Four Biases in Course Evaluation

[Ian_L]

John (or others),

Currently, one of my strongest biases is toward certain kinds of courses--one might call them minimalistic or naturalistic; I think of them as not trying too hard.  They are harmonious with the land (although not strictly natural) and aren't over-bunkered, over-watered or over-manicured.  They could be links, heathland or parkland courses.  They might be designed by well-known classic-era architects, Doak or Coore & Crenshaw, or by no one of any renown.  Where does this sort of bias fit in with the biases identified by Mr. Kirk and others or is it too obscure to care much about?

I wouldn't call that a bias as much as a preference.  You have certain reasons for why you think a minimalist design is best, and you've come to a rational conclusion.

[John_Cullum]

post  deleted

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

He was indeed getting it that far past me, but only because I was teeing off with my 5 iron.  

I would like to think that traveling or taking a trip in general can be evidence for the remoteness theory...especially if its just you and the boys and your mucking it up.  The default frame of mind could easily be more positive/accepting as your not at home listening to the "honey-dos" from your better half.  Then work in the "beer goggle" factor from all the drinking the night before and who knows...it probably works for other things than just women right?

So now that hideously ugly bunker on the outside corner of the dogleg becomes the 2nd coming of Mona Lisa and voila, your in full rave mode about the course when you return to GCA. com.  

[Matt_Ward]

Given the travels I've done over the years I will say that courses that are remote -- the courses in middle America and in the plains areas are quick to qualify -- often times there isn't ANY OTHER course of ANY caliber near by and as a result the isolated course draws considerable attention because of being the top dog within a 250-mile radius.

If you had a similar course in a metro area of distinction it would hardly draw any comments. Good example, Doak's comments on Cherry Hills in CG. Place the course in the greater Philadelphia area and it would hardly merit a sniff of attention and not be rated among the top five there.

Here's the flip side of the "performance bias" -- those who can't play worth a lick always want to rationalize that it's not them -- it's the course that has the problems. It's a neat word trick but almost always is tied to the player looking for some sort of cover.

One last item -- in rating courses you have people who are stuck on the celebrity "who designed the course" syndrome. Too many courses are often cited as being "great" or "supreme designs" and are given that extra surge because of the person who designed it.

JWinick:

Multiple plays help better understand any course because of different wind directions that might occur. Too many times a single play might elicit comments that a course is either too hard or too easy or too boring primarily because of the conditions that happened with just one visit. A first time visit will give you plenty of information -- far more than the easy sit-on-one's-can and lob comments only from photos, but multiple visits can provide a good bit more detail that one single round may not be able to totally provide.

[Andy Troeger]

Seems like a "bias" and a "preference" can be awfully close to the same thing, but the word chosen depends on whether you want it to be a bad thing or just a natural thing--not sure "good" really applies.

[Kalen Braley]

Seems like a "bias" and a "preference" can be awfully close to the same thing, but the word chosen depends on whether you want it to be a bad thing or just a natural thing--not sure "good" really applies.

Andy,

Its pretty simple actually.

Whenever I like something that you don't, its because your biased.  But when I don't like something that you do, its just not my preference.  

Agreed though with your comment, and I'm not sure how this is fixable, or if it even needs fixing.  As it pertains to courses, folks like what they like and don't what they don't.  So just play whatever blows your hair back you know...it really is as simple as that!

[Tom Huckaby]

Seems like a "bias" and a "preference" can be awfully close to the same thing, but the word chosen depends on whether you want it to be a bad thing or just a natural thing--not sure "good" really applies.

Very well said.  That's why I was defending certain things John called "biases" as perhaps just things that ought to be part of any evaluation of a golf course.  "Bias" has a definite negative connotation.

BTW Matt, you of course would know best about remoteness issues - and that's a darn good point regarding being the only course around, thus receiving more attention.  Of course you travelling so far and so often as you do have no reason to tout any course, so I fully believe you too are above this or at the very least able to shut it out.  But I also do believe those who travel less - like myself for example - want our time to be well-spent, so perhaps do have a this positive bias of which I speak.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

...
Here's the flip side of the "performance bias" -- those who can't play worth a lick always want to rationalize that it's not them -- it's the course that has the problems. It's a neat word trick but almost always is tied to the player looking for some sort of cover.
...

What nonsense.
 

[Jason McNamara]

I remember the discussion about whether Ash Towe should travel with his wife to Bandon to play, or to the Monterrey peninsula. He chose Monterrey, because of the metroplitan access for his wife over the back to nature Bandon choice.

What shoudl be call this? There herding bias?
 

"Yes, dear" bias.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I don't try to get hooked into the "remote is great" argument because few courses that are remote are really superlative if thrown into the pie with other great courses.

The classic examples that come quickly to mind for me are Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Wild Horse and Prairie Dunes. They are simply stellar layouts which just happen to be remote.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a remote course may well be the best for that state or the wider geographic area but if you really held it up against the top tier courses throughout the USA -- then the situation changes dramatically.

I think the more unique aspect to bias is the preference or falling over heels for particular architects and whatever they come forward with is then automatically raved about because of PAST work. Good example, for me at least, Bandon Trails and Hidden Creek. C&C have done exceptional work before that -- notably Sand Hills -- but I don't see the totality of these two courses meriting the kind of acclaim they have received. That's not to say they are low level layouts Quite the contrary, they are well done but they have not advanced the ball beyond what C&C have done previously. Unfortunately, too many people get stuck on the most favored architect merry go round and it's the lesser known folks who take it on the chin.



BTW Matt, you of course would know best about remoteness issues - and that's a darn good point regarding being the only course around, thus receiving more attention.  Of course you travelling so far and so often as you do have no reason to tout any course, so I fully believe you too are above this or at the very least able to shut it out.  But I also do believe those who travel less - like myself for example - want our time to be well-spent, so perhaps do have a this positive bias of which I speak.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Its pretty simple actually.

Whenever I like something that you don't, its because your biased.  But when I don't like something that you do, its just not my preference.  

Hmm...and all this time I thought it was that whenever you like something I don't, its your preference, but that when I like something you don't, its because I'm right 

Couldn't resist!

[Bill Gayne]

I think the Klondyke and Dell holes at Lahinch fit three of the four biases on GCA.COM. Anywhere else on a modern course these back to back holes would be panned.

John, good thread.

[John Kirk]

Wow, I am so pleased with the responses.  It took me a while to get back home today, but I was thinking about the topic all day long.  Your responses and discussion are helping to sharpen the overall argument greatly.

First of all, let's define bias a bit more carefully, so we can distinguish "bias" from "preference".  Many have commented that "bias" has a negative connotation, so let's try to fix that.  Here is the relevant definition for the word bias from dictionary.com:

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

In this case, we define bias as any psychological prejudice which influences the evaluation of the golf course.  Previous experiences or present emotions that prevent pure objective analysis.  A preference would indicate choosing between two or more types of previous experiences.  As Wayne and Garth would say here, "OK!  Let's move on!"

At this point, we can begin to throw out some of the proposed biases as actually preferences.

1.  If George Pazin hates desert courses and I think parkland courses are a dime a dozen, that's our preference, and I should remove Style Bias from the list.  This assumes that the evaluator has ample experience playing a wide variety of courses.  A new course can be strange, and not necessarily good in golf.

I haven't played with George Pazin before, but through other posts, I think he is a mid-handicapper who actually hits it pretty far when he catches one.  A very tough combination of skills to accommodate.  No wonder he hates desert golf, since the limited turf acreage, with no trees to hold balls in play, makes the game demoralizing.  George has every right to downgrade this course, based on his experience.  To cite one of my recent threads and core ideas, "The golf course should accommodate that (shot or) golfer", and since it does not accommodate him well, the course is flawed.

It's awfully tough to eliminate Style Bias, because I want to include that experience where a player plays something totally different, and the player/evaluator has difficulty comprehending and appreciating the first round at the unique new course.  If anything, uniqueness separates the best golf courses from the others.

2.  Course conditioning is a preference.  My tastes have changed with age, partly because agronomy practices have evolved.  "Browwwn Acres is the place to be, fescue living is the life for me!"  Not many players have experienced the wide variety of grasses many of us have seen.  It's a great big world out there, TE Paul!


With that out of the way, let's list of biases in course evaluation.  I'm not going to write "I believe" in front of every comment, so assume these are my observations, rather than the last word on the subject:

1.  Regional or Hometown Bias

There is a weak but noticeable correlation between one's home town and his evaluation of local courses.  Home is where the heart is.

2.  Home Course or Repeat Play Bias

There is a very strong bias for the courses we play the most.  Players love their home course, and a good golf course seems better and better with repeated rounds.

3.  Architectural Pedigree Bias

My initial comments were to suggest the architect pedigree bias is often overstated here.  Players come to a new course with a relatively open mind.  Some of our guys would be jaded by the pedigree, others not so much.  This can go both ways.  Expectations get in the way of clear analysis.

4.  Expectations or Reputation Bias

Having high or low expectations before a round can change one's opinion dramatically.  If you really want to objective about things, it's best to keep those expectations in check somehow.

