New ranking criteria

[Jason Thurman]

Ben, I don't know much about Shotlink, though I do generally find the analysis that people like Mark Broadie and Dave Pelz have done with it interesting. I do love Kirk Goldsberry's NBA shot charts, but I don't think Dirk Nowitzki's staggeringly efficient shot chart has much of a relationship with whether or not the American Airlines Center is well-designed architecturally.

Of course, you seem to frequently see correlations between things that I don't necessarily identify as related, such as the time that you declared global warming was a hoax because it was below freezing in your neighborhood that day. Perhaps you could explain the correlation you see between Shotlink data and architectural merit to illustrate my hypocrisy.

To answer your questions: I don't know what you're talking about, sort of, I don't, and no they're not.

[BCowan]

Ben, I don't know much about Shotlink, though I do generally find the analysis that people like Mark Broadie and Dave Pelz have done with it interesting. I do love Kirk Goldsberry's NBA shot charts, but I don't think Dirk Nowitzki's staggeringly efficient shot chart has much of a relationship with whether or not the American Airlines Center is well-designed architecturally.

Of course, you seem to frequently see correlations between things that I don't necessarily identify as related, such as the time that you declared global warming was a hoax because it was below freezing in your neighborhood that day. Perhaps you could explain the correlation you see between Shotlink data and architectural merit to illustrate my hypocrisy.

To answer your questions: I don't know what you're talking about, sort of, I don't, and no they're not.

''American Airlines Center is well-designed architecturally.''-  That is beyond stupid.  

Global warming is a hoax.  It was the coldest winter last year in 50+ years.  In the 70's/80's, scientist said there was an ''ice age coming'',  Then a decade or two later it was ''global warming''.  So now that some numbers were fudged, it turned into ''climate change''- also know in common language as weather.  I know this takes common sense to grasp, so I know it will be challenging for you.

Jason,

   Real simple, if you don't have anything to add to someone's thread, refrain from posting on it.  I know it is hard for you to contain your ''smartest person in the room'' outlook, but try a little harder.  

[jeffwarne]

What is it with the intimacy and isolation requirement?  That surely is more of a subjective aesthetic criteria rather than being related to architectural merit.  Few properties have that space. TOC, N Berwick and Royal Melbourne would fail that criteria as everyone on course can see you make a fool of yourself

Josh,
I chose 5 categories to attempt to quantify how one might evaluate a course. I meant for individuals to provide their own meaning for each category.

Next to most of them I typed "suggestion" to let people know what "I" might think was important
I used the word "suggestion"...because...it's simply that......a course can be great because of its intimacy (Merion, TOC)...OR....because of its splendid isolation(Sand Hills, PV),,,,,OR with a unique routing...a blend of both(Cypress Point, Augusta).... but the key word is suggestion........and you are perfectly free to fill in the blanks with whatever the various categories mean to you.
Suggestion means it is NOT a requirement.

Thanks to all who have attempted this exercise.

[David Davis]

Jeff,

I think your stab at it is as good as any and likely it's better than most given your extensive experience. I know the times we've played and discussed golf I can't recall disagreeing with you. I guess I really should of made it to Goat Hill...

How do you think your stab at ranking criteria would influence the Top 20 (or even) Top 10 according to GD. I'd be interested to see how you apply your scale.

I'm particularly interested to see what effect it has on links golf (Europe) vs parkland (US) if any at all.

[Mark Pearce]

Global warming is a hoax.  It was the coldest winter last year in 50+ years.  In the 70's/80's, scientist said there was an ''ice age coming'',  Then a decade or two later it was ''global warming''.  So now that some numbers were fudged, it turned into ''climate change''- also know in common language as weather.  I know this takes common sense to grasp, so I know it will be challenging for you.

Actually, common sense is not to take one localised experience and assume that it's true of the whole world.  Common sense doesn't usually involve stupid extrapolations.

[BCowan]

Mark,

    I'm not using localism.   One of the poles ice is growing the other is getting a little warmer.  I call that weather.

Please stay on point for Jeff's thread.  The thread is about criteria for rating a golf course.  Do you have any suggestions?

[Peter Pallotta]

Working backwards from what I remember of the qualities of those courses I most enjoyed, with my personal 'value system' clearly embedded in the criteria itself:

1. Transcendence: How well did the course allow for/foster a sense of 'losing oneself' (from worldly preoccupations)?  
2. Integration : What degree of internal 'wholeness' did the course achieve, its elements (on field and off) working in unison?
3. Is-ness and Originality: To what degree did the course express/manifest 'itself' as a singular expression of a unique site?
4. Engagement: How effectively and consistently did the course require a golfer's full participation, his/her total 'golfer's' being?
5. Human-ness: Does the course's tempo, flow, rhythm and pace align with the 'biological' (not digital/electronic/mechanical)?
6. Improvisation: Is variety (of choices, recoveries, demands) used to both comfort (expected) and surprise (unexpected)?
7. Sanity: Is the amount (of money, time, labour, chemicals) spent by both golfers and employees reasonable and sustainable?  

[Mark Pearce]

Ben,

Your admonishing me for being off topic in a direct reply to your off-topic post shows chutzpah, if nothing else and did at least make me smile.

As to the antarctic ice cap, the ice may be growing (almost certainly as a result of strengthening and changing wind patterns) but the water under the ice continues to get warmer.  Global warming is not weather, it is a trend.  What is causing it is open (perhaps) to debate but the fact that the world is getting warmer is empirically proven.  As I said, I'm not going to get into a debate on global warming (a subject you introduced, in case you forget again), so this is my last response on that.

As to the thread, I don't believe in objective rankings.  Rankings by group are almost always meaningless.  I much prefer one person's opinion.  With an individual critic you can form an impression of what they like and what they don't and, in most cases read there words.  That's why I value the CG or a Sean Arble course review and why when I buy wine what Jancis Robinson says is more valuable to me than Robert Parker's opinion.

[Brent Hutto]

Working backwards from what I remember of the qualities of those courses I most enjoyed, with my personal 'value system' clearly embedded in the criteria itself:

1. Transcendence: How well did the course allow for/foster a sense of 'losing oneself' (from worldly preoccupations)?  
2. Integration : What degree of internal 'wholeness' did the course achieve, its elements (on field and off) working in unison?
3. Is-ness and Originality: To what degree did the course express/manifest 'itself' as a singular expression of a unique site?
4. Engagement: How effectively and consistently did the course require a golfer's full participation, his/her total 'golfer's' being?
5. Human-ness: Does the course's tempo, flow, rhythm and pace align with the 'biological' (not digital/electronic/mechanical)?
6. Improvisation: Is variety (of choices, recoveries, demands) used to both comfort (expected) and surprise (unexpected)?
7. Sanity: Is the amount (of money, time, labour, chemicals) spent by both golfers and employees reasonable and sustainable?  

You and I seem to share very similar value systems. For my part, your criteria #1, #4 and #7 seem to explain certain peculiarities in my own reaction to courses that by other criteria I wouldn't be expected to love as much as I do.

[Richard Choi]

I just don't understand the attempts to put objective criteria to an exercise that is entirely subjective. All you are doing is putting a lipstick to a pig. Why engage in something so pointless?

I cannot think of anything as dumb (at least regarding GCA) as "Resistance to Scoring". There is already an OBJECTIVE way to measure "Resistance to Scoring", it is called Slope. Replacing that with something with only a veneer of objectivity, but really completely subjective, is dishonest at best and subversive at worst.

Rating or ranking a golf course is entirely subjective. Embrace the subjectiveness. Don't try to justify your subjectivity by applying some misguided objective criteria. Only question you need to ask yourself is "do you like the course?" and "why?"

[Phil McDade]

I do love Kirk Goldsberry's NBA shot charts, but I don't think Dirk Nowitzki's staggeringly efficient shot chart has much of a relationship with whether or not the American Airlines Center is well-designed architecturally.

Speaking of which, what is the James Harden of golf courses? Tobacco Road?

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, I think that's a question for the second third stupidest thread I've ever started: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56998.0.html

I would say James Harden is Torrey Pines - ruthlessly well-suited for the modern game and analytically streamlined to compete against the best in the world with one feature that makes it seem like it's probably really fun to play/watch (the ocean/the beard), but depressingly boring when you look at it a little closer. Dwight Howard's legendary farts are even analogous to the warm air currents that the paragliders ride at Torrey.

Also, Richard Choi said it best.

