How much of this do you REALLY believe is subjective?

[Frank Giordano]

Quote from Tom Doak:

I agreed with the start of your post, but when you got to the wine tasters, you lost me.  The fact that some vintages are the accepted favorites of the critics, does not make them inherently superior, because they can't really tell us WHY.  There is no there, there, at least in anything I've ever read on the subject.

Tom,

I'd love to have a chance, while discussing golf course architecture over a glass of a superior wine, to suggest to you -- after the golf talk were done, of course -- that its bouquet, texture, color, balance of acidity and tannins, and other elements of its structure, are some of the objective criteria wine tasters use to discriminate among wines.  Which is not to say that an individual's perception and discussion of the objective criteria might not be highly subjective, in terms of the weight (s)he gives to each criterion.  We humans can be both complex and contrary, which is a good thing, for stimulating conversation, learning, and growing more ... human.

However, I'm not disputing the general drift of your remarks about wine criticism.  As Sylvia Sebastiani once told me, "There's a lot of hoakum in this wine business."  Her husband August used to offer "these so-called  wine experts from San Francisco" tastes of his wines straight from the barrels.  But he'd blindfold them first before allowing them to taste.  The verdict: some of these experts couldn't tell if the wines were from green or red grapes!  As to rules about pairing wines with food, August was a complete subjectivist.  "August drank Zinfandel with everything, even the fresh bass he'd just hooked from the pond before arriving home for dinner."  

De gustibus again, and why not.  Wine, like golf, should be fun, pleasure, and you should drink what you like, play where you like; at meal time and recreation time, do what you like, and leave objective criticism for other times.

[Tom_Doak]

I'd love to have a chance, while discussing golf course architecture over a glass of a superior wine, to suggest to you -- after the golf talk were done, of course -- that its bouquet, texture, color, balance of acidity and tannins, and other elements of its structure, are some of the objective criteria wine tasters use to discriminate among wines.  Which is not to say that an individual's perception and discussion of the objective criteria might not be highly subjective, in terms of the weight (s)he gives to each criterion.  We humans can be both complex and contrary, which is a good thing, for stimulating conversation, learning, and growing more ... human.

Yes, but a lot of us can't taste or recognize those nuances, at which point the wine critics rest on their "superior palate."

Also, color?

[Jud_T]

If anything, wine has a lot more objective criteria than golf courses.  There are specific traits to the weather during the year; temperature, freezes, rain, days of sunshine, harvest date etc, combined with specific soils and grape varietals that are proven to be superior throughout history.  Additionally tannin, alcohol, aroma, color and fruit are easy for even a novice to detect.  I think one of the real beefs many of us have with the golf rag's consensus list is the criteria themselves, as well as mean reversion among the raters.  You can't blind taste a golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

proven to be superior throughout history.

"Proven" is a strong word there.  Generally accepted, maybe.  But the "proof" is all based on opinion, it can only be replicated in a blind taste test by people who can recognize certain traits blindfolded.

[Jud_T]

Well it's also to do with ability for a wine to age well into the future, a key criteria for certain varietals, at least in terms of present value. This if generally indisputable. You have old vines on a great site, a great growing season and a perfectly timed harvest, odds are you've got something really good, even before anyone tastes it.  I suppose it's comparable to a GCA getting a great site.  Unless he/she or the client F's it up, it's going to be something special.  Just how special may be a matter of opinion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - proven is indeed a strong word; and so is objective for that matter. (For all I know, the only objective fact may be God - with everything and everyone else being merely subject).  But you brought up The Old Course on another thread, and can't we say that the architectural principles which it manifests and on which is it based have so stood the test of time as a venue for the game (even as that game and its technologies has changed dramatically) as to be objectified as fundamental (even in this world of relativities)?
Peter

[Frank Giordano]

Quote from: Tom Doak's reply to Frank Giordano on Today at 02:07:15 PM

Frank:  I'd love to have a chance, while discussing golf course architecture over a glass of a superior wine, to suggest to you -- after the golf talk were done, of course -- that its bouquet, texture, color, balance of acidity and tannins, and other elements of its structure, are some of the objective criteria wine tasters use to discriminate among wines.  Which is not to say that an individual's perception and discussion of the objective criteria might not be highly subjective, in terms of the weight (s)he gives to each criterion.  We humans can be both complex and contrary, which is a good thing, for stimulating conversation, learning, and growing more ... human.