Hey Tom Huckaby, is Sand Hills your favorite course because you spent the whole day in awe thinking..."Gee, Christian Greco walked these same fairways as a young man."

5.  Cost Bias

As Tom Huckaby and Richard Choi both mentioned, it has been proven that people enjoy expensive luxuries.  Golf courses should be no exception, and I'm sure it clouds objectivity.

6.  Remoteness Bias

Once again, Tom Huckaby has identified the exhiliration one can feel by traveling so far to play a course.  This is very similar to expense bias.  In the last couple years, I've has some very nice tournament rounds away from home.  Deep down, I feel that I've traveled all this way for this special moment, and I'm going to make the best of it.  I'm becoming a pretty good road golfer, perhaps only 1 point worse, index-wise.

7.  Performance Bias

JWinick nominates Performance Bias.  Did your play affect your opinion?  There is likely a weak bias in favor of good play.  Here are a few of my personal experiences, which influence my opinion whether this is a vaild consideration:

--  I played Plainfield about 3-4 years ago, and I was really tired that day.  I shot an 87 and was kind of grumpy.  Although I wasn't very complimentary at the time, it wasn't long before I realized how much I enjoyed the course, and would highly recommend Plainfield.  The next day, I played Winged Foot West and played a little better.  I hit one fairway but shot 80.  Winged Foot West disappointed me, because I thought the front nine terrain was boring, and I didn't misread a putt all day long.  I am pretty good friends with a member there, and hope to have a second crack at it.  That's a course I think I'd like better the second time around.

--  I played Arcadia Bluffs last year.  I birdied the first four holes (!) and shot 75, with seven birdies, my all time record.  I think Arcadia Bluffs is good but not great, partly because I felt if I can get seven birdies the first time out, the course must be easy to figure out.

--  I've played San Francisco GC twice.  The first time, about 4 years ago, I shot a 74 with a severe hangover, and thought that San Francisco was easy to decipher, and though it is an extremely impressive club and course, the course just didn't quite do it for me.  The second time, about 4 months ago, I shot an 87 clean and sober, and thought San Franciscio was hard as hell, and though it is an extremely impressive club and course, the course just didn't quite do it for me.
 
8.  Miscellaneous Factors

I'm sure people get biased negatively or positively due to their playing partners, the pace of play, and the service and amenities.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

That lays it out pretty darn well.  I still think the word "bias" gives a most definite negative connotation - I mean, look at the definition - so one has to be very careful what one calls biases.  As I've said (or more correctly as I've stolen from Jason Topp) one man's bias is another man's principled part of what makes a golf course great.  So if you ask ME, I'd revise at least one thing YOU call a bias.  But no matter, this is all great stuff and all of it does go into how one feels about a golf course, so it's fun to delineate, and discuss.

To answer the one directed at me...


4.  Expectations or Reputation Bias

Having high or low expectations before a round can change one's opinion dramatically.  If you really want to objective about things, it's best to keep those expectations in check somehow.

Hey Tom Huckaby, is Sand Hills your favorite course because you spent the whole day in awe thinking..."Gee, Christian Greco walked these same fairways as a young man."

Obviously not, although given the huge potential for that young man, that might effect some some day!  But when I've played Riviera, heck yeah I've thought of Hogan going way back, and other pros bringing it closer to present... when I've played Pebble, heck yeah I do try to recreate famous shots... the list could go on and on.  If YOU don't feel this, that's just fine.  I just most definitely do, and I am confident I am not alone.  And don't get carried away with this - it's not like courses that do NOT have this get some negative point or anything - it's more that those that DO get a positive.  One feels it, it matters.  And in that respect, it's not a BIAS - I don't go into a famous old course thinking it has to be better than all modern courses because of the tradition - call it just a "head start, for something that ought to matter."  It gets perhaps a bonus point that the modern course would not.  And obviously this can be overcome, as Sand Hills proves... and Ballyneal... and Pacific Dunes... and so many other modern greats.

In any case you bring up a good point about objectivity.  That is important to keep as much as one can.  But I don't think it eliminates my objectivity if I consider a factor in an evaluation that I feel is important... just because YOU do not, doesn't make my objectivity less.

So it's very key that you added the assumption to insert "I believe" in front of your list items.  That is cool how it works out for you.  Just don't be surprised that others disagree.  I'm sure you expect that.



