News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2009, 12:17:46 PM »
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...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Peter Pallotta

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2009, 04:36:08 PM »
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
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 04:49:27 PM by PPallotta »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2009, 07:01:08 PM »
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

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2009, 01:46:15 PM »
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

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2009, 02:17:22 PM »
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

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2011, 08:23:22 PM »
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

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2011, 08:44:58 PM »
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

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2011, 08:52:17 PM »
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

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2011, 03:15:45 AM »
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
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2011, 07:49:02 AM »
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.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2011, 08:16:16 AM »
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

Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tom Yost

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2011, 08:19:51 AM »
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

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2011, 08:28:17 AM »
Jud...that Nuzzo piece is money!! I read it often.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Andy Troeger

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2011, 09:32:47 AM »
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

Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2011, 11:41:41 AM »
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.


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2024, 08:40:08 PM »
Bump.

After thirteen years, I am bumping this temporarily to the top of the stack, as part of my response to "How I Rate a Course by Rich Thomas.

Matthew Lloyd

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2024, 10:15:13 PM »
John,
Really enjoyed reading this essay for the first time. I’m not a rater - but have experienced every single factor you discussed in 2024 alone when discussing courses with other enthusiasts.
And to me you’ve also identified a lot of the reasons why we all love architecture so much - for each of us our favorites and preferences reflect our personalities and life experiences outside of golf. Few sports seem to bring out a comparable amount of reflection. 

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2024, 10:35:50 AM »
John, this is a thought-provoking essay. Thanks. It caused me to evaluate my own ratings. I’ll comment on each of your points as it relates to me. I have been on the GOLF DIGEST panel since 1992 and have seen many hundreds of courses.
1.  Regional or Hometown Bias: I don’t think so. It doesn't really have any bearing.
2.  Home Course or Repeat Play Bias: I think this is true, but because I know them better.

3. Expectations or Reputation Bias: This is true to some extent. I tend to look for greatness on highly ranked courses. Yet I played a top 50 course this summer that I thought wasn’t even a top 200 course.
4.   Cost Bias: no bearing
5.   Remoteness Bias: no bearing

6.   Performance Bias: Sometimes
7.   Mood Bias: I played a course this summer where the staff was uninviting and downright rude. It was hard not to take their ungraciousness onto the course.

8.   Amenities Bias: no bearing. I play a lot of new courses that only have trailers.
9.  Miscellaneous Factors

There are a variety of miscellaneous factors that impact one’s perception of golf course quality:

A.   The enjoyment they derive from their playing partners. How guys with varying abilities play the course do inform my ratings.
B.   The level of enthusiasm their playing partners have for the course in question: Not sure, but generally no.
C.   Level of intoxication can have a dramatic impact.  “Wow!  This is the greatest course ever!!!” I’ve only thought that once, and it wasn’t Pine Valley.
D.   Pace of play and other factors also affect one’s mood. I hate to think this makes a difference but it does sometimes.
E.   Some golfers value course history and age and are biased accordingly. I’ve played many courses that have hosted major championships and walked away thinking it is way over-rated.


I.  Course Conditioning: If the course is wet and slow, it is hard to give an accurate rating. If there has been substantial rain, I will generally cancel my tee time.
II.  Style Preference: Not true for me.

A.  Parkland courses
B.  Linksland courses
C.  Desert mountain courses
D.  Resort courses


III.  Playing Ability: I'm not sure what this means.
IV.  Architect Preference: I used to think this matters to me, but after looking at my ratings, I found this to be generally untrue.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2024, 11:25:03 AM »
Hi Tommy,


Thanks.

It's been fifteen years, but I think I was discussing the role of one's playing ability in how they perceive a course.  I have it listed as a preference and not a bias.  But it may be neither.  There's nothing psychological about disliking a course because you can't find your ball and play it, or if you're not strong enough to negotiate a hazard.   I called it a preference because it's more accurate to say you prefer one course over another because it accommodates your playing ability better.


Ultimately it comes down to "The golf course should accommodate that shot."