Tom:  Yes, but a lot of us can't taste or recognize those nuances, at which point the wine critics rest on their "superior palate."

Also, color?

Tom,

Isn't the same true of many golfers (and golf writers), that they can't savor or see the nuances in a course's design?  And isn't it helpful that others, with broader experience, more fully developed knowledge of the art, and greater, more persuasive communication skills, share their judgments, both objective and subjective, with those wanting to grow their sensitivities to golf's pleasures?  Not as ex cathedra judgments, which everyone must accept, but as the informed opinions, judgments for which the writer or designer or amateur lover of the game deserves a fair hearing and thoughtful consideration.

Tom, your animus towards "golf snobs," who presume to know more than the rest of us and are impatient to impose their views on us, is as healthy as the feelings many of us wine-lovers have for the "wine snobs" who presume to tell us what we ought to like.  But even the snobs have some objectively valid views, and the wine-lover must learn to separate what's wheat from what's just plain chaff, or hoakum, in the grandiose remarks of the "superior palates."    Then,  just keep drinking what you like!

p.s.  The color of a  wine, nearly as much as its bouguet and taste, can tell pretty quickly when the product is foul.  Just as, sometimes, the color of the grass on a green alerts the superintendent that he'd better get some plan in action.  Color is one criterion among many objective ones; the hue and clarity of fine wines are of a color true to the grapes's varietal character and the soil, the earth in the vineyards where it was grown.

[David_Elvins]

It's politically correct to say that tastes in golf course architecture are purely subjective. But do you ACTUALLY believe that? How much of what we discuss here is objective, and how much is subjective?

Golf course architecture is made up of several components.  Assessing the individual components is relatively objective  The importance of each component in relation to the others is very subjective.

[JMEvensky]

It's politically correct to say that tastes in golf course architecture are purely subjective. But do you ACTUALLY believe that? How much of what we discuss here is objective, and how much is subjective?

Golf course architecture is made up of several components.  Assessing the individual components is relatively objective  The importance of each component in relation to the others is very subjective.

I think you just quoted the scene from Love and Death without giving Woody Allen attribution.

[Peter Pallotta]

ha ha - I think i know what scene you mean, the one that has Woody clearing his throat as he says 'and let's not forgot love between two women, it's my favourite kind"...

Oh, thanks very much, Jeff - pulling me and this thread down to your gutter level!

[Chris Johnston]

Pretty much everything in golf is subjective, there is no "one path", and thank goodness for that.

Including...

The clubs you play.
The ball you use.
The shoes you choose.
The courses you play and/or enjoy.
The way you choose to play a hole.
The way you choose to play a shot.
The time it takes to play.
Walking and riding.
Architecture.

"Variety is the spice of life"

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Isn't the same true of many golfers (and golf writers), that they can't savor or see the nuances in a course's design?  And isn't it helpful that others, with broader experience, more fully developed knowledge of the art, and greater, more persuasive communication skills, share their judgments, both objective and subjective, with those wanting to grow their sensitivities to golf's pleasures?  

Frank:  Of course that's true.  But I don't think there is much about golf course architecture that isn't readily explainable to anyone who plays golf and wants to understand it, or to anyone who is a dedicated student and wants to learn about it by observation.  

By contrast, I don't believe the same is true of wine.  I could drink until I was dead and probably still not be able to distinguish some of the things that make the best wines so highly sought after.  Of course ... some of that might not really be there at all, and just be marketing.

[Richard Choi]

You cannot claim that something is objective, when it cannot pass the most basic test - repeatability.

