Are golf course reviews biased

[Paul_Turner]

If the course is exclusively private and the reviewer doesn't want to ruin their chances of a return visit?

On the flip side, do courses that have open access (UK etc) get harsher and more honest criticism? 

[TEPaul]

"On the flip side, do courses that have open access (UK etc) get harsher and more honest criticism?"


Probably:

I don't read many course reviews but I've found Ran Morrissett's course reviews to be the most incisive and interesting of the course reviews I have read and they are not always praise. If he thinks some aspect can be made better he doesn't seem to hesitate saying so whether that may annoy the club or not. 

[Sean_A]

Paul

I don't know how others go about threading the fine line between insulting a host and being honest.  I don't play many privilege clubs, but I don't try to hold any punches when I do.  I try to make it clear that these are all good to very courses, that making judgments is purely personal and that value matters to me. 

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Paul, This is a topic, I've seen mentioned before but never occurred to me.

Pulling punches to garner favor for a chance to get a repeat invitation seems like small reward for basically lying and losing one's own credibility. However, being sensitive to someone else's position, is clearly part of being aware enough not to be overly critical. Granted, the greatest courses in the world should have little to be critical of.

So, it boils down to why someone bullshits. For me, Life is too short to sell ones soul for another chance to tee it up at a course you've already payed and see problems with.

Ran and Ben really do the best reviews and when they don't like something, they will likely just not mention it. Choosing rather, to accentuate the positive. Which is really cool because then one needs to sleuth out what isn't said, to understand the review on a different level.

Fine lines indeed.

[Mac Plumart]

Man, I will tell you this two of the most uncomfortable times in my life have come from dear friends of mine reading some of my honest reviews of their courses on my website.  They were mad as hell that I didn't say 100% glowing things about their courses. 

For the record, I said 99% glowing...but still.  Wow!!!  So, I see both sides...for sure!

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

Absolutely, most golf course reviews are skewed toward the positive.  Return visits are probably a consideration for some, but I would say 75% of the phenomenon is due to what Mac says -- not wanting to deal with the fallout of telling it like you really see it.

I am not sure the differences you see in reviews of British courses is about open access.  I would guess it's that American visitors don't feel the need to pull their punches on those courses, while the Brits are more used to harsh criticism.  You can't say anything about a golf course that would seem controversial compared to what they print in the papers every day.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I think there also may be some inflation due to the discovery process.
Someone early to see a course receives a reward for being a discoverer and telling others.
Reviewers are often first to the party.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

There is another side of that, too.  Nowadays, nearly all of the first reviewers to see a new course are hand-picked by the architect or developer -- specially invited because they are already fans of the architect's work.

[Paul_Turner]

I agree with everyone's points and agree it is a fine line between insulting a host and being frank.  

I actually do think that courses anyone can play, without a host, get harsher criticism here on GCA.  Even Ran's reviews...see Portrush and Durban for example...more critical than the private courses.

[Jud_T]

Ran posted a negative course review?   

[Garland Bayley]

... Granted, the greatest courses in the world should have little to be critical of.
...

Ain't nothin in life that's perfect! If you can't be critical, you ain't tryin' hard enough.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think people who write on here would tend to say nicer things if they were a guest at a particular club. However I find the majority of the guys on here who do not have an interest or agenda are pretty unbiased. I made honest observations about the European Club. I did not bash it beyond saying it was hyped from time to time and not really top 10 Ireland but head and shoulders the best in SE Ireland. Pat Ruddy took the comments as the ultimate insult to him and the course. Naturally that was far from my intent. I do hope we will continue to encourage honest debate and discussion. And not let those with an interest lower the quality of our discussions. cheers

[Rob Rigg]

Course reviews are often biased by the "one play factor" which brings many variables into the situation.

1) Are you remembering the course correctly?
2) Are issues you picked up on really issues?
3) Are you sure that you can be specific about an aspect of a hole, green complex, etc.?

After playing a course for the first time I usually find myself in the camp of - excited, content or unimpressed.

My "excited" reviews are probably over the top positive while my "unimpressed" reviews are probably more tempered because I think it is hard to really criticize a course after only one play when you might be missing something.

There is also the "perception" element of publishing a course review - ie) what others will think of the review and how you will be challenged if you are "incorrect", which makes negative reviews tend to be written in a more positive light.

Let's be honest, to write an "accurate" review of any golf course, one would need to play it multiple times with varying wind conditions, weather systems, etc. and it seems like that rarely occurs for any reviewer.

Having time to reflect deeply on the playing experience is also beneficial - but one cannot always do that either.