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2024, 11:31:40 AM »
Playing ability can affect a rating, but I think that lower handicap players have more shots in their arsenal. We can move it both ways and hit low runners and high fades. On the other hand, I have played many courses with my wife, who sees things I sometimes miss.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2024, 02:44:08 PM »
"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.

Quote
"Twenty years ago I described the 16th at St. Andrews...

'As in the majority of good holes, it is the subtlety of the slopes that makes it so. The green is tilted up slightly from right to left... the approach from the right is easy, as all the slopes assist the players, and the approach from the left is exceedingly difficult. The point about the hole is that it is so difficult to get into the best position to approach the green because of the proximity of the Principal's Nose bunker to the railway... there is a perfectly easy route free from all risk to the left... but the player in all probability will lose a stroke by taking it.'

This description of the 16th was entirely wrong...

Ted Blackwell is a man of action, but few words... I watched him play the hole... and noticed that when he placed his drive [10 yards left of the Deacon Sime bunker], he played a run up approach so near the flag that he not infrequently got a three. I then discovered that he took advantage of a small valley (which I had previously overlooked) in the bank of the green leading up to the place where the hole is usually cut on medal days.

If the tee shot is placed ten yards to the left... or right, the advantage of this valley is lost.

Is there any course in the world that presents such subtle strategic problems?"

-- Alister MacKenzie
« Last Edit: November 04, 2024, 02:48:11 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
GCA Browser Addon v2.0.1: Firefox/Chrome

My stuff:

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2024, 08:14:01 AM »
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

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2024, 10:41:33 AM »

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 ?



My normal use of the word "bias" is different than John's and would include some things he describes here as a "preference".  A very big one is just what you mention.  I try to build golf holes where there are different ways to play them, where golfers will get to show off their strengths but also be forced to confront their weaknesses [or find a way to play around them].  This is anathema to many raters who think that every hole should yield to the scratch player's stock shots.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2024, 11:00:55 AM »
John, this is a thought-provoking essay. Thanks. It caused me to evaluate my own ratings. I’ll comment on each of your points as it relates to me. I have been on the GOLF DIGEST panel since 1992 and have seen many hundreds of courses.
1.  Regional or Hometown Bias: I don’t think so. It doesn't really have any bearing.
2.  Home Course or Repeat Play Bias: I think this is true, but because I know them better.

3. Expectations or Reputation Bias: This is true to some extent. I tend to look for greatness on highly ranked courses. Yet I played a top 50 course this summer that I thought wasn’t even a top 200 course.
4.   Cost Bias: no bearing
5.   Remoteness Bias: no bearing

6.   Performance Bias: Sometimes
7.   Mood Bias: I played a course this summer where the staff was uninviting and downright rude. It was hard not to take their ungraciousness onto the course.

8.   Amenities Bias: no bearing. I play a lot of new courses that only have trailers.
9.  Miscellaneous Factors

There are a variety of miscellaneous factors that impact one’s perception of golf course quality:

A.   The enjoyment they derive from their playing partners. How guys with varying abilities play the course do inform my ratings.
B.   The level of enthusiasm their playing partners have for the course in question: Not sure, but generally no.
C.   Level of intoxication can have a dramatic impact.  “Wow!  This is the greatest course ever!!!” I’ve only thought that once, and it wasn’t Pine Valley.
D.   Pace of play and other factors also affect one’s mood. I hate to think this makes a difference but it does sometimes.
E.   Some golfers value course history and age and are biased accordingly. I’ve played many courses that have hosted major championships and walked away thinking it is way over-rated.


I.  Course Conditioning: If the course is wet and slow, it is hard to give an accurate rating. If there has been substantial rain, I will generally cancel my tee time.
II.  Style Preference: Not true for me.

A.  Parkland courses
B.  Linksland courses
C.  Desert mountain courses
D.  Resort courses


III.  Playing Ability: I'm not sure what this means.
IV.  Architect Preference: I used to think this matters to me, but after looking at my ratings, I found this to be generally untrue.



Tommy,


What is the course that had the Wow Intoxication reaction?

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bias and Preference in Golf Course Evaluation
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2024, 11:53:12 AM »
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.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back