[Phil McDade]

Phil, I think that's a question for the second third stupidest thread I've ever started: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56998.0.html

I would say James Harden is Torrey Pines - ruthlessly well-suited for the modern game and analytically streamlined to compete against the best in the world with one feature that makes it seem like it's probably really fun to play/watch (the ocean/the beard), but depressingly boring when you look at it a little closer. Dwight Howard's legendary farts are even analogous to the warm air currents that the paragliders ride at Torrey.

Also, Richard Choi said it best.

Thread high-jacking (you've been warned!): Goldsberry's recent piece on Harden to me suggests he (and the Rockets coaching staff) have figured out how a point guard can best exploit the modern game (3-point line, current emphasis on sagging defenses, hand-checking in check, zones, the charge rule, the lack of truly dominant defensive centers ((the Rockets employ one of them, sort of...)). To me, he's 3rd on my ballot for half-way season MVP, behind Curry and Lillard. But Curry and Lillard are just doing something conventional much better than anyone else. Harden is really turning the game inside out. Thus I think his game fits what Strantz tried to do w/ Tobacco Road -- a really unconventional course that didn't adhere to age-old traditions about how course should look: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-old-timey-can-byron-scott-and-the-lakers-get/

[Michael George]

Why is Resistance to Scoring not a factor that should be considered in ranking golf courses?  Many people play golf for the challenge.   Good players often like golf courses that reward good shots and punish poor shots - that is not wrong of them. 

As I stated above, I think it is a factor that absolutely must be factored, but it must be weighed in light of remaining playable for lesser players.  On the playability issue, I don't care about score (ie. a golfer does not have a right to a par or bogey).  I do care that there is a route for the golfer to play the golf course.  For instance, I am fine with 16th hole at Merion or the 9th hole at Kinloch as both allow the golfer a route where they aren't required to hit a forced carry.  On the other hand, I would mark down holes like the 5th or 7th at Double Eagle where the golfer must hit a shot over a difficult forced carry (ie. I don't know how older players or women play these holes).

 

[John Kirk]

Evaluating a golf course is not entirely subjective.

Here's a suggested test.  Have 100 players play a round at Palo Alto Municipal GC and a round at Pebble Beach GC.  How many will say they liked Pebble Beach better?  I'd guess the answer is 100.  Therefore, course rating is not entirely subjective.

[Jason Thurman]

Curry and Lillard are just doing something conventional much better than anyone else. Harden is really turning the game inside out. Thus I think his game fits what Strantz tried to do w/ Tobacco Road -- a really unconventional course that didn't adhere to age-old traditions about how course should look: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-old-timey-can-byron-scott-and-the-lakers-get/

Ok, that was beautiful. You've made me a believer (also, the anecdotally effective strategies cited in that Concepcion article you linked are now 100% correlated with success in the mind of at least one notable GCA poster, which has me terrified that he'll be wearing short shorts next time I see him). Still, I think Tobacco Road has a sense of whimsy, while Harden's game is like watching a spreadsheet play basketball (I don't even think I'm the first person to use that simile). Back around Christmas my brother-in-law was looking at getting tickets to see the Rockets play in Cleveland and I kept trying to talk him into going to the Atlanta game instead, insisting that watching the Rockets play was just miserable entertainment while the Hawks were secretly kinda good and also a lot of fun to watch.

John Kirk, I would guess that your guess is wrong if you had a reasonably random sampling of golfers. I can think of a lot of golfers in the factory towns I grew up around who would be uncomfortable at Pebble with the people milling about, the decorum necessary, the cart path only rules, punishment for misses to the right, and the expense. Even if I'm wrong, though, and a consensus would truly be reached by all of the players in your sample, that doesn't mean anything about whether or not evaluating courses is subjective. People reach consensus on subjective items all the time.

For instance, my Russian-American buddy from Brooklyn sent me this list a few weeks ago thinking I might be interested in trying some Russian foods after I told him I'd been drinking a lot of vodka lately: http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliapugachevsky/foods-russians-grew-up-with#.alxqXMr7. I've shown it to roughly 100 people, and they all agreed that everything on the list would be terrifying to eat. That consensus doesn't mean that they're objectively correct though, as a whole freezing country of people apparently finds these things delicious. I think you need to review the definition of subjective:

adjective: subjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It's hard to argue that preference isn't influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Now, I might subjectively think the guy who prefers Palo Alto Muni to Pebble Beach or herring under fur coat to pizza is a doofus, but I can't objectively tell him that his personal preference is incorrect.

[Richard Choi]

Michael, I am not arguing against using "Resistance to Scoring" as a criteria. What I am saying is that there is already an objective rating for "Resistance to Scoring" called Slope which every rated course has. The only reason you need to supplant that objective criteria with a subjective one like "Resistance to Scoring" is to mask your subjectivity with a veneer or objectivity. That act alone tells you that rest of the "criteria" used by GD is nothing more than a charade.

[Garland Bayley]

...  Good players often like golf courses that reward good shots and punish poor shots - that is not wrong of them. 

Are you sure good players know the definition of good shots? There are a lot of players out there that would rather not engage the mind, and expect every shot well hit to a perhaps ill chosen target to be rewarded. If it is not rewarded they complain about the course, not about their thinking.

The most equitable reward/punishment course would be completely flat, with completely flat greens. Unfortunately, short sighted good players tend to want their golf courses to tend towards that composition.

[John Kirk]

OK, but he said "entirely subjective", which I interpret to mean "entirely based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".  Richard is right if you use "entirely influenced by...", but I disagree with "entirely based on..."

(And Rich, I agree that course slope is a close approximation of difficulty.  However, if each player in your rater's group is a 5 or less handicap, then the overall course rating accounts for a significant component of course difficulty.  If a course had an odd rating like 75.0/121, that's still a very hard course.)

I'm in the group that believes evaluating golf courses is more objective than subjective.  However, the process of rating a course is too complicated to break down into discrete components.  You play it, you look at it, you think about it, and then your mind says "7" or "6.5".  I believe the experienced rater can consider everything about the course, set aside most or all of his/her prejudices and give a good answer to the question, "How good is this golf course?"

I once played a course with a friend who is a course rater.  Neither of us had played the course.  It was in spectacular condition.  After the round, I engaged him in conversation for an hour or more about it.  I like to recap, him not so much.  In general, he loved it and touted its strengths.  I liked it alright, but spent a fair amount of energy emphasizing its weaknesses.  Eventually, I said, "OK, what are you going to rate it?"  He said 6.5, and I said yeah, that's exactly what I think.

Finally, let's assume you have a data set of 500 ratings for a certain golf course.  If the ratings generally fall into a bell curve with a reasonably tight standard deviation, that supports the idea that course rating is objective.  If the ratings are random with a large standard deviation, that supports the concept that course rating is subjective.

[Jason Thurman]

Objectively, you're incorrect.

After all, if your final paragraph is really true, then everyone on this site who suggests that Augusta National isn't the best course in the US is just plain objectively wrong, since a random sampling of 500 golfers would almost unanimously agree that it's the pinnacle. Pretending our opinions are objectively factual is all fun and games until you have to admit that you're factually incorrect when you stand up at your club's annual meeting and suggest that it might be a decent idea to cut down a few trees, only to be shouted down by the unanimous horde that thinks you need to plant more of them and add some back tees and narrow the fairways to boot. In such situations you're a clear statistical outlier and, by your own measure, objectively incorrect. Thankfully, the only thing that's objectively incorrect is your understanding of how subjectivity and objectivity are defined.

Admittedly, it is nice to think that our opinions of golf courses are somehow more correct than those of our friends who say things like "Man, it's a great course! The fairways were like carpet and they had GPS on the carts!" It's a fallacy though. Of course, that doesn't stop you or me from deciding whose subjective opinions we put the most stock into. I'm far more likely to take your recommendation on a course than the average golfer's. But it's not because your opinion is "more correct" or objectively accurate than theirs - I just suspect you and I might have similar interests that I don't share with the average golfer.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Why is Resistance to Scoring not a factor that should be considered in ranking golf courses?  Many people play golf for the challenge.   Good players often like golf courses that reward good shots and punish poor shots - that is not wrong of them. 

 

Because challenge is where you find it and where you find it lies in your own personal expectations. Or as Vin Scully said, "Good is not good when better is expected." (I love that line.)

Perhaps you are getting at something other than RtS?

[John Kirk]

Jason,

I spent a while looking for support that rating a golf course is an objective opinion.  Here's a snippet I found that describes "objective opinion":

"When someone decides "objectively", they're just thinking about the facts, not their own feelings. When you ask for an "objective opinion", you want to hear the opinion of someone who doesn't already have strong feelings about a subject, and who won't gain or lose anything because of the decision.