If something is objective, you can give a set of instructions to anyone off the streets and if they follow the instructions, they would all come back with the same answer. Golf course architecture and wine testing clearly would not pass that test and thus they are subjective.

[Frank Giordano]

Tom,

Scepticism runs very deep within you.  Let's get together, I'll bring my $5 bottle of red from Trader Joe's, you bring a Super Tuscan from Italy, and if, before we're halfway through both bottles, you can't tell which is the superior wine -- and some reasons why --  I'll finish both myself and even recycle the bottles.  The differences in quality will be as obvious as a Winged Foot is over Billygoat Hill, the pickup of a Jaguar over a Fiesta, the smell of a hybrid tea rose over a dandelion.

Trust me: you'll get it and it won't be terribly hard (except the part about paying for the Italian powerhouse)!

[Jud_T]

Remind me to bring box wine to the next GCA dinner...

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's politically correct to say that tastes in golf course architecture are purely subjective.

But do you ACTUALLY believe that?

How much of what we discuss here is objective, and how much is subjective?

Jason,

That would imply that there is/are no standards by which to judge quality.

That there can be no consensus.

The beauty of architecture is that the architect must forge a disinterested challenge, that on balance, for 18 holes, favors no particular golfer.
Yet, he can favor a particular golfer on any given hole and compensate by disfavoring him on another hole.
Again, the key is that the composite 18 hole challenge doesn't favor or disfavor any particular golfer.

Hence, the golfer is subjective, he relates to the golf course as it relates to his game.
He likes the hole that favors his game and dislikes the hole that disfavors his game, but, overall, the tactical challenge is balanced.

Unfortunately, most golfers lack global vision, they lack the ability to view the golf course from the perspective of all golfers.
Hence the subjective nature of the golfer.

But, there is objectivity, if the golfer can disengage himself from viewing the hole/course solely through his eyes.
Once a golfer detaches himself from that limited perspective, he can begin to become objective, which is something architects learn at the get go.  

[Sean_A]

One of this first things I look for in any sense of objectivity is detachment or dispassion.  About the only time I see that around here is when a course elicites nothing from the player - and that is very rare.  I can understand, to some limited degree, that there seem to be unwritten yet generally agreed upon tenets which act as aiming points for criticism, but that is not the same thing as objectivity because the tenets are born of subjectivity. I have traits which I like to see in courses and I spose that some of the traits intersect with the idea of general tenents of design, but those are just my ideas of want to see in a course.  No chance would I say they are objective because I care about those traits enough to discuss them with strangers!  That type of behavour is not suggestive of dispassion or detachmnet.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

I've always felt objective required an absolute or a formula be it chemical or mathematical.  I dont see how any type of architecture could be objective.  But then I don't think competitive sports can be subjective either.  I guess that"s why I never got into  gymnastics and figureskating.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Well, there you go. Gymnastics and figure skating are not sports. It's only a sport if the outcome is not determined solely (or even just predominantly) by a judge.

This is why rankings are not sports, but NASCAR is. You're welcome.

[Frank Giordano]

1.  jeffwarne

Re: How much of this do you REALLY believe is subjective?
« Reply #16 on: Today at 12:04:20 PM »
   
all of it is subjective.

If it were objective, and all courses began to follow the "formula" eventually there would be no variety, which of course would be one of the objective criteria-thus beginning an endless loop Grin Roll Eyes

2.  Jeff_Brauer
   
Re: How much of this do you REALLY believe is subjective?
« Reply #17 on: Today at 12:12:34 PM »
   
Its all subjective, even the rating criteria.

As an example, most criteria would probably deduct points for any blind shot.  Some around here would give any blind shot quirk points, and deduct for full vision as too "forumulaic."  

And, how would any system account for things not so controversial, such as the big RTJ style greens vs. the small Harbor Town greens of PD?  Which is better, large or small?  (I know how the supers would vote)

Jeff and Jeff ( and I might as well add Mike Young and Tom Doak here too):

Perhaps a better way at getting to some shared understandings about critical judgments of golf course architecture is to think in terms of generally accepted principles of visual art.  As brilliant as he was, even Dr. McKenzie admitted that his list could not always effectively guide the architect in his design work.  Nor were the 13 items a satisfactory formula for guiding critical analysis of courses in the ground.  All such lists that attempt to isolate the sine qua non -- the indispensable conditions -- for designing a course are fatally flawed.  They  lead to an  inevitable morass of confusion over subjective and objective judgments.

On the other hand, consider the general principles that have evolved over centuries for both producing first, and judging later,  a work of visual art, such as paintings, sculpture, and architecture.   These principles are  
1 Movement
2 Unity
3 Harmony
4 Variety
5 Balance
6 Contrast
7 Proportion
8 Pattern and rhythm

The course architect either receives a piece of land that embodies many of these principles -- lucky person! -- or he must, as Pete Dye did at PGA West,  try to introduce as many of them, as well as he could, upon the unpromising blank canvas he was supplied by his client.   The application of these principles into discussions of the merits of a golf course  can enable a conversation to move beyond purely  subjective opinions  onto the plane of informed critical practice.  ( In addition, imagine the level of security these principles offer the architect heading out to view a prospective site for his design.  He'll not only see what's there, but he'll have a coherent vision of what else ought to go there in the design process.  Or he'll have far more confidence in his decision when he decides to refuse the commission.)

If both the architect working on the ground, and the critic typing away in his cold damp study, can begin conversations from the same base of principles, perhaps there can develop some more trust between them.  Criticism must not be simply subjective, the "my way or the highway" route.  General principles developed through time can, and probably should, lead to some fairly high degree of consensus among informed people trying to understand more fully their subject.

 And, who knows, they might, just like our national Congress, begin to act in a bipartisan way.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Frank,

Regarding that list, as Eric Eldon says, measurements are a means to find the essence of something, but they are not the essence itself. Measurements may not be subjective but the choice of what to measure is.

Once upon a time Royal North Devon was regarded as among the greatest. Now, few think it so. The course didn't change, golfers did.

[BCowan]

Mark

    Have new courses made it into the list?  Also advancement in travel has made it easier for more critics to see a larger selection of golf courses.  Are the measurements/ criteria still the same as when RND was among the greatest.  A group of highly regarded people can come up with the criteria making the selections more objective.  

[Mac Plumart]

100% subjective and heavily influenced by groupthink.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
A wonderful thread!
Personally I believe it is completely subjective. In my case I wonder if it does not stem from my early experiences on and around golf courses which were upon windy linksland and fast running in summer. Halcyon days were spent there and thus I have a tremendous soft spot for what is oft thought of as fine on GCA.
It was not until I stumbled on GCA that I realised that my love was not singular and as Mac P. puts it the "groupthink" validated my feelings.
I am agreeing here with the proponents of the idea that objectivity needs a much more formulaic basis.

Cheers Colin

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark

    Have new courses made it into the list?  Also advancement in travel has made it easier for more critics to see a larger selection of golf courses.  Are the measurements/ criteria still the same as when RND was among the greatest.  A group of highly regarded people can come up with the criteria making the selections more objective.  

BCowan:

Thank you for the comments. They buttress my point. Yes, the measurements / criteria are not the same and do change over time; therefore tastes in architecture are subjective. If the criteria can be changed then the exercise is, by definition, subjective. For that matter, if, to assess the quality of something, a set of criteria must be selected, in other words if some criteria are chosen and some left out, then the entire exercise is rendered subjective.

It doesn't matter who selects the criteria, the point is they are selected. If a group of "highly regarded" people come up with the criteria then those criteria reflect nothing more than the subjective tastes of a group of "highly regarded" people. The measurement against those criteria could be completely objective, but that's irrelevant. The output of the process is subjective. An example is the Golf Digest top 100, the criteria of which represent the subjective tastes of Ron Whitten. (Criteria which he hopes are understood by and then measured objectively by his raters.)