Are golf course reviews biased

[DMoriarty]

Now why is it that I have the feeling that anyone running one of the small regional publications would say exactly the same thing as Matt.  Sure everyone else is beholden to the courses and sticks mostly to glowing reviews, but we are different; we would never consider things like advertising or revenue or survival.


The other thing about the small publications and wannabe websites is that their "reviewers" are often not getting much of anything out of their "job" financially, so just about all they do recieve is the access and the perks.   These guys are NOT going burn their meal tickets by getting a reputation as a hard-nosed reviewer willing to say it like it is.    Plenty of examples of that around here.  

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan C:

I've got the same question for you I had for Jonathan:  did they really edit your words like that, or did they ask you to do edit your words, or did they just tell you to stress the positive from the beginning?

Tom,

It started off by editing my words. The first article I submitted came back to me with a number of great comments that helped make me a better writer. It also came back with a request for minor revisions in places where I had made observations that didn't reflect favorably on the course. I was told by the editor that the publication wanted to focus on the positive aspects of the game, and that included the way course reviews were treated. So rather than saying the fairways of x country club were ragged and patchy and unkempt, my write-up would call the look rugged and natural and a throwback to an earlier era that captured the simplicity and essence of the game.

I am teachable enough that in my subsequent stories, I avoided the pitfalls that come with being critical and instead gave my editor what he was looking for. I'd like to say that eventually my conscience got the better of me. But I would be more honest to say that I just lost interest in it. Each new review was the same as the last. It was boring and wasn't why I wanted to get into writing.

But ever since then, I have put very little faith in any review on any subject that was published in a public forum. It is almost impossible to know what opinion is honest and objective and what is being swayed by some outside force.

[Matt_Ward]

Since certain barking dogs are at it again - I'd be happy to forward any negative critiques I've offered -- either through the print medium or from this ste. I know firsthand what made Jersey Golfer different than others and will be happy to back it up.

Barking dogs often react because they enjoy hearing themselves bark. 

How nice ...

[DMoriarty]

No need to get defensive Matt.  Your many reviews speak for themselves on the issue.

[TEPaul]

"No need to get defensive Matt."


Moriarty:

That remark is just so typical of you with practically everyone and everything you say on here. Other than the benighted and inarticulate MacWood and the inscrutable hair-splitting Jim Kennedy do you think there is anyone on this website who thinks you're necessay? 

[DMoriarty]

"No need to get defensive Matt."


Moriarty:

That remark is just so typical of you with practically everyone and everything you say on here. Other than the benighted and inarticulate MacWood and the inscrutable hair-splitting Jim Kennedy do you think there is anyone on this website who thinks you're necessay? 

Necessay?  Sober up, Tom.  You slurring your words and swerving from thread to thread.

[Rob Rigg]

Rob:

The national mags have much more freedom than you might surmise. If you were to take your argument to a logical end conclusion among major media -- you might say The NY Times will pull punches on its new stories / editorials because of a unfavorable story on something that might have happened within the General Electric family or the Exxon family. The largest pubs have the wherewithal to be quite independent if they wish. Frankly, Digest could do a better job if it employed a better methodology to the way it rates courses now. The system they use -- not the wherewithal to provide such comments -- is what lies at their doorstep in my mind.

Matt - I disagree, comparing national newspaper publications to golf magazines is silly. Newspapers are trying to scoop each other - the golf mags are trying to show the love to as many potential advertisers as possible.

Most news big story "news" is also fairly black and white while opinions on golf courses are somewhat subjective.

The golf world needs a Robert Parker - while he might be biased towards bold and fruit forward wines, at least you can come to understand his opinions which will help you interpret his commentary on wine. He does not need to buy anyone off. Ad revenue at magazines drives apathy.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I don't see any reason why private courses should be reviewed and rated at all. Since nobody is ever going to play there, what interest would readers have in a review of this course? That review would be interesting for just a handful of people: those living close by and thinking of joining or, in the case of national memberships, a few high rollers. In any event there are not going to be enough readers to justify an article in a national publication (regional mags - yes).

So if private courses are out, then the biggest obstacle to unbiased reviews is removed: no more danger of insulting your host, you are playing the course as an anonymous walk-up.

Ulrich

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom -  I only have several national articles and they were both heavily edited (maybe more for my writing ability than for content   ).  The many regional articles I've written have all been edited (some more some less).  The piece I wrote for Philly WGM on your Udder Course was significantly edited by Tony L.  Over the years my primary editor (who has become a close friend) has never directly told me to tone things down, but I have always sensed that there is a line I can't cross.    I always put my own 'constructive' suggestions in my articles..."it may have been better if hole X were...", or "conditioning may be an issue", etc.  This has always been encouraged.  But I can't say "It would have been better if the architect had died a young boy...."  A regional magazine could never publish reviews like the ones you wrote in The CG.  I also benefit from being assigned mostly upscale new public/private tracts to profile - courses I truly liked.  No need to prostitute myself with assignments like that although I admit there have been a few....