Objectivity is an important idea in American and Western culture. People usually value objective decisions and opinions more highly than biased or emotional ones."

On another link, I found this eloquent case against objectivity:

"Objective is what happens when we switch the heart-feelings off.  Give me objective opinions on jet engines and health risks. But subjective for art, love, friendship, beauty, and the other fun stuff."

I believe we can make some objective conclusions by analyzing the beliefs of a large number of golfers.  Not everyone here believes Augusta National is a 10, but almost everyone here believes it should be rated at least 9.  If a hundred or more people evaluate a golf course and collectively give it a high rating, then we can say with some level of statistical confidence that you will too.  Furthermore, if two courses have a similar average rating but significantly different standard deviations of opinion, then we can conclude with confidence that one course is more polarizing than the other.

Is it a fact that Pebble Beach's coastline is a superior environment for golf than the landfill San Francisco Baylands?  I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but pretty much everybody thinks so.

  

[jeffwarne]

Evaluating a golf course is not entirely subjective.

Here's a suggested test.  Have 100 players play a round at Palo Alto Municipal GC and a round at Pebble Beach GC.  How many will say they liked Pebble Beach better?  I'd guess the answer is 100.  Therefore, course rating is not entirely subjective.

Bingo,
and if someone asks you WHY you like the courses,
and you answer, you're going to give them an objective answer.
not an entirely subjective "just cuz"

Of course I did this exercise to try and find some quantifiable objectivity (there's that word again Jason) to my subjectivity.

And Jason,
You're finally getting it-Augusta National IS the finest course in the country
"just cuz"

[Peter Pallotta]

A nightmare is just a nightmare, but it's still a real nightmare. When you wake up, you realize that there wasn't actually a mutant zombie rummaging through your refrigerator looking for ground beef, and then noticing you instead -- but for a while there you did experience the terror of it all nonetheless. Which is to say, it's like shooting fish in a barrel to keep making the point that every statement or judgement is subjective -- of course it is, since it is always a single subject (one person) making those statements, ones that reflect his/her own experience. But, as with the nightmare, if that person should say that golf course X had him 'losing himself' in the round, and being 'challenged' as a golfer and 'participating' with every fibre of his golfing self, and had noting the 'wholeness' and 'uniqueness' of the presentation, you could of course dismss it all as being subjective -- but the golfer actually did experience those things at course X.  And so if that golfer in turn analyzes that experience and deduces from it a set of criteria which he deems important and by which he plans to judge/rank/rate golf courses Y and Z, the logical response isn't to sneeringly dismiss those plan as subjective; it's to evaluate those criteria to determine if they strike you as being useful in contextualizing your own subjective experience about courses you have played. If you decide you don't think they are useful or that they reflect a value system you don't share, then determine/pick your own -- which obviously is what Jeff was asking you to do when he started this thread. Either way, that's how human beings (subjective beings) attempt to communicate with eachother in some semblance of a meaningful way, or at the very least in an interesting and enjoyable way. But of course, you can feel free to just limit all your posts around here to "Man, Pine Valley - I really liked it". It shoud make for good reading...

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

Pete, I get what you're saying and I agree with most of your sentiment. There's tremendous value in talking about the subjective experience of playing golf courses, and there's tremendous value in also noticing the objective things that contributed to our satisfaction or frustration with a course. My intent was never to suggest that "we shouldn't discuss great courses because any discussion of such will inevitably rely on the subjective." In fact, I think those subjective experiences are very much worth exploring.

What I don't think is valuable is trying to shove every course into a scoring rubric like a student in a high school writing class and ask how well it matches a predetermined set of criteria designed to tell us whether it's better than or worse than X other course. Its limiting to the fluidity of our game's playing fields and of our own perceptions of them, and to do so places artificial restrictions on what a great course can be. There may not be infinite reasons that courses can be great, but there are certainly many of them and I'm always open to learning more about what appeals to me and what doesn't. I'm also cognizant that what appeals to me on one course may not appeal to me on another. To start restricting the criteria on which we evaluate a course to a template is to turn golf architectural criticism into high school essay grading, as opposed to allowing it to explore the complexities and subtleties that legitimate fields of criticism look to unearth.