[Jud_T]

If it were completely subjective then there's no justification for serious criticism whatsoever.  Why would one guy's arbitrary opinion be any more meaningful than anyone else's?  We all could publish our own Confidential Guides with random number generators. There has to be a concrete basis for building a cogent argument beyond how well travelled one is and how well read you are. The Big Lebowski has wittier dialogue than Idiocracy.  The views at Pebble are superior to those at Harborside.  There are more ground game options at TOC than at Medinah.  There is more history at Prestwick than at Old Head.  Butler plays longer than Machrihanish.  These are facts.  To what degree one values or interprets these facts is subjective.

[Mark Bourgeois]

There's plenty of justification for serious criticism as we all have our preferences. Individuals' selection of lists, numbers, whatever have validity insofar as they represent the individual's honest and studied opinion. The key for those who would listen is to accept the subjectivity of the exercise and not crown it with declarations of objectivity / objective excellence -- particularly as regards exercises that amount to voting contests.

The key for those who would act on another's opinion is to understand where that person (or people) is coming from, their beliefs and preferences. Knowing that allows us to accept or discard the other's opinion. That's how many of us negotiate choice in the real world, at least when it comes to the subjective matter of arts and culture. We seek critics whose views we share and base our choices accordingly.

Thus, many on here like The Confidential Guide but might not like a similar work produced by a similarly traveled and experienced individual. But regardless either work is likely to be far more useful than a list compiled by a committee.

[JESII]

Thus, many on here like The Confidential Guide but might not like a similar work produced by a similarly traveled and experienced individual. But regardless either work is likely to be far more useful than a list compiled by a committee.

Very good, I agree 100%. the current rankings are simply an aggregation of opinions.

I've felt a much more valuable effort for the magazines to produce would be a single person's list with explanations. In truth, they could do this monthly, and regionally.

Beyond Tom Doak, there are probably 1,000 people well traveled and thoughtful enough to produce such a list. By my count, thats about 85 years worth of rankings issues...

[Jud_T]

Mark,

Point taken.  It really is like a debate competition.  One poses a supposition, for example courses built on sand with naturally occuring subtle undulations are superior ground for golf.  Then one can build a case why, for instance, Westward Ho is superior to Brancaster, etc.  The problem is that the questions posed in most golf rankings, and in many of the debates here, are often framed too broadly or poorly.  Instead of having an intelligent discussion of what specific traits define the best granny smith apple, we end up arguing over whether we prefer the walnuts or the mayo in a Waldorf salad.

[Jason Thurman]

If it were completely subjective then there's no justification for serious criticism whatsoever.  Why would one guy's arbitrary opinion be any more meaningful than anyone else's?  We all could publish our own Confidential Guides with random number generators. There has to be a concrete basis for building a cogent argument beyond how well travelled one is and how well read you are. The Big Lebowski has wittier dialogue than Idiocracy.  The views at Pebble are superior to those at Harborside.  There are more ground game options at TOC than at Medinah.  There is more history at Prestwick than at Old Head.  Butler plays longer than Machrihanish.  These are facts.  To what degree one values or interprets these facts is subjective.

This gets toward the core of the discussion for me. Why is one guy's arbitrary opinion more meaningful than anyone else's? We may scoff at people who prefer Art Hills to Alister Mackenzie, and most of us would certainly disagree with their opinion, but are they factually incorrect?

[JWL]

How much of one's subjective and/or objective evaluation is preconceived?

[Mark Bourgeois]

JWL,

My own opinion is that in this day and age it is impossible not to have preconceived -- well, I'll call them "thoughts." You may know about the project, the designer, the style, some combination -- you may have seen pictures beforehand of the course.

And so in some sense the person "experiencing" the course for the first time is, to varying degrees, reacting to his preconceived notions, the pictures in his head, etc.

If "golf course," "Doak," "links," "top 10" or any other golf terms are too charged for people to see my point, then let's consider the Grand Canyon.

Why is it almost impossible to gaze directly at the Grand Canyon under these circumstances and see it for what it is – as one picks up a strange object from one’s back yard and gazes directly at it? It is almost impossible because the Grand Canyon, the thing as it is, has been appropriated by the symbolic complex which has already been formed in the sightseer’s mind.

Seeing the canyon under approved circumstances is seeing the symbolic complex head on.  The thing is no longer the thing as it confronted the Spaniard; it is rather that which has already been formulated – by picture postcard, geography book, tourist folders, and the words Grand Canyon.