Sidenote - I thought most of Darius Olivers course reviews in Planet Golf and Planet Golf USA were a good read because he did call BS where appropriate. That is refreshing.

[Jason McNamara]

I made honest observations about the European Club. I did not bash it beyond saying it was hyped from time to time and not really top 10 Ireland but head and shoulders the best in SE Ireland. Pat Ruddy took the comments as the ultimate insult to him and the course. Naturally that was far from my intent. I do hope we will continue to encourage honest debate and discussion. And not let those with an interest lower the quality of our discussions. cheers

You called the course a "con."  No wonder Pat Ruddy took offense.

http://tinyurl.com/yjvzo8f

[Sean_A]

Paul, This is a topic, I've seen mentioned before but never occurred to me.

Pulling punches to garner favor for a chance to get a repeat invitation seems like small reward for basically lying and losing one's own credibility. However, being sensitive to someone else's position, is clearly part of being aware enough not to be overly critical. Granted, the greatest courses in the world should have little to be critical of.

So, it boils down to why someone bullshits. For me, Life is too short to sell ones soul for another chance to tee it up at a course you've already payed and see problems with.

Ran and Ben really do the best reviews and when they don't like something, they will likely just not mention it. Choosing rather, to accentuate the positive. Which is really cool because then one needs to sleuth out what isn't said, to understand the review on a different level.

Fine lines indeed.

Sleuth out what isn't said?  That sounds like a lot could be read into something which wasn't intended.  No, I think I will stick to what is on the page. 

Though, I do wonder why folks would worry about re-visiting a course that wasn't all that impressive.  I think part of the problem is people tend focus on the negative especially around here and I know I am guilty of this at times.  All that said, how often is it that a course is panned?  Much more often than not a people are disappointed because expectations were not met and/or the the course didn't deliver good value.  There are so many wonderful courses around these days that it is easier than ever to be critically demanding.

Ciao

[Mike Policano]

A few months ago, John Kirk posted an excellent piece on biases, both conscious and subconscious, affecting one's view of a golf course (or anything else for that matter). After reading his piece, one probably will conclude all reviews are biased to some degree even by the most objective reviewer.

[Jud_T]

eseentially it's grade inflation, but whether it's A+ vs A or 7 vs. 5 on the doak scale we can still debate the finer points of good versus great.  what's more relevant to me was the argument posted by mike nuzzo (?) that courses fall into 3 categories: fun, pretty or challenging (?).  This is the real bias that is very difficult to overcome.  I tend to prefer the fun courses, while a lot of really good players tend to prefer the challenging and joe six-pack likes pretty...

[Jonathan Cummings]

As someone who writes golf course reviews, another big reason reviews can be softened is advertising.  If a course (private or public) either does or may advertise with your magazine you aren't very inclined to write a critical review of that course.  JC

[Jerry Kluger]

Jonathan: If that is the case then what value is there to reading what you have to say?

[Mac Plumart]

Oh man...this discussion worries the tar out of me.

Writing biased and half true reviews of golf courses for advertising reveune reminds me so much of the Wall Street debacle of the late 1990's/early 2000's when the research analysts got busted for pumping stocks that the investement banking operations were trying to raise capital for. 

SAY IT AIN'T SO, SAY IT AIN'T SO.  Frankly, I know in my heart that it is and we all have to do what we have to do to put food on the table, but it hurts.

[Jud_T]

I liken this to the Wine Spectator vs. Wine Advocate....One takes advertisement and perks while the other strictly doesn't. THIS IS WHY WE NEED AN UPDATED AND EXPANDED VERSION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL GUIDE!!!!   

[Jerry Kluger]

Keep in mind that there are reviews done for reasons other than revenues.  Golf is a gentleman's game and that is proven by Ran's course reviews - he obviously does not see a need for posting negative reviews but his motives are far from financial. 

[Jud_T]

Jerry,

yes we all know this is a great site and Ran does a wonderful job, but the point is that exactly what's missing in golf criticism broadly IS the negative reviews.   

[Jonathan Cummings]

Sorry fellas, it's a cruel hard fact of life with most magazines - travel, wine, golf - to mention a few.  Most writer's views are softened by editors for pure econmonic reasons.  JC

[Jerry Kluger]

Jud: Some people are of the view that if you don't have something nice to say then it is best to say nothing that's called having class or being a gentleman.  It is far different from someone who says something nice for the money. When you claim to be an expert and are giving an opinion without disclosing that your real reason for that opinion is financial and has little to do with the merits of the subject, then what does it say about the value of your opinion?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: