing the front nine last, does that affect one's judgment?

[Joe_Tucholski]

Research would say order does matter in preference.  

My wife was telling me about an applicable paper.  Basically researchers were trying to determine if order impacted preference.  The study asked a large number of people to sample local wines and provide their favorite.  The twist in the study is each participant sampled the same wine multiple times.  For example participant 1 sampled the same riesling 5 times and participant 2 sampled the same pinot 3 times.  The study found there was significant preference for the first glass or the last glass and the more times the participant sampled the wine (those who sampled 5 wines vs those who only sampled 2) the greater chance they were to pick the last wine.

So applying this study to golf course preferences, if the golf courses are assumed to be equal (or even very similar) based on personal preferences it makes sense the first course is chosen as favorite (once you have played a lot of courses that are similar based on your personal preferences it becomes more likely that the newest course will become your favorite).  The piece that is difficult to assess is how large an impact the order plays.  For example how much better does the middle course need to be to overcome the bias towards the first or last course.

Ron says that we need to “step back, truly assess all the elements and throw out emotional impact factors.”  That is great but for most people that isn’t how the brain works.  Because we are constantly assessing the world our brain can’t remember all the elements.  It is well accepted that when given a large list of items we will remember the first few items and the last few items (with greater chance of remembering the first item and the last item).  This kind of plays into Tom’s statement that the first course in a particular setting is elevated because raters tend to see courses when they are built (not like Ruediger who saw Lost Farm before Barnbougle).

If anyone is interested in the wine study the title is "Order in Choice: Effects of Serial Position on Preferences" and it can be found quickly through google.  It's also interesting that the study breaks participants down based on knowledge of wine, and there are significant differences in the groups.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()