[Anthony Fowler]

Given its size, GCA is a pretty homogenous group.  Most of us are looking for the same things in golf courses, and then we squabble over the minor details.  This thread is about the minor details.

Using the data from Ian Linford’s unofficial GCA’s top courses project, I have tried to determine the factors that separate some of us from others.  Using a statistical technique called “factor analysis,” I have tried to order different raters along preferential dimensions that predict their preference for different types of courses.  I’m having a difficult time figuring out exactly what these dimensions represent, and I would greatly appreciated your help.

If it helps, these dimensions are comparable to the ideological dimensions of Congressmen who might have one ideology on moral issues and another ideology on economic issues.  Even if we don’t know a Congressman’s ideology, we could potentially tease it out by observing her roll-call votes.  In the same way, I am observing each GCAers course ratings and trying to tease out where they fall on these preferential dimensions.

There are two dimensions that seem to predict the preferences of individual raters above and beyond the average quality of a course.  The first, strongest dimension seems to represent individual preferences for brand-name, classic-era courses.  Raters on one end of this dimension show a strong preference for Pebble Beach, Merion, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Ballybunion, TOC, Royal Dornoch, Royal County Down, and Shinnecock.  Those on the other end of this dimension show a stronger (than expected) preference for Kingsbarns, Olympic, Old Head, Bel-Air, Butler National, Chicago, Yeamans Hall, Lost Dunes, LACC, and Blackwolf Run.  It appears that some of us strongly prefer the big-name courses while others tend to favor hidden gems and more modern designs.  Do you have any further suggestions about what this dimension could be picking up.

The second dimension confuses me even more.  On one end of this dimension, raters like Beverly, Princeville, Bethpage, Oakland Hills, Tralee, Whistling Straits, Casa de Campo, Blackwolf Run, Skokie, and Pinehurst No. 2.  On the opposite end, people prefer Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Pasatiempo, Winged Foot, Royal Cinque Ports, Quaker Ridge, Pine Needles, Old Town, and Woodhall Spa.  This dimension could pick up different preferences for public vs. private, links vs. parkland, modern vs. classic; but none of those seem to fit perfectly.  I need some help from the DG in figuring this out.  What is it that separates these two sets of courses?

Even though this is a little bit confusing, I think these factors really do predict an individual’s preference for different types of courses.  I have played 5 courses on the list since I submitted ratings for Ian’s project, and these factors correctly predicted in 4 out of 5 cases whether I would like a course more or less than the average GCAer.  Moreover, these factors can help to predict my preference for courses that I have not played.  For example, this analysis is telling me that I should seek out Ballybunion, Beverly, and Royal Liverpool over Kingsbarns, Loch Lomond, or Butler National.  For another GCAer, the recommendation might be exactly the opposite.

[JESII]

Anthony,

Interesting stuff you're doing with this data.

While I've played my share of the very top courses multiple times (by luck), I've played amazingly few of the real meat (#20 - 100 types). My impression of people's opinion of this level course, even the top level I suppose, is the non-golf stuff; their expectations going in, the type of person they are (conformist versus anti-establishment or appreciative of understatement versus being told the whole story).

I think it would be very difficult for the very best, most well-traveled and experienced of us to explain in real terms why a course deserves to be #40 while another deserves to be #35. #1 over #2, or even #7 over #8 maybe but drop into the list just a tiny bit and any argument is valid.

[Peter Pallotta]

Anthony - yes, good work and interesting question, thanks.  Mostly what Jim just said - but also (given some of the examples you gave), I think there is something deep at work in our preferences, a personal narrative (for lack of a better word) that is enriched or bolstered by (sometimes) great courses understated and simple in presentation (golf, only golf, golf itself) and (at other times) great courses sparkling and overt in their self-references and recognition (the history golf, and a sense of participation in it).  In other words, I think sometimes our souls need and value the direct/personal/individual experience; and sometimes our souls need and value the shared/collective/group experience.

Peter   

[George Freeman]

Anthony - yes, good work and interesting question, thanks.  Mostly what Jim just said - but also (given some of the examples you gave), I think there is something deep at work in our preferences, a personal narrative (for lack of a better word) that is enriched or bolstered by (sometimes) great courses understated and simple in presentation (golf, only golf, golf itself) and (at other times) great courses sparkling and overt in their self-references and recognition (the history golf, and a sense of participation in it).  In other words, I think sometimes our souls need and value the direct/personal/individual experience; and sometimes our souls need and value the shared/collective/group experience.

Peter    

Very well put, Peter.  And I think the forces you speak of are impossible, or at least very hard to ignore/suppress.  It's human nature (i.e. subjective).