TH

[Jason Topp]

Personal experience with John's list:

1.  Regional or Hometown Bias

I'm sure some people have this bias but I do not think it is very pronounced.  An additional factor to consider on this issue is that most people have not played a ton of courses outside their area.  I'm probably more well travelled than many on this site but I have no idea of the overall quality of courses in the Northeast US, the Heathlands, and most of the southern US.  Even in areas I have visited repeatedly (Arizona, Scotland, Palm Springs)  my opinions are based on pretty limited exposure.  Thus, it may not be a bias, but rather a limitation in exposure that causes one to rate local courses more highly tbecause the overall scale one judges against is lower than it would be with more exposure.

2.  Repeat Play Bias

I agree with this one although it is not clear cut.  I see the warts on my course rather than all of the great things about it.  I think repeat play allows one to weed out courses that make a great first impression.

3.  Architectural Pedigree Bias

I think I agree with you that this bias is overstated.  For example World Woods Pine Barrens receives a lot of praise even though its architect is one of the most highly criticized on this site. 

This bias probably has a lot to do with whether the course is played in the first place.  I think my course is better than most of the Donald Ross courses in my town.  Nonetheless, it is unusual for travelers to seek out my course.

Having said that would I really have liked Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm if I was just plopped on the first tee without any knowledge of Mike Strantz, his unique personality and his unique courses?  I would like to think so but there is no way of knowing for sure.


4.  Expectations or Reputation Bias

This definitely screws up evaluation.  When playing a course with a great reputation, I constantly find myself measuring the course against its reputation and absolutely cannot block that out when looking at the course.  Playing Royal Dornoch this summer, I kept asking myself "is this truly one of the ten best courses in the world?"  When playing Brora I thought "this is a lot of fun." 

I tend to take great pleasure in the out of way lesser known courses on trips.  Brora and Lundin Links in Scotland; Southern Pines; Dooks; Western Gailes; Vistal in Phoenix; Woodlands in Melbourne.  I may enjoy them more because of the absence of expectation.

5.  Cost

 This one goes both ways.  I really enjoyed Shadow Creek in part because of all of the sideshow benefits.  I really enjoyed Texarkana Golf Ranch in large part because it cost almost nothing to play. 

I pummel a course that is expensive and mediocre.

6.  Remoteness

I don't know about this one.  If Sand Hills were on the edge of a city, I still think it would be one of the best courses in the world.

7.  Performance

It can impact viewpoints.  I have always really liked one Raynor course in town even though it is not highly regarded generally.  One day a friend said to me “Of course you like that course.  Every hole is a dogleg left.”  Guess which way I turn the ball?

In looking at changing one hole at our course I was really surprised by the perspectives of a female golfer on our committee.  Her perspectives were well thought out.  I just normally do not think in terms of 140 yard tee shots.


8.  Miscellaneous

I agree.

[Richard Choi]

As to performance bias, didn't RTJ once say "people don't remember easy courses"? Most of the top courses that I played (PD, Bethpage, Baltusrol, etc.) I didn't play that well, but I certainly remember how challenging they were and with that I come away with certain amount of respect.

If my round was just a breeze, I don't know if they would be as memorable.

[Tom Huckaby]

6.  Remoteness

I don't know about this one.  If Sand Hills were on the edge of a city, I still think it would be one of the best courses in the world.


Jason:  you're forgiven for not reading the entire thread.... but if you care to, go back and read how I defined this, and explained it better later.  It's not that a remote course MUST be great, or that all are, or that a remote course that is great is so only because of it's remoteness... the bias is more the effect the remoteness has on the traveller/evaluator; that is, if one travels very far, seeking out a course, one doesn't want to appear a fool when discussing it, wants it to be worth his time and effort, and so therefore this bias to praise it may exist.  Understand too it doesn't ALWAYS exist - those who travel all the time would be more immune to it, for example, and if a course sucks it sucks, no matter where it is, just as if it's great it's great, no matter where it is - but hopefully this makes more sense.

TH

[John Kirk]

Hey Tom,

To use the term used by Al Franken, I was "kidding on the square", meaning I'm kidding, but I'm not really kidding.  So yes, I'm nudging you a bit because I don't think history should be considered in course evaluation, but that's just a mild point of disagreement, and I'm probably in the minority.  I don't consider myself a better judge of talent than you.  I feel course evaluation is almost completely a matter of personal taste, though a broader set of experiences makes the evaluator better educated on the possibilities.  I've played some very nice courses, but only a small sample of the great ones.

I'm curious which item you would call a preference and not a bias.  Your input is important; maybe I'm missing something.

I don't understand the negative connotation of statistical bias.  I want to identify factors that might be statistically shown to impact one's perception of how good a golf course is.  I don't have the means to test the theories set forth, but I'm suggesting these factors affect perception.  I suppose the word "bias" scares people because of the strong connection with social prejudice.

