[Jud_T]

eric- i would rank the usefulness of sources for courses as follows:

1. GCA

2. Golfweek

3. Golf Magazine

4. Golf Digest

5. Golfworld

you also get to the crux of the matter when you refer to how enjoyable was the day/how did you play.  It definitely takes several rounds and some ego checking to give an impartial rating to a course. 

As for the "how does it suit all golfers" comment above please see the overrated/underrated course thread to see how upset some of our low handicap brethren get when one of us average players dares dis one of their brutal championship layouts...

[Peter Pallotta]

John - fine work, as always.

I have a question. You wrote (and it struck me as very interesting):

"I'm building a comprehensive list of potential biases, and then try to distinguish them from true preferences and tastes."

Did you mean that to sound as modest as it did?  What I mean is, I would've thought that the reason to become aware of potential biases was so that one could then approach an objective evaluation of a given golf course.

But you seem to be engaged in the process 'soley' so as to get a picture of our basic (and true) tastes.

Now, please don't misunderstand: I'm not suggesting your goal is any less important; in fact, I find fascinating the suggestion that we might be so unaware even of our own tastes; and I can see how you might argue that, if/when we get that awareness, "objectivity" may just be icing on the cake.

But I'm just curious as to what you'd like to find, and the value you place on it. Thanks

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Kirk,

That's a well thought out essay.

Mike Sweeney,

In addition to Hidden Creek making early changes, so did Friar's Head.

In both cases, I believe the courses improved.

[John Kirk]

I have a question. You wrote (and it struck me as very interesting):

"I'm building a comprehensive list of potential biases, and then try to distinguish them from true preferences and tastes."

Did you mean that to sound as modest as it did?  What I mean is, I would've thought that the reason to become aware of potential biases was so that one could then approach an objective evaluation of a given golf course.

But you seem to be engaged in the process 'soley' so as to get a picture of our basic (and true) tastes.

Hi Peter,

This is a case of trying to write responses quickly, without the forethought of the original essay, and not carefully edited to say what I intend.

Off the board, Tom Huckaby asked me to define the difference between bias and preference.  I'll try.  A preference is a legitimate criterion.  Lynn Shackelford likes parkland courses a lot.  That's legitimate.  Desert golf courses are too small and make golf less enjoyable for George Pazin.  That is a legitimate beef.  A bias is an illegitimate evaluation tool.  Have a fight with the wife, draw a caddie who tells you how to play your game, shoot a terrible score and lose $40 in a bet, buy four beers from an attractive 25 year-old cart girl, these are emotional experiences which may affect one's perception of the golf course, yet they have nothing to do with the course.  We are human and feelings can impact "dispassionate course analysis".  But don't confuse me with someone who plays the game and evaluates courses without passion.  The opposite is true; I love this with a passion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, John. I think I got it -- you don't demand objectivity, but you want to have the truth. That makes sense to me, and has the added bonus of being possible.

Peter

 

[John Kirk]

Bumping his own thread!

I've only written a handful of good articles for GCA.  Thought I would bump this back to the top, though I won't participate much as a respondent.

[Carl Rogers]

I am reaching my own conclusion that one needs to evaluate a course WITHOUT playing it.  When playing, too many subjective, dilemmas.

Go watch a group of varying abilities play for a few rounds under variable weather conditions.  Then rate or evaluate.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I'm biased against boring, predictable golf...whether its home or away, close or far, warm season, cool season or a mixture of grasses, whether I got lucky the night before or not, and no matter how I played.

On another note, I don't know how to explain a bias I've witnessed and maybe John covered it, but that is the bias of thinking one knows what everyone else would think. We've had a few raters out to Wolf Point and while we have no desire to have the course ranked, one rater did say to me something along the lines of, "I like the course but wouldn't rate it highly because most country club types wouldn't care for it".  Tell me you like or don't like it and why, but rating a course high or low based on some idea of how others would feel? I think that some raters really do view their "job" as determining what's best for the rest of us rather then simply giving an honest, personal evaluation. What kind of bias you call that I don't know: I don't think group think fits, but its along those lines.

[Sean_A]

Don

I can see a case for raters trying to play into the hands of the crowd because to some degree rankings are a form of recommendation.  To me, its a very different story between what I really like and what I may recommend.  That said, it seems like you just want feedback on the course and how it is presented - a straight up personal opinion from a guy as a golfer rather than rater.

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

I am reaching my own conclusion that one needs to evaluate a course WITHOUT playing it.  When playing, too many subjective, dilemmas.

Go watch a group of varying abilities play for a few rounds under variable weather conditions.  Then rate or evaluate.

Carl...That is a truly excellent post and idea.

[Jud_T]

Once again, I'll reference Mike Nuzzo's excellent article which delves into the pretty/challenging/fun divide.  This is a must-read for anyone here and explains half the bickering that goes on here:

http://www.nuzzocoursedesign.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf

[Tom Yost]

John - great read!

I think biases factor more strongly with the single play evaluation.  While biases may never disappear, they can be mitigated somewhat by repeat plays.

I'm interested to read "The Perfect iPod Collection Blog"

[Mac Plumart]

Jud...that Nuzzo piece is money!! I read it often.

[Andy Troeger]

I am reaching my own conclusion that one needs to evaluate a course WITHOUT playing it.  When playing, too many subjective, dilemmas.

Go watch a group of varying abilities play for a few rounds under variable weather conditions.  Then rate or evaluate.

Carl,
Yes and no. Varying abilities, multiple rounds, and variable conditions are clearly benefits, but they can be done while playing just as easily as a spectator. And admittedly, even on this board few if any of us are going to travel to some course to watch other people play it for a few days, especially if we have to wait for the weather to change!

The experience of playing a course can be beneficial to evaluation IMO, as long as you don't take your score too seriously. Competitive golf is another game entirely and I do think that detracts from attention to the course. You still get a different emotion standing on the tee hitting a shot or over a putt than you do watching someone else. You might say that emotion is the problem, but every golfer feels things as they play any round of golf, and I think you lose something if you don't get that experience and try to be perhaps too objective about certain features. Its all somebody's opinion anyway no matter where it comes from or how its attained--and we all get to decide for ourselves if that opinion is worth consideration in terms of our own choices of where to play.

[Matt_Ward]

The argument that one can simply observe things is folly.

It's the same rationale one can judge the food simply by looking at the presentation.

Architecture needs to be tested against shots -- doing it personally provides the invaluable connection that comes from
playing. Now, it's important to realize that a full evaluation needs to insert into the picture how different levels can play the same holes / course. That takes a bit of elasticity on the part of the solo player. Carry points on the course are a good reference point. If player "A" can make the carry and the hole plays one way -- what about players "B' and "C?"

Andy, makes a fair point -- scoring often provides players a narrow tunnel vision perspective. Frankly, I think it helps a person evaluate a course when not scoring -- just place balls around the green target and, assuming no one is waiting behind you, attempt different shots to see what has been provided by the designer.

Observing play is literally only a bit better than making observations of a course from photos. You need to have the connection of playing to really discern if what has been designed really has merit -- the direct link does that in my mind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()