[Jim Eder]

Anthony,

Very interesting. I think there is also a romanticism with the history of the classic era (and they are just darn good).

I think the grouping you use is interesting. In the 4th paragraph you say on the other hand and list courses. Personally (and maybe wrongly) I consider Olympic, Bel Air, LACC, and Chicago in a different category than Blackwolf etc and lean to put these more into the classic category or list you mention.

In your 2nd dimension list I think of Oakland Hills, Pinehurst, and Beverly in a different grouping than the others (I don't know Skokie) and maybe more consistent with the other category I will list next. And then in the other category in that paragraph I consider Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Pasatiempo, Winged Food, Royal Cinque Ports, Quaker Ridge, and Woodhall Spa in a near or classic category. (I don't know Old Town). When I write this and think it seems that history plays a prt in my thinking.

In the last paragraph you say you should seek out Ballybunion, Beverly, and Royal Liverpool over Kingsbarns, Loch Lomond, or Butler National and personally I would agree with you though I would include Kingsbarns should be in the group to seek out. Butler is a very nice course as it Loch Lomond but they are iPods rather than a tube radio. Both wonderful but one takes you back a bit in time to an unknown or romanticised era.

So I guess I am wondering how much history plays in all this. I wonder if the people who would choose the newer courses would prefer the new corvette to a 60s, or a contemporary over a 1920s Tudor. Sure there are design aspects that impact our views whetehr it is the bunkering, greens, greensites, etc but I wonder if there is a history aspect.

Very very interesting, I like what you are doing here.

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

There are certainly some people who are more ready to elevate a new course into the Pantheon, than other panelists are.  I do not think the latter group is necessarily "biased" toward older courses, though.  I think they are just more circumspect in general.  My experience is that the people who are ready to put a new course in the top 20, are also much more ready to drop it like a hot potato in favor of a different new course four years hence, which makes their vote a bit less reliable, don't you think?

Some ascribe this to favoring "history" and I guess that IS a factor for some people, but it is possible just to like the style of classic courses while not caring a bit about the history of the course, too.

[JESII]

...but it is possible just to like the style of classic courses while not caring a bit about the history of the course, too.

I like this Tom. Do you think it's possible that age itself is a style?

I've often thought that the main thing I see that differentiates the better modern courses from the better "golden age" courses is just time.

Clearly this goes to my perception/expectation as being distinct from actual nuts and bolts.

[Kevin Lynch]

Some ascribe this to favoring "history" and I guess that IS a factor for some people, but it is possible just to like the style of classic courses while not caring a bit about the history of the course, too.

I would imagine that History is a bigger factor among this group than it may be among the general golfing public, but I have no doubt that it's the "Style" that trumps History.  I think the love for Old McDonald confirms that (but that could just be the "Doak Love" factor).


As for what separates us, I'm sure there is a wide range of answers, which may explain the apparent "randomness" of the ratings in 20-100.  Some may be influenced more by aesthetics, others by the playability, and others by history.

But the distinguishing factor for someone may not fall along the expected delineations of "modern vs. classic" or "links vs. parkland."  I have equal love for a classic like Leatherstocking as I do for Tobacco Road, because I appreciate the different challenges provided.

If anything, my line of delineation would fall along "penalty strokes" (OB/Water/Lost Ball Rough) vs. "penal challenges" (1/2 stroke penalties which accumulate).

[Bob_Huntley]

Anthony,

You wrote, "For example, this analysis is telling me that I should seek out Ballybunion, Beverly, and Royal Liverpool over Kingsbarns, Loch Lomond, or Butler National.  For another GCAer, the recommendation might be exactly the opposite."  I think picking Hoylake over Kingsbarns would be a mistake and when you are out here next month I shall drag you kicking and screaming to my point of view.

No matter what criteria is used, it all comes down to personal preference; in 1944 I saw Ingrid Bergman in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and fell in love with her over all the other sex-pots of stage and screen. In later years it was Audrey Hepburn. As in human relationships, a visceral relationship with a golf course can be roused on the first meeting. Try rating Fishers Island with any of the Johnny-come Latelies and see if I am not right.


Bob
 

[Mac Plumart]

Anthony...

I applaud your work here.  Great stuff!

Would it be possible for you to post potential likes/dislikes?

For instance, if a golfer likes Ballyneal...he is likely to enjoy courses x, y, and z as well. 