As usual Matt is has hit the nail on the head.  Advertising drives regional magazines.  Blogs were made for no holds barred criticism.  Besides being an excellent course reviewer himself Matt has extensive editorial experience.  We all disagree with Matt from time-to-time but the depth of his reviews is better than all but a few.  Gib may be my all time favorite – but he’s about six standard deviations off the mean.

Regional magazines are not going under because of the quality of the articles being published.  That's nonsense.  There is no conspiracy.  Is just a stark fact of economics.  Golf courses and equipment companies, hotels, resorts, etc etc - all their revenues are down.  They have less money to spend on advertising so mags, which live and breathe because of ad dollars, get less.

Newspapers are being stressed by competition from electronic media.  I don't have the numbers to back this claim up but I suspect that the younger generation, with all the audio visual input available, is simply reading less.

Ahhh Ulrich, have you read a regional magazine recently??  Private courses are advertising to the point of desperation.

Jerry - easy answer to your "why should I read your articles..."  Don't.

Tom poses a good question about advertising influences on golf publications nationally and regionally.  What are some of the experiences of other writers who have published in both forums?

JC

[Jud_T]

Sean,

reread the Confidential Guide.  There will be a quiz in class on monday...

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
You're mistaken, he's speaking French, and ne-ces-say translates into "it is true, but only if I say so".

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

Thanks for sorting through the BS / ignorance of so many others when it comes to understanding what pubs are about. Certain people think having a personal opinion is an informed one -- like my late father was fond of saying, "you can work with ignorance -- you just can't help stupidity."

Jonathan, in regards to the influence of advertisers -- the bigger the base from which a mag has the less the overall influence that one or two main contributors can make to that respective pub. Regional / state pubs are more influenced by this -- I can only say my publisher was not adverse to allowing more editorial freedom than you see with others. The blog universe has nicely fit into that role on a range of fronts.

Rob:

Let me try to help you out with what you are clearly missing.

Golf Digest has deep resources -- hence a parallel to various key big time newspapers. Such mags like Digest can go out on a limb and take the highest of high roads and be critical as they see fit. Since they have the undisputed #1 position in readership and overll ad dollars they can afford to be a bit preachy as they see fit.

Digest has a much different forum than the 2nd and 3rd tier mags. Digest used to be own by the NY Times Company -- now they are the domain of the S.I. Newhouse group. Digest can in so many ways set the tone for what is being thought of by the many people who play the game. My point, which you either clearly missed or simply did not get, is that Digest has the premier position to really influence what takes place.

The methodology they have seen fit to highlight courses through their ratings process is flawed in my mind. I say that after having served as panelist for Digest for 17 years. The magazine can really impact a number of things -- ironically -- they used to do that not so many years ago -- see the movement Digest tried to start with trying to speed the game up.

Rob, Digest has the platform to use your Robert Parker suggestion. Frankly, I like what Ron Whitten did for the mag but his role is more of a secondary situation now. The idea that you can get some expert guidance through a hodge podge grouping of people called a ratings panel doesn't really cut it. I don't doubt the issue is a subjective one -- but it's one that can be carried out in a far more comprehensive basis than what one sees now.

Rob, I share with you a cry for individual voices. Consensus thinking is, at the end of the day, watered down assemblage of thought.

Rob, last thing -- the manner by which Parker communicates is through an entirely different vehicle than major pubs like Digest and other newspapers of note.

Digest can easily say what they feel is necessary. In fact, if you check out past issues of Digest you will see the comments of Whitten many times when he has previewed the major championships and the architecture for the courses that have served as host. More of this type can be done -- Digest has little to fear from taking a more preachy position -- in fact, I think they would gain even more readers and stature if they went that direction.

[Mark_Fine]

I have NEVER read a review that is not biased in some manner.  Even the harshest critics have a bias.  It is human nature.

[Mike Hendren]

Paul Turner,

First, I hope you are well and prosperous!

For the record, I am in that minority that believes Pebble Beach Golf Links is slightly "better" than Cypress Point Club, even though such an exercise involves picking knits.  Also, while not often mentioned, it probably doesn't help that Pebble Beach Golf Links is three times more expensive than Cypress Point Club.  If forced to choose between the two for one more round,  I'd play Pebble.

Cheers.

Mike

[Cristian]

Maybe we should make Michael Schumacher play the world's top courses with a white helmet on, so he won't be recognized, and can give a totally independant, unbiased by exclusivity, review; Or maybe someone else, who wants to be The Stig of GCA?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Bias is not a problem if it is clearly spelled out. Such as "I love old-style routings" or "I want it green and lush". It is a problem, if it remains a hidden agenda such as "The course owner is my friend" or "I got some perks" or "I hate Joe Doe and so will trash all his courses".

Ulrich

[Mark_Fine]

Ulrich,
Explaining one's biases would likely be longer than the review     It is not possible.  There is no such thing as a non-biased review - end of discussion.
Mark

[Ulrich Mayring]

You'll have to spread the explaining out over several reviews. Tom Doak's bias is clearly visible in his Confidential Guide, but you do have to read more than one review. Also, there are unbiased reviews, just no good ones

Ulrich

[Padraig Dooley]

Of course the reades of golf course reviews are biased as well  .

[Mac Plumart]

I find this topic so interesting as I believe golf course reviews/ratings very important.

If a course is reviewed glowingly or rated highly, more people will be interested in playing it.  Public, private, resort...whatever...the more hype the more people will want to play it, the more they will pay to play it, the more money the course/club will make. 

If the reviews/ratings are deliberatley rigged and/or designed to over-hype a course and therefore allow a course to charge to high a fee then the golfers get ripped off.  This will eventually lead to a decline in the satisfaction level of the golfers and a decline in the viability of the industry.

With this in mind, I have a big issue with reviewers/raters who aren't putting out a quality product.

However, every one has biases.  Some critics/raters/reviewers like beautiful courses, some like golden era courses, etc.  That might be a bias but it is not a scam.  It has been said in this thread that as long as these biases are disclosed then that is fine.  I agree.  For instance, in the Confidential Guide Tom Doak outlines his 5 criteria for evaluating a course.  Here are his comments and/or the gist of his comments...

1) real golf is about interesting and exciting golf holes, not lavish clubhouses and expensive maintenance budgets 2) his ratings reward variety, 3) he likes courses with interesting greens, 4) he appreciates ambiance on a golf course, and 5) he doesn't put much weight on the conditioning of a golf course as one of his tests of a good golf hole requires that it would be an interesting hole regardless of its conditioning.

These types of biases don't bother me at all.  They are inherent in human beings.  Disclosing them is ideal, but even if they don't disclose biases like this...that is ok.  It is the deliberate scam that bothers me as it bilks people out of their money and hurts the game in the long run.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

I was going to mention that I DID address my own biases in the front of The Confidential Guide, for Mark's and Ulrich's sake ... but you beat me to it.  Thanks!

Jonathan and Matt and Dan:

Thanks for your detailed responses.  It reminded me of the similarity between writing for an editor, and designing for a client.  Just like some would say that an architect should not build a course if he can't do it the way he wants, some would say that a writer should object to his words being edited to gloss over their substance.  But, it is another thing when you are suddenly in that spot.

Others:

This is a hard subject and deserving of much attention, but it's not an easy one.

One of the things which helped me so much in writing The Confidential Guide was that so much of my subject matter was little-known old courses, about which it was possible to write something original, without worrying what their dead architects might think.  Also, when you put it all out there in one shot, you can't be accused of modifying your opinions based on complaints or sensitivity.  Last but not least, I didn't have an editor. 

The problem I see in the reviews of modern courses is that even the best reviewers eventually become too self-conscious about their own biases, and feel the need to start applying special measures of relativity in what they write so they aren't accused of playing favorites ... i.e., Ron Whitten feels the need to take down a Coore and Crenshaw design because he is already considered a fan of theirs.  It's just a different sort of dishonesty.  You don't have to worry about that when you are talking about Tom Simpson or Bill Langford.

I also have to say I hate it when people write reviews that are generally praising, but then they always stick in a last paragraph telling what the weaknesses were and implying (not so subtly sometimes) that they could have done better themselves.  If you are going to be that way, you might as well just start your criticism at the first tee.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Thanks for your detailed response.

The issue with magazines -- particuraly the smaller ones is that it takes $$ to keep them going. People here on GCA can take the high road and make grandioise statements about this and that but are literally clueless about the totality of what is involved.

In regards to your comments about reviewers making back-ended comments let me say this -- too many people often fall in love with a particular architect and believe that everything they do is great or the converse that a certain architect is always poor. There's plenty of grey involved in the subject arena.

One of the strengths I see with CG is that you outlined plenty of courses that few people had ever really heard about -- never mind actually playing. No doubt you covered all of the key courses but the candor you applied didn't have to worry about a "next issue" or how certain advertisers would feel about such unvarnished clarity.

No doubt people will have certain preferences but the challenge is to provide commentary that asks a very simple question for the more established architects -- how is their most present work a furtherance in their overall development as an archtect? I've said this many times before that architects need to be very aware that repetition of styles is not followed in a regimented and clear manner. Nothing turns me off more than seeing a "johnny one note" doing the same exact thing in a different setting. Been there ... done that.

Tom, the issue you handled with CG was that too much of what called itself architectural criticism was just not as prevalent / public prior to the arrival of CG -- there's been much more since then -- but plenty of the less than glowing comments were usually only whispered and not broadcast in a major way. I tried to do that at a regional level because so much of what called itself "great" golf in Jersey was just a lazy man's continuance of the same opinions and not anything more deeper than surface level. Unfortunately, like Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men," there aren't many people who are prepared to handle the truth and often will seek a way to muzzle such statements.

Larger mags like Digest could lead the way if they desired -- but as I said before the overall methodology is really a half ass way to provide something that is much deeper and probing than what you see masquerading as top tier designs.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I just disagree with your last paragraph for the reasons cited above.  GOLF DIGEST cannot print the kinds of reviews you yearn for, because they have too many of their own sacred cows ... starting the need to backstop their Top 100 list and past Best New selections, even in cases where the editors completely disagree with the panel.  Whitten was going that way for a while, but then he started having to let us "read it in between the lines," and eventually he disassociated himself from the whole process [but they still make him write the profiles of the winning courses!].

[Rob Rigg]

Rob:

Let me try to help you out with what you are clearly missing.

Matt, Once again your ability to write in an extremely annoying and condescending manner really makes me want to understand your position . . .

Golf Digest has deep resources -- hence a parallel to various key big time newspapers. Such mags like Digest can go out on a limb and take the highest of high roads and be critical as they see fit. Since they have the undisputed #1 position in readership and overll ad dollars they can afford to be a bit preachy as they see fit.

The fact that they, or any other golf mag, are not "preachy" makes me think that they cannot just do or say whatever they want about golf courses without some sort of consequence - or they would do doing it. There is a lot of power, pride and sensitivity in the golf biz right? Treading carefully is porbably not the worst way to run a golf mag - right?

Digest has a much different forum than the 2nd and 3rd tier mags. Digest used to be own by the NY Times Company -- now they are the domain of the S.I. Newhouse group. Digest can in so many ways set the tone for what is being thought of by the many people who play the game. My point, which you either clearly missed or simply did not get, is that Digest has the premier position to really influence what takes place.

Yes they could - but my point was that they do not do this - my assumption is that they do not want to jeopardize potential ad revenue. Or maybe as Tom suggests they may "have too many of their own sacred cows". Or maybe there is another reason. The fact is that they do not tend to speak freely in course reviews.

The methodology they have seen fit to highlight courses through their ratings process is flawed in my mind. I say that after having served as panelist for Digest for 17 years. The magazine can really impact a number of things -- ironically -- they used to do that not so many years ago -- see the movement Digest tried to start with trying to speed the game up.

I agree that they can if they want, I agree that their ratings process if flawed, I agree that they can be a positive forum for effecting needed change or simply honesty about the state of the game.

Rob, Digest has the platform to use your Robert Parker suggestion. Frankly, I like what Ron Whitten did for the mag but his role is more of a secondary situation now. The idea that you can get some expert guidance through a hodge podge grouping of people called a ratings panel doesn't really cut it. I don't doubt the issue is a subjective one -- but it's one that can be carried out in a far more comprehensive basis than what one sees now.

Rob, I share with you a cry for individual voices. Consensus thinking is, at the end of the day, watered down assemblage of thought.

Rob, last thing -- the manner by which Parker communicates is through an entirely different vehicle than major pubs like Digest and other newspapers of note.

I know, that was my point. Parker is not beholden to anyone. His word is the law because his reputation is best in class which means wineries have to open their doors to him and his team year after year whether he panned their last vintage or not. As you understand, this means that consumers have to pay a lot for Parker's insight because there is no ad revenue subsidizing his business, but those dollars get the consumer unfiltered reviews (but not unbiased, as everyone is biased in some way).

Digest can easily say what they feel is necessary. In fact, if you check out past issues of Digest you will see the comments of Whitten many times when he has previewed the major championships and the architecture for the courses that have served as host. More of this type can be done -- Digest has little to fear from taking a more preachy position -- in fact, I think they would gain even more readers and stature if they went that direction.