As a result of this preformulation, the source of the sightseer’s pleasure undergoes a shift.  Where the wonder and delight of the Spaniard arose from his penetration of the thing itself, from a progressive discovery of depths, patterns, colors, shadows, etc., now the sightseer measures his satisfaction by the degree to which the canyon conforms to the preformed complex.

If it does so, if it looks just like the postcard, he is pleased; he might even say, 'Why it is every bit as beautiful as a picture postcard!'  He feels he has not been cheated.  But if it does not conform, if the colors are somber, he will not be able to see it directly; he will only be conscious of the disparity between what it is and what it is supposed to be.

He will say later that he was unlucky in not being there at the right time.  The highest point, the term of the sightseer’s satisfaction, is not the sovereign discovery of the thing before him; it is rather the measuring up of the thing to the criterion of the preformed symbolic complex.

Seeing the canyon is made even more difficult by what the sightseer does when the moment arrives, when sovereign knower confronts the thing to be known.  Instead of looking at it, he photographs it.  There is no confrontation at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much of one's subjective and/or objective evaluation is preconceived?

It would be a rare individual where there's no trace of preconception, and I suspect that most individuals are heavily weighted in the "preconceived" department..

[Mac Plumart]

A few years ago, I did an exercise/analysis.  

I got every Golf Magazine Top 100 World list from its inception.  (I think it was Golf Magazine).  Early 80s I think.

And I noted the courses that were in the Top 10/25 EVERY year.  I figured these would be the courses that stood the test of time, the fads de jour, and the pull of the new.

I also noted that these were many of the same courses that should up on EVERY Top 100 list out there.  Doak's, Darius Oliver's, Golfweek, Golf Digest.  ALL OF THEM.

What do these course have that strike chords with EVERYONE?  Perhaps if we can dig through that, we can begin to comprehend parts of golf courses that are more than subjective.

I'll try to get that information/courses listed in the next few days.  But some of them were the obvious ones...Pine Valley, Cypress Point, The Old Course.

  

[William_G]

right Mac, you had that on your blog/website  

I do believe that it is mostly subjective however and is more akin to a popularity contest

the same things influence popularity in golf design as in most anything else

why do Snickers bars, Falling Water, Eiffel Tower, Yosemite, Everest etc... stand the test of time or Spaghetti O's

lol

[Peter Pallotta]

I tried to make this point earlier, but either it's not worth making or I wasn't clear. Excuse me for using an analogy:

Take several movie fans, all with different tastes (a subjective phenomenon). These fans list the following films as their personal favourites: Driving Miss Daisy, Raging Bull, Annie Hall, Platoon, Stagecoach, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Rocky, and Fargo. Very different films, obviously; but whether those movie fans consciously know it or not, every one of those films (and tens of thousands besides) all follow the exact same narrative structure that has dominated western theatre/film since at least the time of the ancient Greeks; every one of those films, despite their vast surface differences and differing 'content', explicate and move forward that content along the same principles of plot development that writers from Aeschylus and Shakespeare to Neil Simon and Sylvester Stallone have known and used -- the same principles that, I'd suggest, not only shape but actually reflect the nature of the western psyche, and that therefore every intelligent person is either consciously or unconsciously aware of. Now, take that panel of movie fans and show them a brand new movie, a middle of the road hollywood picture. Some might say they really like it and that it really works; some might say they don't like it and that it doesn't work. But if we dismiss out of hand the judgements of those we disagree with by calling those judgements 'subjective' and 'matters of taste', we miss the very real possibility that they may in fact be making objective judgements, i.e. making a judgement based on their ability to notice that the film tried -- but failed -- to adhere to the tried and true principles and milleniums-old narrative structure that is as close to foundational/objective as we can get in this world.

In short, there are fundamental and foundational (yea, objective) principles of good gca; that some don't consciously notice them (their presence or their absence or their mis-application) or don't make/express this the basis of their opinions doesn't make everything 'subjective'.

[Paul Gray]

Group link is just a lazy and rejective way of saying the same:

The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time. For example, the Zeitgeist of modernism typified and influenced architecture, art, and fashion during much of the 20th century.

Culture and art are inextricable because an individual artist is a product of his or her time and therefore brings that culture to any given work of art. In the analysis of the arts and culture, the concept of a "spirit of the age" or zeitgeist may be problematic as a tool for analysis of periods which are socially or culturally fragmented and diverse

So, how subjective can any of us be?

Does this mean that, when extracted from specific periods of time, one opinion regarding a golf course is in fact equally as valid as another or is one opinion more valid if it overcomes periods of cultural rejection but still survives?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter I would say that in order for those principles to capture what you describe they have to be so generic as to be meaningless as measures, otherwise every movie would follow a precise formula with zero degrees of freedom. (Yes, I know Hollywood aims for this, and yes, I'm aware execs all are busy trying to "Save the Cat.") And if you narrow the definition of those principles to increase the meaning you inevitably will eliminate from consideration courses that someone, perhaps many, think are great.

Yes / no / maybe? How'd I do?

[Mac Plumart]

there are fundamental and foundational (yea, objective) principles of good gca; that some don't consciously notice them (their presence or their absence or their mis-application) or don't make/express this the basis of their opinions doesn't make everything 'subjective'.

Peter...YES!

Ben Sims mentioned something like this a few years ago.  His focus was maintenance/construction.  I believe DRAINAGE had a lot to do with his point.

I think that is objective.  That is you should never build a golf course that can not drain properly.  To take it a step further, it is poor design to build a hole that won't drain properly.  It is too costly to maintain and it will not stand the test of time.

Those more knowledgable than me on this can dig further into what specific design elements are not wise to include, due to poor drainage and/or too expensive to maintain.


As a sidenote, in my previous post I talked about course that have always been ranked highly.  The flip side of that are courses that show up in the Top 100 and then fade away.  Shadow Creek was one of those.  Showed up...made a splash in the rankings...and then faded over time.  Why did that happen?  Could it be the cost to maintain it?  Does its initial sizzle fail to deliever time and time again?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - we might be talking past eachother, I'm not sure.

I'm trying to suggest that so much of what we focus on, i.e. the differences -- the very real differences, I'm the first to admit -- between various movies or golf courses actually pale in comparison to the common foundations/the principles on which they are all built.

The same five act structure and the same journey-return and descent-rebirth plot constructions have served as the basis for thousands of narratives of countless permutations, some interesting and vital and life affirming and engaging and many (most) anything but.

But the failure/success in the execution of those permutations shouldn't blind us to the foundational narrative principles that these thousands of stories/plays/movies all have in common.

Similarly, how angles are used and options provided and recoveries permitted and strategic choices encouraged and water displaced and variety offered and challenges/hazards presented differ in countless ways from one of the thousands of golf courses out there to the other (and we can, in a personal/subjective sense, like or prefer or detest or praise one permutation over another all we want); but we'd be missing something if we didn't at the same time recognize the foundational architectural principles that are described/reflected in words such as angles and options and strategies and drainage and variety and challenge.  

To state the obvious: it's exactly what men like Mackenzie and Behr and Macdonald recognized at St Andrews almost a hundred years ago, and that folks like Tom D recognize there still.  No other course in the world looks like or plays like The Old Course -- and yet architects for as long as we can remember (with styles as apparently different as those of Donald Ross and Pete Dye) have made it their business to understand its workings/foundations.  It's those foundations that I call, tentatively, 'objective' and that i think can be discussed objectively.  

Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Have you just changed the rules?  Rating courses objectively is not the same thing as discussing courses objectively.  

I am not sure how one devises a set of principles to rate a course unless they be subjective principles.  What I think is important and how important will differ from what you think.  And even if we used the same criteria in the same way, we would come up with different lists.  Isn't this what happens with mag rankings?  These guys are given training and guidance on what to do, and yet lists within a system are different.  I think the wildly different lists people come up with are a testament to subjectivity - or are you just saying some people, we don't know who, have the magic objective rating formula and therefore those people are factually correct?  For instance, we have Tom D re-writing his CG and some of his ratings will change.  Does this mean his old rating formula was poor, out of date, lacking in some way?  Or could it be that his subjective views have changed with the vast amount of experience he has gained in however many years it is since the CG was first published?  Or could it be that he didn't devote enough time to the subjects to offer a properly formed rating?  I can't really figure out an objective angle for any of this.  

Because there seems to be some sort of loose idea of course quality tenets doesn't equate to objectivity.  Afterall, a lot of folks don't like TOC or at the very least wouldn't rate it nearly as high as it is rated.  This attitude about the course has been raging for at least 100 years.  To use its championship pedigree as objective reasoning is a false positive.  Do you think if TOC were built last year that it would host an Open?  My subjective thoughts on the matter are - not likely.  I think TOC is sacred cow - few in seats of power where championships are concerned would dare suggest TOC be stricken from the rota.  In fact, they would rather see it altered to avoid such a conversation.  

I find this entire thread totally off the wall. Not much different really from the idea that par has a value in design other than how far players will allow themselves to be duped.  Or the idea of competing against a golf course - as if a course can be in a competition.  It all smacks of suspended belief to fulfill a fantasy.  I guess there are worse things people could do .

Ciao      

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, if I changed the rules I didn't realize it, since I for one never thought about this thread as relating to rankings/ratings, just to observations. Yours is a good post, full of good sense and wit. But, while I'm a big time lover of the subjective, I can't shake the belief that, in for example the western narrative tradition,  there are objective (i.e. not related to my likes or dislikes, or desires, but imbedded into the form itself) elements that can be discussed/commented on in those terms. Similarly, I can't shake the belief that the reason architecture 'works'  (whether that's the best work of CBM or Ross or RTJ or Dye or Doak or Brauer or Nuzzo or Young) is because it adheres to principles (again, not related to my likes or dislikes but imbedded in the form itself) that can be objectively analyzed.

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean, if I changed the rules I didn't realize it, since I for one never thought about this thread as relating to rankings/ratings, just to observations. Yours is a good post, full of good sense and wit. But, while I'm a big time lover of the subjective, I can't shake the belief that, in for example the western narrative tradition,  there are objective (i.e. not related to my likes or dislikes, or desires, but imbedded into the form itself) elements that can be discussed/commented on in those terms. Similarly, I can't shake the belief that the reason architecture 'works'  (whether that's the best work of CBM or Ross or RTJ or Dye or Doak or Brauer or Nuzzo or Young) is because it adheres to principles (again, not related to my likes or dislikes but imbedded in the form itself) that can be objectively analyzed.

Peter

Pietro

I hear where you are coming from, but surely the starting point of any canon is subjective?  It is only the weight of the critical opinion over who knows how many decades and centuries that this group opinion is accepted as a canon.  Then, we have to consider the subjectivity of the canon being a western concept, not doubt in part developed to demonstrate the superiority of the west over the east - however stupid that sounds today.  

So golf's starting point (for sake of argument) is the development of TOC into the shape of the course wee know today - lets call it 135 years ago.  Somewhere along the line, clever blokes wanted to codify why they thought their design ideas (at least partly nicked from TOC and other pre 1900 holes) were superior to what was built for 30 years or so after the TOC was developed.  We must at least look at these writings as somewhat of a publicity splash for their themselves.  Amongst it all though, these ODGs were able to discern what made design tick even if it meant a take no prisoners attitude with some very good design concepts (if used judicuously) which fell out of favour (blind holes and cross hazards).  These were subjective attitudes based on subjective theories of design.  It wasn't a right or wrong situation, but this is how some of the ODGs treated it. Why - to push their own theories of course.  

With the benefit of hindsight, many can look back at old photos and wish the ODGs weren't quite so ruthless, but then again, these guys couldn't see how the codification of architecture can eventually lead to less variety in design and that to me is criminal when talking about any type of design. Equally, with the benefit of hindsight we can see the ODGs got an awful lot right - to the point where its difficult to expand on what they achieved.  Its amazing so many old courses are still held in high regard.  Its equally amazing that such a relatively few number of ODGs set such a long lasting precedent on what is good design.  So for sure, they were onto something.

Ciao

[BCowan]

Or the idea of competing against a golf course - as if a course can be in a competition.  It all smacks of suspended belief to fulfill a fantasy.  I guess there are worse things people could do

   Are courses suppose to measure themselves in height?  What do you think a golf tournament is?  You are playing the golf course and hopefully you get into the hole in less strokes than the entire field.  When they play the British Open are the players beating themselves?  I agreed with your first two paragraphs but then you went off the deep end!

   Can one put Frank Zappa's music in high regard as ''a top musician'' and not like their sound or work but have incredible respect for them and rank them high?  Would that be objective?  

[Jason Thurman]

  Can one put Frank Zappa's music in high regard as ''a top musician'' and not like their sound or work but have incredible respect for them and rank them high?  Would that be objective?  

Rank him highly in what sense?

If you're ranking the most influential musicians ever, a list without Zappa is probably incomplete.