[Brad Tufts]

The second dimension confuses me even more.  On one end of this dimension, raters like Beverly, Princeville, Bethpage, Oakland Hills, Tralee, Whistling Straits, Casa de Campo, Blackwolf Run, Skokie, and Pinehurst No. 2.  On the opposite end, people prefer Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Pasatiempo, Winged Food, Royal Cinque Ports, Quaker Ridge, Pine Needles, Old Town, and Woodhall Spa.  This dimension could pick up different preferences for public vs. private, links vs. parkland, modern vs. classic; but none of those seem to fit perfectly.  I need some help from the DG in figuring this out.  What is it that separates these two sets of courses?

Very cool stuff Anthony!  None of it will ever be foolproof, but it creates great discussion.

At first glance, I feel as though those two lists of courses are separated by being inside or outside.  The first list is full of polarizing courses that in their current iteration challenge the "safe" notion of classic architecture by design or renovation.  The second is full of some of the "safest" (as I see it) classic courses on the list that most agree are models of normal classic design.

Polarizers:
Beverly...never been, but seems from pictures like one of Ross's more artistic designs with more landforms around the greens, etc.
Princeville....definately some lovers and some haters
Bethpage...ditto above due to the Reestoration, but from the beginning, it was designed with toughness in mind
Oakland Hills...some Ross has been renovated out to fit as a tough tournament host
Tralee...American course on Irish linksland, some love it, some hate it
Whistling Straits, Casa de Campo, Blackwolf Run....one of GCAtlas's biggest quandarys...Pete Dye...genius or madman? 
Skokie...see Beverly above?...don't know too much about Skokie personally other than it has been toughened up by a recent reno-resto
Pinehurst No. 2...the ultimate polarizing course...some rank it top 10, some not in their top 100!

How's that for a guess?  It's all perception, and you can argue that the "safe" list courses have some issues that make them polarizing too...

[Sean_A]

Pebble Beach, Merion, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Ballybunion, TOC, Royal Dornoch, Royal County Down, and Shinnecock

Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Pasatiempo, Winged Food (I do like some winged food, but for golf I would prefer Winged Foot) Royal Cinque Ports, Quaker Ridge, Pine Needles, Old Town, and Woodhall Spa

There is no question I would prefer the above two groups to other two groups mentioned.  I don't know what that means other than I more than generally prefer golden age era courses.  Plus, look at those courses!  What else is out there that any lover of golf need see?  Its all right there.  As a disclaimer, I do like the history of clubs and enjoy very much prowling the hallways and assorted rooms in serach of interesting tid bits on the walls.  Not only that, but I like a historic and comfortable house which isn't ott - sort of quaint, but not in the least oppressive.  I know some of these clubs have that sort of history and house, but not all of them.

Ciao

[Anthony Fowler]

Would it be possible for you to post potential likes/dislikes?
For instance, if a golfer likes Ballyneal...he is likely to enjoy courses x, y, and z as well. 

The best examples are probably the courses that I have already listed.  If you like Princeville and Tralee more than others, you will probably also like Blackwolf Run and Casa de Campo better than others.  Within each of those categories, if you like one course, you are predicted to like the other courses as well.

[Anthony Fowler]

There are certainly some people who are more ready to elevate a new course into the Pantheon, than other panelists are.  I do not think the latter group is necessarily "biased" toward older courses, though. 

Tom, I agree 100%.  I don't think the word bias is appropriate in this discussion at all.  Some people have different preferences than others, but it would be unfair to say that their perceptions are biased.  Golfers are different, and the point of this exercise is to determine the different dimensions of preferences among GCAers.

[Anthony Fowler]

Brad: I think your explanation of the second dimension is is the best so far.  The first list of courses is somewhat controversial or "polarizing", while the second list is one that everyone would like.  Some like the controversial and challenging courses while others prefer the tamer, but still great, second set of courses.  I'm still open to other explanations, but I think you've made the most progress so far.  If others have more inside knowledge of Beverly or Skokie, do they belong on the "polarizing" list of courses?

Sean: Just to clarify, the question isn't whether you prefer one set of courses over another.  Virtually everyone would prefer Cypress and Pine Valley over Old Head and Blackwolf Run.  Rather, the question is whether you like one set more than the average rater and like another set less than the average rater.  I seem to fall in the first end for both dimensions (paradoxically liking both classic and polarizing courses), but others will be different.  Even though you might really like Cypress, Pine Valley, etc., you may still fall on the opposite end of the first dimension if you like the second set of courses more than the average rater.

[Carl Nichols]

Anthony-
Cool stuff. Will you provide individual counseling services (ie, tell me, based on my ratings, whether I'd prefer course A or B on my upcoming trip)? :--)

[Anthony Fowler]

Carl: I would be more than happy to help if I can.  If you participated in the GCA course ratings, then this should be easy to do.  Send me an e-mail and we can talk about this more.

Bob: I'm looking forward to having that conversation.  I haven't seen any of the 6 courses in question, so I'll keep an open mind.

[Sean_A]

Sean: Just to clarify, the question isn't whether you prefer one set of courses over another.  Virtually everyone would prefer Cypress and Pine Valley over Old Head and Blackwolf Run.  Rather, the question is whether you like one set more than the average rater and like another set less than the average rater.  I seem to fall in the first end for both dimensions (paradoxically liking both classic and polarizing courses), but others will be different.  Even though you might really like Cypress, Pine Valley, etc., you may still fall on the opposite end of the first dimension if you like the second set of courses more than the average rater.

I wouldn't have a good answer to that question, but I don't jump for joy at the thought of Oakhand Hills, Pinehurst and Tralee, but I can readily accept that OH and #2 are great courses - not convinced about Tralee though.  Once again, my preferences are a whole different from what I think of as greatness (as in top 100 or 200).

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Interesting stuff, Anthony, thanks for posting.  I have included a few ideas below. 

Raters on one end of this dimension show a strong preference for Pebble Beach, Merion, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Ballybunion, TOC, Royal Dornoch, Royal County Down, and Shinnecock.  Those on the other end of this dimension show a stronger (than expected) preference for Kingsbarns, Olympic, Old Head, Bel-Air, Butler National, Chicago, Yeamans Hall, Lost Dunes, LACC, and Blackwolf Run.

I think this might be more about exclusivity.  Most of the courses in the second list are hard to people to get on.  THe courses in the first list are relatively easily accessible to GCAers.

The second dimension confuses me even more.  On one end of this dimension, raters like Beverly, Princeville, Bethpage, Oakland Hills, Tralee, Whistling Straits, Casa de Campo, Blackwolf Run, Skokie, and Pinehurst No. 2.  On the opposite end, people prefer Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Pasatiempo, Winged Foot, Royal Cinque Ports, Quaker Ridge, Pine Needles, Old Town, and Woodhall Spa.

I would be willing to bet that this comes down to stroke index or handicap.  Low handicappers like the first list, high handicappers like the second list.

[Mike Sweeney]

There are two dimensions that seem to predict the preferences of individual raters above and beyond the average quality of a course.  

Anthony,

I think a dimension that you are missing is the "Arble Scale". Reality is raters from the magazines often get comped. Thus, rating Pebble Beach and Wildhorse is a fun exercise, but value does matter more than ever, especially the golfers who have to pay. I walked off TPC Sawgrass last week, and it felt like it was "not worth the money" to me. I had the exact opposite feeling when I walked off of Pebble Beach, I loved it and will probably take my son to it someday.

It is not just public courses, many privates are accessed through "unescorted play" these days and charity outings adds a different set of complications.

I think applying your skills to Sean's value propositions could be very interesting. Not sure how you execute it, but you can figure it out.

[Jud_T]

Mike,

It'd be pretty easy to simply adjust the original list by some cost factor and/or even a COLA by region factor, but one can easily do this onesself in a spreadsheet and IMHO should be seperate from a pure list of course quality.  The problem is value is also in the eye, or wallet, of the beholder.  Some folks would drive clear across country to play Wild Horse or Lawsonia while other will happily pay $400/round each week at their home club...

[Anthony Fowler]

Mike and Jud: Great points about the value dimension.  I actually estimated more than two dimensions, but I only mentioned these two because these seem to be the ones that explain the greatest degree of variance in a particular rater's preferences.  For these two dimensions, value doesn't seem to play a big factor (but remember that we're looking at the 412 best courses in the world, so there's not a lot of value to be had).

However, if I go down to the 4th most important dimension (which is not a very strong predictor), then value does appear.  On one end of this dimension, we see Wild Horse, Lawsonia, Rustic Canyon, Tobacco Road, and North Berwick.  On the opposite end we see Calusa Pines, Muirfield Village, Pebble Beach, Spyglass Hill, Augusta National, and Kauri Cliffs.  Finally, here, we do see that there is a value dimension.  Some GCAers are price sensitive and others like the Glitz and Glam of pricey courses.  However, the first two dimensions that I talked about seem to trump this one.  This makes some sense because the goal was to rate the quality of courses on the Doak Scale, not to indicate which courses you think are a good value or which ones you want to return to.  If that was the question at hand, then I suspect that this value dimension would play a crucial role.