Some of Whitten's commentary in the past has certainly been refreshing, but most of the course reviews in GD are kind of useless at the end of the day because they do not provide a lot of insight and their "star" rating system often does not make sense - at least based on my experience.

I think we agree on what we would like GD to do - but maybe not about why they don't do it.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Digest is responsible to its readers (or it should be) -- it has built up the wherewithal to go beyond the "sacred cows" you mentioned. If Digest cowtows to those "sacred cows" then the magazine has simply been co-opted into nothing more than a magazine which stands for nothing.

You may or may not remember this -- but Digest used to take various stands on issues -- slow play and what it does to the game was one of them. Bill Davis in founding Digest many years ago wanted to have a magazine that would say something to those who love the game. I am not naive to know that often times those who are involved in the industry can become a bit too clubby and close.

Let me point out to you that when Digest years ago dropped ANGC from its top ten -- believe it was around 1985 -- there was plenty of consternation and grinding of teeth. No doubt it was a temporary drop but Digest at least weighed in with something.

You mention Ron Whitten -- Ron still provides a bit of his own take when he reviews the courses that are hosting the majors for the mag. Digest has allowed this panel idea to morph into some sort of huge Gallup poll with a plentitude of people who don't know their butts from their wrists. A classic case was Ron's take on Kingsley Club -- and how it's esteemed panel is still walking in the darkness on that layout.

Digest can easily recapture its voice and be an advocate through the people who understand just what is taking place within the game. I don't have to agree with every stance and neither do you. But, this whole notion, that we can poll people and from that we get some real depth -- some real clue -- on what constitutes quality golf design is folly. If a magazine is in the business only to tell people what they want to hear -- then it's role is truly compromised. Magazines need to have a clear voice -- it can include a range of thoughts / stances -- but it needs to include a purpose to advance their reader's understanding of the game -- if it is simply in business to promote narrow self-serving causes tied to a status quo promotion of the game then it does little, if anything, to be called a leader in the field.

Frankly, that's why blogs like this one and others have become the home for real analysis and real thought.


Rob:

Let me try this again -- OK.

Have you ever written or edited a magazine? Ever been involved with publishing one?

If you have not -- then what I offered is not "annoying" or "condescending" but rather trying to educate you on what constitutes what magazines can do.

Digest willfully abandoned its role to be an advocate on a range of fronts. If you bother to go back to issues of the mag from say 20 years ago you will see a far different magazine with a range of columnists and ideas that go beyond the narrow self promotion concepts that Digest and a range of other mags are doing.

Digest built UP its currency because of the stance it took from years ago -- it's been living off those glory days for quite some time in my mind.

You mention ramifications if Digest did what I said. The "power, pride and sensitivity" that you mention has little impact when a magazine is owned by the NY Times company and now S I Newhouse. They have the reach and depth to say what they want to say and from that develop an even more stronger positions. It's no different than what you see with its former parent pub -- The NY Times. No doubt some advertisers might take umbrage but what you lose with one disgruntled player you more than make up with others.

Digest decided to be a vanilla magazine. The sharpness of the writing -- the overall buzz rests in other quarters because they have decided to follow a predictable path with no real zest. You keep on saying that Digest would be hurt if it took such positions -- the reality as I see it would be that Digest would gain even more stature and those seeking to advance their products would be lining up at the door to be seen within their pages.

Digest can look to pubs like Vogue and its editor Anna Wintour for how a real "voice" can be developed and sustained. No doubt there will not be agreement 100% on any position taken but Vogue has not been hurt by stating what it believes is needed in woman's fashion. Digest can do the same -- it chooses to follow a more predictable and safer fashion.

The insertion of the colossus panel approach is inane. Whitten, or a core number of people, far fewer than what you see now, can easily do what's needed. People will still disagree but frankly the failure of what their existing panel has done for the most part is to miss what is really happening in the field. It's not because they don't want to include such items -- they have simply gone the route of providing info that says little, if anything. When a magazine is not cutting new ground -- it becomes more and more of the status quo and loses its soul. No less than Buckley saw that with his involvement with National Review.

Rob, magazines are either advocates for something or they are simply page holders for advertisers. You can succeed by having clear positions - Digest has taken the Gallup poll approach to defining quality golf. They have an outstanding reviewer in Ron Whitten and choose not to use him. That's a pity and disservice to readers. The founder of Digest -- Bill Davis -- wanted a pub that understood the game and could advance elements for its readers. Digest has simply lost its way -- the rankings of its selected courses shows me more and more how many holes (no pun intended) are indeed apparent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: