Did Potter Stewart get it right on architecture as well as

[Patrick_Mucci]

obscenity ?

Reading about the attempts to order/rank architecture/courses vis a vis a numerical exercise seems like an attempt to identify the quality or relative value of architecture in order to help those who don't have a sense of what constitutes outstanding architectural value/s.

It seems as if the numerical exercise is an attempt to produce an index for those who "don't get it"

Does one have to consult those indices in order to determine if the course they just played has architectural merit,  and to what degree, relative to a course they played last week, last month or last year ?

Seems to me that you may not be able to define and/or numerically evaluate good architecture, but, you know it when you see it.

Does one need to know or understand the numerical evaluation of the course before teeing off on the first tee or after walking off the 18th green at Pebble Beach, Bandon, or Bethpage Black ?

Which do you prefer, the visceral or numerical evaluation ?

Does Potter Stewart's comment on obscenity,  apply to architecture, or do most golfers need a numerical index to identify the relative value and quality of architecture/courses ?

Or, ...........

[jeffwarne]

obscenity ?

Reading about the attempts to order/rank architecture/courses vis a vis a numerical exercise seems like an attempt to identify the quality or relative value of architecture in order to help those who don't have a sense of what constitutes outstanding architectural value/s.

It seems as if the numerical exercise is an attempt to produce an index for those who "don't get it"

Does one have to consult those indices in order to determine if the course they just played has architectural merit,  and to what degree, relative to a course they played last week, last month or last year ?

Seems to me that you may not be able to define and/or numerically evaluate good architecture, but, you know it when you see it.

Does one need to know or understand the numerical evaluation of the course before teeing off on the first tee or after walking off the 18th green at Pebble Beach, Bandon, or Bethpage Black ?

Which do you prefer, the visceral or numerical evaluation ?

Does Potter Stewart's comment on obscenity,  apply to architecture, or do most golfers need a numerical index to identify the relative value and quality of architecture/courses ?

Or, ...........

Yes he did

[Jason Topp]

In large part I think I use the Potter Stewart method for evaluating a course.  Specific criticisms or praise are my attempts to understand why I liked one course more than another but the impression comes first rather than the other way around.

[John McCarthy]

My belief is people tend to like things they believe they are supposed to like.  We are social apes and what other people think and our social status are terribly important to people.

 A famous example of this are the wine experiments:  Experts cannot tell the difference between expensive and inexpensive wine in blind tastings.  People tend to enjoy wine more when they have paid more for the wine.  Experts even have trouble ranking or even describing wine consistently or even differentiating between white and red wine.  Yet there are billions spent and many people spend a lot of time discussing the merits of various wines out there - I'm sure there is a Vineyard Atlas out there.  

Wine Advocate with their number 50-100 rating system put a number on how good the wine is supposed to be (nevermind it was one man's opinion on a ridiculously small sample size).  It gave a bottle a number which could be compared.  It allowed people to rank.  It told the consumer what "the experts" think.  In your words, it produced an index for those that don't "get it."  It has been a terrible success.  Yet many people in the business hate the ranking because of what it does to wine - they have to cater to the taste of one man who can make or break them.  They can't make wine the way they want to make wine.  It has homogenized the business.  

The masses don't think about golf courses the way we do around here.  There is a vast body of knowledge which must be learned in order to intelligently discuss the way golf courses are built and maintained.  Most folks want a number this course was 81st in Golf Digest or 54 in Golf Magazine.  When you are in the business of making golf courses that number becomes important if it drives business your way.  Heck the Doak scale could be considered indexing golf courses which some people may find important.  So these courses are built in such a way to get a rank.  (and of course there is a very limited number of courses out there that shun publicity so getting on that list is completely irrelevant)

Back to your ultimate question:  I personally do not like or respect the course rankings from the magazines.  I prefer the visceral reaction, yet believe that the rank of the course is important to many people because it allows them tell other people about all the great golf courses that they played.  It allows belt notching and one-upmanship.  It becomes important to establishing our social status.  And humans are terribly worried about social status in their groups.    

  

[Sean_A]

Pat

I do believe one has to be able to define something before they properly know it.  The problem (huh?) with golf, and one reason for rankings, is everyone has a different definition of what makes a good golf course. 

I can understand why the publics and looking for members privates play the game, but I don't understand why it would matter for members of well subscribed clubs which aren't seeking visitor money. 

John

Don't forget that classification systems existed before Wine Advocate.  Its just that they were highly exclusionary.  While there is an argument that wines are more homogenized, equally, a lot more wine is produced in more areas than previously.  It could also be argued that this increased competition which benfited from wine rankings have in turn increased quality thoughout the world.   

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

Would it be fair to say that the rankings serve as an educational tool for the uninformed ?

[John McCarthy]

Pat

I think the rating system does serve to educate the uninformed about some aspects of GCA.  The top tier in contains incredibly remarkable golf courses.  Just differentiating between some of them gets into angels on pins territory.  But going further down the lists (and especially into the state lists) I wonder if some places get rated higher because of the perception of exclusivity or reputation. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

Subjective evaluation is almost always influenced by extraneous issues

[John McCarthy]

Pat

Subjective evaluation is correct when I agree with it.  When I don't agree with it then the evaluation is clearly wrong!

[Terry Lavin]

John,

Would it be fair to say that the rankings serve as an educational tool for the uninformed ?

I'd say they serve as a list for belt notchers.

[Jud_T]

I think they serve a purpose beyond selling magazines.  They are a good starting point.  Many of us start out as belt notchers impressed by rankings.  After gaining some experience, and paying large sums to play courses that we realize weren't that interesting or fun, we start to question what each list represents.  The next step is realizing that you generally prefer courses ranked in a certain rag, i.e. Digest, Golfweek, Links etc.  The final step is having notched you're belt satisfactorily, and becoming a bit more discerning of the types of courses you favor, you get to the point where beyond the economic impact to your own club or the positive or negative effects of various lists and rating criteria on the game at large, you couldn't give a damn and just want to play courses you're likely to enjoy.  If anything you're seeking the holy grail of the undiscovered Doak 6 or 7 gem rather than ponying up $400 to get a bag tag at Whistling Straights.  Guys who've been around the block yet still get a semi-chub over ticking off boxes on their Top 100 Wall Plaque are another matter altogether.

[Dan Kelly]

My belief is people tend to like things they believe they are supposed to like.  We are social apes and what other people think and our social status are terribly important to people.

 A famous example of this are the wine experiments:  Experts cannot tell the difference between expensive and inexpensive wine in blind tastings.  People tend to enjoy wine more when they have paid more for the wine.  Experts even have trouble ranking or even describing wine consistently or even differentiating between white and red wine.  Yet there are billions spent and many people spend a lot of time discussing the merits of various wines out there - I'm sure there is a Vineyard Atlas out there.  

Wine Advocate with their number 50-100 rating system put a number on how good the wine is supposed to be (nevermind it was one man's opinion on a ridiculously small sample size).  It gave a bottle a number which could be compared.  It allowed people to rank.  It told the consumer what "the experts" think.  In your words, it produced an index for those that don't "get it."  It has been a terrible success.  Yet many people in the business hate the ranking because of what it does to wine - they have to cater to the taste of one man who can make or break them.  They can't make wine the way they want to make wine.  It has homogenized the business.  

The masses don't think about golf courses the way we do around here.  There is a vast body of knowledge which must be learned in order to intelligently discuss the way golf courses are built and maintained.  Most folks want a number this course was 81st in Golf Digest or 54 in Golf Magazine.  When you are in the business of making golf courses that number becomes important if it drives business your way.  Heck the Doak scale could be considered indexing golf courses which some people may find important.  So these courses are built in such a way to get a rank.  (and of course there is a very limited number of courses out there that shun publicity so getting on that list is completely irrelevant)

Back to your ultimate question:  I personally do not like or respect the course rankings from the magazines.  I prefer the visceral reaction, yet believe that the rank of the course is important to many people because it allows them tell other people about all the great golf courses that they played.  It allows belt notching and one-upmanship.  It becomes important to establishing our social status.  And humans are terribly worried about social status in their groups.    

  

Great post, sir.

I'm not sure Potter Stewart got it right about obscenity, either -- except for himself. His knew-it-when-he-saw-it would almost certainly differ from my know-it-when-I-see-it, or yours, or anyone else's.

And I'm not sure any of us, even Tom Doak, can know it for everyone when we see it for ourselves, when it comes to golf courses. It's all subjective. Its greatness (or not) is mere opinion -- like all art.

[Jason Topp]

And I'm not sure any of us, even Tom Doak, can know it for everyone when we see it for ourselves, when it comes to golf courses. It's all subjective. Its greatness (or not) is mere opinion -- like all art.

While I agree that subjectivity is a significant portion of any evaluation of the quality of a golf course, I disagree that it is all subjective.  Mackenzie's 13 principles contain a large number of objective criteria - for example - a good mix of holes, challenging to the good player while offering the lesser player an opportunity to play the hole, absence of the need to search for lost balls and conditioning in winter and summer. 

For me the fun is trying to convert subjective impressions into objective criteria that can predict in advance whether an unseen course will be of high quality or a course you have played once will get better with repetition.

[Dan Kelly]

And I'm not sure any of us, even Tom Doak, can know it for everyone when we see it for ourselves, when it comes to golf courses. It's all subjective. Its greatness (or not) is mere opinion -- like all art.

While I agree that subjectivity is a significant portion of any evaluation of the quality of a golf course, I disagree that it is all subjective.  Mackenzie's 13 principles contain a large number of objective criteria - for example - a good mix of holes, challenging to the good player while offering the lesser player an opportunity to play the hole, absence of the need to search for lost balls and conditioning in winter and summer. 

I'm not sure how "objective" some of those criteria are ("good mix"; "challenging" but "playable"; conditioning), but I see your point.

I would only reply that I'm sure we could find numerous courses that meet all of those criteria and that few of us would see as great; and we could find some courses that violate various criteria that almost all of us would deem great.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think our reactions to some kinds of poetry might be analogous. In one sense, I can like and appreciate and value and be moved by Haiku as much as the next fellow; but in another sense, I simply don't know the principles of the form, nor its history and highlights, nearly well enough (and certainly not as well as a student/teacher) to meaningfully opine on whether a particular poem meets the criteria/adheres to the principle of the art, or whether or not it is a good/great example of said art.

Peter

[Dave McCollum]

I tend to side with the art analogies.  Do we like music because of its Billboard rating?  Personally, I try to skip these rating threads, but get sucked in mostly to learn more about the posters’ opinions.  Raters don’t offend me except when they start calling each other idiots or self righteously declare themselves experts because they have played some fancy and ultra exclusive club and, therefore, their opinion means more than another.  For me, ratings are a necessary evil at best:  a sort of guide for exploring other opinions and sensibilities to develop our own.  While I believe that ratings have a huge impact on golf architecture and business, I think it somewhat ironic that many here in the Treehouse, many of whom really do know a thing or two about golf, passionately debate the ratings.  Different game, I suppose.  It seems to me that many of us “care” far more about ratings and the rating game than the rest of humanity.  Therefore, it can't be just an exercise those that don't "get it."