[Chris Shaida]

Bot sure if this belongs here or on the now more active sister thread but...

Anthony,  this is really intriguing (though maybe harvard grad school isn't as demanding as it's reputed to be if you've got time for this!) because it provides a way out of the perpetual rankings trap--because ranking on their face purport to be absolute (something is 10 rather than 12 afterall) any disagreement with any ranking puts the whole thing in question ('rankings are worthless!') whereas the path you've got us on--if you like/value x and y then you'd probably like z (because others who liked/valued x and y also liked z) seems much closer to what many of us care about.  It also structurally allows for fundamental difference of opinion.  In a way GCA itself is a big, directional rather than exact, version of this--that is, I found this place, then there were enough points fo view that resonated with what I already know/thought/felt that I now 'trust' GCA (generally or collectively) to point me towards things I don't know (yet).  Practically speaking, whenever I'm going to a new town the first thing I do (before looking at GD or GM rankings) is poke around here for old threads discussing courses in that area.  I'm much more likely to want to play a course that's been given discussion here than any other course.  What you're doing is taking that to a more formal and refined level.  Bravo!

Peter, can't agree more about the 'personal narrative' thing.  I know that there are people who believe that they could transpose just the in-play components of a 'great course' to somewhere else and they would then be able to 'purely' evaluate the course (at least as an abstract exercise).  Maybe I'm too old or I've come to golf too late but there is no way for me to subtract all of the time/place/company/conditions from my memory and hence my value and hence my rating of a course.  (Similarly, I love food--both the eating and making of it--and I could tell you quite emphatically the three best 'meals' of my life but if you subtracted the place, the people, that moment in my life in order to do a 'pure' evaluation of the food (ie, recreated those meals in a test kitchen and ate a lab table) those three meals would disappear altogether from my memory).  Maybe one of Anthony's 'dimensions' will turn out to be something like that--those who can't help but consider the stories of a course and the little story that they are themselves making while playing it as part of the vlaue they place on the course--from those who evaluate the physical and shot-effecting components of a course?

[Sean_A]

There are two dimensions that seem to predict the preferences of individual raters above and beyond the average quality of a course.  

Anthony,

I think a dimension that you are missing is the "Arble Scale". Reality is raters from the magazines often get comped. Thus, rating Pebble Beach and Wildhorse is a fun exercise, but value does matter more than ever, especially the golfers who have to pay. I walked off TPC Sawgrass last week, and it felt like it was "not worth the money" to me. I had the exact opposite feeling when I walked off of Pebble Beach, I loved it and will probably take my son to it someday.

It is not just public courses, many privates are accessed through "unescorted play" these days and charity outings adds a different set of complications.

I think applying your skills to Sean's value propositions could be very interesting. Not sure how you execute it, but you can figure it out.

Mike

I think this is a much bigger issue than most will admit and imo its a major flaw in the magazine ranking system.  Getting comped effects one's perception, just as receiving good service in a shop does.  To me, any rater who is comped is immediately compromised as they can be seen to be "in debt" as it were and that indebtiness may make a rater go easier with a rating.  The goal of any ranking system should be try and recreate as much as possible the same conditions for all raters - I don't see this as a priority for mags.  I know I tend to push aside thoughts of rater of most raters if I think they are on a comp trail or in the case of the UK are usually guests rather than paying full whack.  BUT, I do think there are guys who can separate out these sorts of issues - likely guys who have seen a LOT of the world's best courses.

Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
I think it depends on why you are rating the courses. If you are doing a value rating then I certainly agree that you would be much more involved in your ranking if you actually shelled out the money to play a course, but if value isn't a component then I think that changes things. You said the goal of any ranking system should be to create the same conditions for each rater--I agree totally. However, wouldn't it be a more level system if the rater paid the same amount (whether it be $0, $25, or $500) for every course they played instead of $25 at Wild Horse and $500 at Pebble Beach? Even the mere perception of KNOWING the green fee of a course can have an influence on a rater if they choose to allow it.

I think your last statement really gets to the truth of the matter. Some guys can look past the monetary issues and I imagine others cannot. When I sit down to rate a course it never crosses my mind what I paid to play, or what I shot, or whether the guy in the pro shop was friendly or an $*@(.

For me though I add an additional aspect in that I keep my own list from my own criteria/weightings that's slightly different from any of the magazine criteria. Not only do I want my submissions to the magazine to be honest for the sake of the entire process, but if I needed any extra motivation then I want my list to be an honest reflection of the quality of the golf courses that I've played because I'll know every time I review it whether or not its the "truth" at least as it reflects my own opinion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()