If you're ranking the best musicians ever though, I don't understand why you'd put someone on your personal list if you don't care for his work. I would think you'd agree as a soldier in the fight against groupthink. It seems pretty pathetic to ignore your own perception when it doesn't match that of the herd, and yet I suspect people do that with golf courses all the time.

Then again, a lot of the guys on this site (myself included) have tastes that don't match that of the golf market and the retail player, so maybe we take some solace in telling ourselves that our opinions are somehow more "correct" and "enlightened" than those of others. I just don't think I really believe that anymore. If someone prefers Bud Light to Bell's Amber, it's not because their tastes are somehow inferior to mine.

Of course, I might lose respect for their opinion, and that's my right. I'm just lying to myself if I honestly believe I'm intrinsically more correct than they are.

[BCowan]

My point with Zappa is there are people that don't care for his music but put him very very high on the list.  So one or a group has the ability to be more objective than subjective IMO.  That could be said for a golf course, one could play a course and not care for it even though it passes all their personal objectives in what they value in a course.  I know this may seem out there and many don't think in this light.  

    As someone who is drinking a Bell's Porter right now, can tell me why they like a Bud Light who am I to judge them.  I just probably wouldn't solicit craft advice from them.  If one gives reasons why it is more objective IMO, verses a more subjective non descriptive response based of emotion.  Bud Light tastes better in a can than a bottle IMO, i think the aluminum helps the taste.  

Great post by the way..

[Sean_A]

Not to go too far off he deep end, but golfers play on golf courses and compete against other golfers.  Is a football field or baseball diamond a competitor in the game?  Of course not.  Why then would you believe a golf course competes in a game? The entire notion of competing against a course comes from the completely arbitrary notion of par.  What did golfers do before there was par?  When par was invented, did golfers suddenly start competing against the course whereas the year before they did not?  The whole idea is bonkers.

Ciao

[John Kirk]

I've been trying to figure out why rock critics admire Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart so much.  I'm not convinced Zappa's music is influential.

[John Kirk]

Mark B. wrote:

"There's plenty of justification for serious criticism as we all have our preferences. Individuals' selection of lists, numbers, whatever have validity insofar as they represent the individual's honest and studied opinion. The key for those who would listen is to accept the subjectivity of the exercise and not crown it with declarations of objectivity / objective excellence -- particularly as regards exercises that amount to voting contests."

Let's take an example, the firmness of the turf, which can be described in physical terms as the coefficient of restitution.  Many golfers like a relatively soft golf course, because a high, well struck shot will predictably land softly, and stay close to the point of impact.  But the conventional wisdom here on GCA is that firm turf allows a greater use of different trajectories, which is especially beneficial to the weaker player.  Also, the decreased resistance of the turf increases the time it takes for the ball to come to rest, which makes the ball more enjoyable to watch.  Third, it magnifies the importance of sloped ground, which requires a more complex, thoughtful game plan to "play the slopes" properly.

Perhaps you're right, Mark.  It's a subjective analysis, but superior arguments can been made that support a preference for certain course qualities.  In reference to Mac Plumart's recent commentary, the various "best of" lists have converged in the last twenty years, as superior arguments for what constitutes great golf have emerged, or re-emerged after a sixty year absence.

If each facet of golf course analysis is subjective, perhaps when you get a complete list of criteria, greatness becomes a more objective exercise.  If your course satisfies most or all of the criteria for which the best arguments can be made, then your course is objectively great.

[Frank Giordano]

Sean A:  Not to go too far off he deep end, but golfers play on golf courses and compete against other golfers.  Is a football field or baseball diamond a competitor in the game?  Of course not.  Why then would you believe a golf course competes in a game? The entire notion of competing against a course comes from the completely arbitrary notion of par.  What did golfers do before there was par?  When par was invented, did golfers suddenly start competing against the course whereas the year before they did not?  The whole idea is bonkers.

Sean,

The greatest golfers, both before and after Bobby Jones, have insisted that golf is a game played between the golfer's ears.  It's a mental game, and strategy in directing the ball around a course involves identifying the hazards and threats and opportunities every well-designed hole presents.  Avoiding those hazards amounts to defeating the antagonists in the design.  It's metaphorical, perhaps, to say that golfers are in combat with the course as well as their opponents, but it's true nevertheless.  And many a solitary golfer doesn't have an actual opponent, if you insist that par has only an arbitrary reality.  In those wonderful solitary rounds, what exactly is the golfer contesting?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()