What the good Doctor doesn't say is that not only was Ted Blackwell one of the very best amateurs of his day but he was also one of the longest hitters if not the longest hitter. That being the case, how many golfers would be in a position to play the running approach shot that he did ?
Maybe not relevant for the discussion in hand but I think it an illustration that there is no one preferred way to play a hole as everyone's game is different, even if to a small extent. Or perhaps it is relevant ? Does your own game inform your own inherent biases ?
Niall
Hi Niall,
I agree. It's what I've been driving at in the discussion of Playing Ability, and whether it is a preference or a bias. To me a bias is a prejudice, and it's hard to consider it a prejudice if a course does not accommodate your playing ability.
It's quite a paradox that Pine Valley, the course considered to be the greatest in the world, is said to be virtually unplayable for a significant subset of golfers. If you ask me, a course that provides an exhilarating challenge for all levels of ability is the greater design achievement. I would expect that experienced raters consider that when assigning grades.
Tommy,
What is the course that had the Wow Intoxication reaction?
Hi Ira,
Keep in mind that the intention of the intoxication factor is a player who has had a few beers or other favorite psychoactive substances.
Another bias that should be considered is Groupthink, when everybody you know and all the cool kids think that course AAA is the best. This is something that a small rating panel should be concerned with. But even large rating panels where management instructs the raters how to evaluate courses can induce groupthink.
I believe groupthink is generally a young person's shortcoming. When you're young, you're more inclined to try and fit in and be one of the guys. You care less about your social identity as you age.
With that said, let's say there's a course out there that has a composite average rating of 7.5 and I was able to play the course for the purpose of rating it. Let's say I seriously thought the rating was flawed one way or the other, thinking it was a 5.5 or maybe a 9.5. Something a couple standard deviations outside the norm. In some of these rating systems, my rating might be thrown out for being an outlier, and if I was an outlier too many times, I would be removed from the panel. I'd be pissed! I'm sincerely interested in this stuff and how dare you!
Of course, another problem is that a rater may have malicious intent when rating a course. They're mad at something about the course or they're tired of somebody telling them how great a place it is. Or they're trying to ensure their favorite courses maintain their position on the lists. So malicious intent has to be considered as well.
"Repeat Play Bias" is the only place I'd really push back if using this framework. I do not think that repeat-play is a bias, rather, I suspect that it is limited-play that opens the rater up to error due to missing subtitles, which might be confused for a higher rating bias (in comparison) on repeated-play course because the rater understands and can appreciate these subtitles. Here the result may appear to be the same, but the causation is working in the opposite direction.
Hi Matt,
Right. I generally agree with that. It's one reason why it's a good idea to review other ratings, especially if you've only played it once.
It works both ways, too. A great course generally reveals itself over the course of many rounds. But pretty much any course that you've adopted as a home course will grow on you for a number of psychological reasons. However, it's also true that a course that makes a great first impression may not turn out to be that fun to play repeatedly.
In general, my experience is that I tend to underrate outstanding courses the first time around.