I really appreciate your participation.  It has helped me focus the argument.

Here's another potential bias.  Player X is not a well traveled golfer, and he plays Tetherow with a bunch of GCA geeks like you and me.  Player X thinks Tetherow is just weird and hard and not that fun, but his playing partners are cooing with admiration for the new masterpiece.  Player X respects his friends' opinions.  Do they change his evaluation?  A peer pressure factor.

Once again, I'll be gone for a few hours.

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

All in good fun, as always.  But man I have never been so insulted by "a bunch of GCA geeks like you and me."  You may consider yourself that, but the day I admit to that is the day I put away the sticks forever.  I just play the game, my friend.   

As for the negative connotation to the word "bias", let's look at the definition you posted:

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

People want to believe they can be objective and are certainly not PREJUDICED.  Then one factors in the racial connotations to that word (sorry, they do still exist), and well... it's hard for me NOT to consider "bias" to have negative connotation.  In fact it surprises me you question this.  You may look at this in a detached statistical light; I find it difficult to do so.

So when you call something a bias - especially something I feel is worthy of just being a princpled part of what goes into making a course great - well... it's tough not to take that with negative connotation.

BUT, we shall try to move beyond this.  But hey, you asked!

In any case re history and whether it should count or not, I concur it's a mild disagreement.  Just be careful calling it a BIAS, that's all!

As for peer pressure factor, I have no doubt that plays into things as well - good call.

TH

[John Kirk]

I'll be the geek.  You can be the golf enthusiast.  How's that?

[John Mayhugh]

While I agree with others that the word bias can have a negative connotation, bias definitely exists and influences course evaluation.  It's hard for me to imagine that anyone's evaluations would be bias-free. 

Evaluating golf courses probably offers as much opportunity for bias as evaluating an art form like music.  Musical tastes may be more easily articulated than those for golf courses, but the degree of influence is likely similar.  This is especially an issue when you try to rank  or compare.  I can probably do OK evaluating one classic rock song as compared to another, but ask me to listen to completely different genres (e.g. jazz & blues) and it's going to be much tougher to avoid bias.

I think I can do ok recognizing greatness in a variety of musical genres (or golf courses), but bias will always influence any sort or ranking or rating.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'll be the geek.  You can be the golf enthusiast.  How's that?

That works wonderfully, particularly since you left out the words "course" and particularly "architecture" in my description!

I am happy to be a geek, and am so often.  

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I'll be the geek.  You can be the golf enthusiast.  How's that?

That works wonderfully, particularly since you left out the words "course" and particularly "architecture" in my description!

I am happy to be a geek, and am so often.  

TH

Yeah, I can witness to that one...Toms a definite golf geek!!   


Going down another vein, I'm a little surprised other biases have not been presented on this thread.  Some serious, others not so much.

1)  How walkable a course is or isn't?
2)  How hot the beverage cart girl is and is she wearing an awesome perfume.  ( I only mention this because one time when playing Saddle Creek in CA, this girl was smoking hot and wearing this awesome vanilla-flowery smelling perfume.  We could smell her from 1/2 mile away.  Ahhh man, she got nice tips that day....anyways I digress)
3)  How nice the amenties are including basic cleanliness.
4)  Whether they have those nice hand towels with the club logo on it.
5)  Conditioning of greens, whether they are smooth or recently punched/top-dressed.  Less than perfect fairways and tee boxes, I can live with, but I hate putting on bumpy slow greens.
6)  How much housing and other non-golfing visuals impede on the experience.

I'm sure you can think of others.

On a personal note, while I'd like to think these things don't add or take-away too much from the experience, no doubt they can.  I recall on at least two occcasions being pestered by the ranger even though we always kept up with the group in front of us.  I guess he was just bored.  I've played other rounds where the the maintaince guys were following us around the course with the mowers and that took away from the experience. 

With so many variables, its almost seem one almost must play multiple rounds before they can make a sound evaluation of a place....

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - I'd say all of that goes into the "happy feeling" I alluded to way back at the beginning of this.  If one has a great experience - however it happens, due to whatever factors - it's quite easy to give a positive evaluation, or difficult to be too negative.  But of course it can be done.  Still this stuff does all play in, for sure.

As for repeat visits, of course such are necessary to give the BEST evaluation.  But the real world often does not allow such.  Thus one does the best he can if only one visit is realistic.  And in that vein, it's not impossible to give a valuable evaluation.

TH

[Wyatt Halliday]

Bumped as a favorite as well.

[Tags:]

Tags: