Open Mindedness - Why?

[Peter Pallotta]

On the desert golf course thread, Mark F wrote:

"You want open minded people [on a rating panel] who can understand and appreciate all kinds of designs from all kinds of architects without bias."

That really struck me -- because I realized that, while it is a wholly sensible and reasonable statement, I don't agree with it at all!

Of course, it is a cultural value in our modern world and a societal good to be "open minded". But why is it a valuable trait when it comes to analyzing/judging great golf courses?

Why is it a 'positive' that I (or rating panelists) can "appreciate all kinds of designs"?

And when it comes to a rating panel as a whole, why is it better that *all* of them are able to "understand and appreciate" this all- encompassing variety?

Might it not be better if, instead, you had in a group of 100 people nothing but unabashedly 'biased' and 'narrow-minded' panelists, but 10-20 of them from each differing 'camp'?

Peter

Btw, this reminds me of a chat I had with my wife years before we got married, when we were first dating. She asked me if I agreed with the old adage of "all things in moderation" as a guide to "balanced living". And I said "No - I think you should do everything as intensely as possible, but throughout the day remember to do, like, 5 *different* things -- and get your 'balance' that way".
   

   

[Carl Rogers]

See TD thread about "originality".  W/o a receptive mind, how can originality be observed?

[Tom_Doak]

See thread TD about "originality".  W/o a receptive mind, how can originality be observed?

Exactly.


When the early desert courses were being built, I was much more of a fan.  Desert Forest was spectacular - just a little too narrow.  Desert Highlands created plenty of width, but had some of the craziest greens I've ever seen.  Troon found a good balance on width, but it was a little dull, and it became surrounded by development.


It seemed just a matter of time before someone nailed the great desert course.


And then 50 desert courses later, it seemed like nobody had nailed it, and they all started to become too familiar, so they are hard to look at with an open mind anymore.  But I still haven't seen one that I thought really nailed the playability and wasn't compromised by real estate, so there is a niche just waiting to be filled.

[Tom_Doak]

On the desert golf course thread, Mark F wrote:

"You want open minded people [on a rating panel] who can understand and appreciate all kinds of designs from all kinds of architects without bias."

That really struck me -- because I realized that, while it is a wholly sensible and reasonable statement, I don't agree with it at all!

Of course, it is a cultural value in our modern world and a societal good to be "open minded". But why is it a valuable trait when it comes to analyzing/judging great golf courses?

Why is it a 'positive' that I (or rating panelists) can "appreciate all kinds of designs"?

And when it comes to a rating panel as a whole, why is it better that *all* of them are able to "understand and appreciate" this all- encompassing variety?

Might it not be better if, instead, you had in a group of 100 people nothing but unabashedly 'biased' and 'narrow-minded' panelists, but 10-20 of them from each differing 'camp'?

Peter

Btw, this reminds me of a chat I had with my wife years before we got married, when we were first dating. She asked me if I agreed with the old adage of "all things in moderation" as a guide to "balanced living". And I said "No - I think you should do everything as intensely as possible, but throughout the day remember to do, like, 5 *different* things -- and get your 'balance' that way".
      

I do agree with you that it is difficult to find people who are really open minded, and that the makeup of any panel to rate golf courses should be as broad and inter-disciplinary as possible.


You just don't want panelists who are so narrow-minded they won't give any particular architect's work a fair hearing.

[Thomas Dai]

Along the lines what I was attempting in this thread yesterday - "Attempting to understand how other play" -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67799.0.html
Thread do have a habit of morphing in strange ways though ... open mindedness?
atb

[Kyle Harris]

If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
If you have that group of 100 people and 10-15 of them think every course designed by Tom Fazio or Tom Doak is a 10 and another group that thinks any course with trees on it sucks and another that feels if the design can’t be walked by an 80 year old with bad knees it was not meant to be a golf course, and another group that .... you get my point - what kind of list are you going to generate 


In reality if you put a group together you are likely going to end up with people that think the way I stated above which is why a larger group statistically yields a more balanced outcome.  But I will still argue a knowledgeable but more objective and unbiased person will be a better overall rater of courses.   


I used to run chemical companies and still do advisory work in the semi materials area (when I am not trying to compete with Tom Doak for restoration/renovation work)    As the CEO I used to say if I had 8 people in a management strategy meeting and we all thought alike had the same ideas, then we had 7 too many people in that meeting.  I will let you think about that for a while   

[Peter Pallotta]

If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

See, I think we should listen to Kyle's grandmother, and heed her warning. Not all golf courses are created equal -- and a man who stands for nothing will end up falling for anything.

But also: the kind of 'open-mindedness' that can understand and appreciate all types of golf courses I'm not sure actually exists; yes, in theory, but how does it work in practice?

On the one hand we have a so-called 'narrow-minded' panelist saying 'This course I love, and it's great' and 'That course I don't like at all' -- honest, plain, and simple: a reaction to a *golf course*.

On the other hand, we have 'open-minded' panelists playing a course that doesn't align with their own basic preferences/tastes being asked to 'analyze' it (and then score it relative to other such courses they've analyzed) -- and so left with the more difficult and less plain task of judging *the architecture*.

I don't know. I still think there's merit to my questioning of this.

[Tim Martin]

Is they really any endeavor which seeks to rate, critique or judge something where an open mind doesn’t bring more credibility to the process? I’m a fan of Anthony Bourdain’s “Parts Unknown”. Without an open mind as far as societal customs and regional food specialties the show doesn’t happen. Personally I don’t love mountain courses as a group but there are definitely some good ones which I have played. If I shunned the entire sub set am I really a worthy rater/ranker/judge?

[Carl Rogers]

Specific examples of the Open Mind:
Cypress Point's & Pacific Dunes' back to back par 3's.

Think about what would be lost to the game if those holes did not exist.  Or if longer and more awkward holes were jambed into those properties in order to meet the "standard" scorecard prescription.


The entire back nine of PD ........ How is it  possible to have only 2 par 4's in nine holes on a "proper" golf course?


There are probably other examples.

[Adam Clayman]

Clearly, Conde Nest is only interested in panelists that can afford their retreats.


I'm not sure the pampered set, can evaluate their own navel, if they've only seen it once. 


As years go by I appreciate more and more the sage comments of one Pat Mucci who said it takes multiple plays, in differing conditions, to effectively understand, and therefore analyze a GC.

[Tom_Doak]

Specific examples of the Open Mind:
Cypress Point's & Pacific Dunes' back to back par 3's.

The entire back nine of PD ........ How is it  possible to have only 2 par 4's in nine holes on a "proper" golf course?

The back to back 3's at Pacific were the only practical solution.  On my first plan the 10th was a 300-yard par 4, but it turned out my tee was in David Kidd's 7th fairway, so I was kind of boxed into making that a par-3.  And then you couldn't exactly walk around where 11 is.


As for the latter part, I came up with the final sequence of holes the night before we were going to walk it with Mr Keiser and a big group, and I hadn't thought about how weird the scorecard would be, because I didn't have time.  After we had walked it and everybody loved it, over lunch, I suddenly realized what I had done, jotted the scorecard on a napkin, and slid it over to Mr. K to ask if that was okay.  Luckily, he had liked the feel of it so much that he was okay going ahead despite the unusual sequence.  Like me, he had fallen for it without noticing its "flaws".


Incidentally, that's the kind of stories that will be in my new book, which you should all buy if I don't give them all away for free here, first.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim, all

I'm not saying that open mindedness is not a wonderful ideal. I'm saying that it's a rare quality in a person, if we're using the term as if it actually means something practical and efficacious, instead of merely as a bureaucratic 'check box' or personal virtue signalling -- and it's especially rare when it comes to a task as *experiential* as playing a golf course.

[In our own lives, even about subjects that are not experiential, it's often only at our best that we manage to listen respectfully and with genuine interest/attention to a political philosophy much different than our own; yes, we may have an 'open mind', but how often do we meaningfully *change* our minds?] 

Say a panelist or person who has a particular fondness for links golf sets off to play a mountain course and a desert course. Yes, he may come, with some effort, to "understand and appreciate" mountain and/or desert golf better than he once did -- but when it comes to actually rating or ranking those courses, will that take precedence over his basic preference for links golf? Even his new found understanding will pale in comparison to that of a life-long player of mountain/desert golf, no?

How will he rate and rank those courses, knowing (if he is honest with himself) that he came to the process not really liking or being very familiar with the desert/mountain courses? What quality of open-mindedness will actually *enable* him to analyze those courses 'fairly', or in a way that's remotely similar to a panelist who came in already really liking/appreciating the desert and mountain settings?

I don't see it as a genuine possibility, i.e. that his 'open mindedness' will suddenly provide him with new and great insights into this formerly underappreciated experience. Instead, I think (consciously or not) that panelist will do this:

he'll rate/rank the mountain and desert courses that *other people* say are the best as his own 'best', deferring to the collective opinion of those panelists who didn't *need* to have an open mind about mountain or desert courses in the first place.

In a sense, they were as 'biased' about mountain/desert courses as he was about links courses.

So: what am I actually getting from that open-minded panelist? I think maybe I'm getting neither insight nor honesty.
So: maybe simply accepting and embracing the reality of personal bias (for lack of a better word) is a more honest and insightful approach.

To use a specific example (and mainly to explain my general point): Ran clearly has his favourites, his particular ideal of what a great golf course is or should be. [Hence his 147 Custodians.] Wouldn't it be right if he allowed his panelists to have their *own* clear preferences and ideals too?

Our beloved leader basically dismissed 40 years worth of golf courses & gca by deeming them products of the "Dark Ages". Now, he may play & experience some of those courses these days, and with as open a mind as possible: but how, in turn, should someone like me value & judge his resulting analysis/assessment?


 

[Kyle Harris]

Open-mindedness is what you should feel prior to the first tee shot on any golf course.

If it is still felt after holing out on the 18th green, the course has suspended disbelief enough for you.

[Peter Pallotta]

Again, Kyle, what does that actually 'mean'? In the sense of the way many of us play & enjoy golf and, more specifically, rate the quality of the golf courses we play? My post to Mark, below, I hope explains my question:

Mark -
as a specific example to try to make my general point. On the other thread you wrote:

"One of my first desert golf experiences was Desert Highlands. I thought all the “floating fairways” were cool and unique, however, if you couldn’t fade your driver and hit a high cut 2 iron that landed softly on the greens you were in trouble.  It was designed by Jack Nicklaus and you needed to play like Jack Nicklaus to really enjoy it.  Thank goodness he changed his ways over time."

Now, you do have an open mind in general and from what I can tell are genuinely able to understand and appreciate a wide variety of golf courses. But say you had to go back tomorrow as part of rating panel and play Desert Highlands.

Yes, you might with an open mind realize that, say, JN provides golfers 'more room' than you first thought, and even more 'options' for the average golfer. BUT: as you yourself note, you are pleased that he has 'changed his ways' over time - and so it seems very unlikely that you'll suddenly start believing (and rating accordingly) that it's a wonderful and completely legitimate form of gca to design courses that you need to play like Nicklaus to be able to enjoy.

Okay, I agree. But that's your 'bias', no? That's your particular value system, i.e. that courses should be designed to be enjoyable by all, and that a golf course that asks that you be able to hit a high fade is 'too hard' for the average golfer. Yes, it is. But so what?

Do you see what I mean? You are trying to be open-minded -- but you are simply unable (and I'd suggest, unwilling) to embrace the premise that a top-quality golf course can demand that the golfer be able to hit a high, cut 2 iron. That's fundamental to your belief system.

Again, that's fine, and I happen to agree. I wouldn't call it 'narrow-mindedness' -- but I wouldn't say it's an unbiased either.

[Kyle Harris]

It means that we all have tastes and aesthetics we prefer. You are only going to be open-minded to the point where your enjoyment of the round stops and the factors which influence that enjoyment may go beyond understanding what one thinks is good or bad architecture.


I've had a ton of fun on what some may consider a "bad" golf course. I've also played too many rounds with different architects and shapers to think that there actually is a prescribed bias toward any particular design style.

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,


Having an open mind has always meant that one is open to new ideas or concepts, in the act of genuinely considering them.  Not that you necessarily have to embrace or agree with it, much less give the course a thumbs up in a rating.  In this context I would sure as hell hope every rater conforms.

[Peter Pallotta]

K -
yes, you're right: that's what it means. But in the context of gca and in rating courses, if in the end one can't 'embrace' or 'agree' or 'give a thumbs up to' new ideas or concepts, of what practical or analytical use is it, this open-mindedness -- what tangible difference does it make or benefit does it bring?
Maybe it's better, in terms of ratings/rankings, to let those who love C&C courses most of all to freely express and admit that 'bias' and 'close-mindedness' and to focus mainly on C&C courses only -- and then let us know how they rank C&C courses compared to *each-other* and not to compared to RTJ or Fazio courses.
Meanwhile, that leaves the ratings & rankings of early Nicklaus courses to those who have no problem embracing the style & shot demands featured by those courses, and to compare one early Nicklaus to another early Nicklaus -- instead of downgrading them for not being a Doak or a Hanse or a Devries.
I think I'd learn more about both what C&C course is best and what Nicklaus course is best through that approach rather than through a call for an 'open mindedness' that is in truth very hard to come by. From there, I can do the 'big picture analysis' myself.

PS - but I better stop now, because I can clearly sense that I'm not changing anyone's mind or opening up their thinking to new ideas -- even here with this open-minded group

[Tom_Doak]

I think I'd learn more about both what C&C course is best and what Nicklaus course is best through that approach than through a call for an 'open mindedness' that is in truth very hard to come by. From there, I can do the 'big picture analysis' myself.

Actually, no, I don't think you would.  You'd learn which of their courses is the most stereotypical of their work, not the ones that went outside the box a little bit and succeeded at it.  It's the same problem as having to accept the locals' pecking order of courses:  there are too many silly factors in the locals' subjective opinions, and sometimes the locals "can't see the forest for the trees".


Do you think this way about film criticism?  That you should only get a Kubrick fanboy to talk about his work, or a Quentin Tarantino fan to talk about his?  That would be insufferable.

[JMEvensky]

Do you think this way about film criticism?  That you should only get a Kubrick fanboy to talk about his work, or a Quentin Tarantino fan to talk about his?  That would be insufferable.

From an admitted (occasionally sufferable) Kubrick fanboy, wouldn't it depend on your level of familiarity/knowledge with the subject? To me it seems more a question of how deep do you want to dive into specifics.


If you were reasonably well versed in literature, would you rather take suggestions from a well rounded panel of literature critics or just Harold Bloom?


If I had a decent level of familiarity with your courses, wouldn't I learn more about them from a Doak fanboy than a garden variety magazine panelist?

[Peter Pallotta]

Maybe, Tom.
But on the other hand, I don't know what I would've learned from, say, Glenn Gould about the best Charlie Parker recordings/solos of all time, no matter how hard he tried to be open-minded. I think it's reasonable for me to believe that I'd learn much more from Wynton Marsalis on that front, and to leave Gould totally free to teach me about Bach instead.
And on your other point: again you may be right about getting 'stereotypes'; but on the other hand, why wouldn't I want to hear (most) from the people who know your work or C&C's most and best of all?
I watched The Irishman the other night. Now, I don't know any director's work nearly as well as I know Scorcese's (I've watched every film, from his first to his last, and many of them a half a dozen times); and I don't love any other director's body of work as much as I love his. Does that make me an expert? No. Should you listen to my views on The Irishman because of my love of and experience with his total body of work. No. But if my views about 'cinema' have *any* value whatsoever, they are going to have the *most* value when it comes to his films....and almost no value at all when it comes to the work of any other filmmaker.

[Kalen Braley]

PS - but I better stop now, because I can clearly sense that I'm not changing anyone's mind or opening up their thinking to new ideas -- even here with this open-minded group

Peter,

Funny Stuff and no doubt we are all guilty of this in different aspects of our life.  The only point is, deliberately changing ones' mind is at least a 3 step process. 1)  Having an actual open mind, 2) Considering the new data/new inputs 3)  Incorporating a new opinion.  If one's mind is closed, then you never get past step 1... 

P.S.  A good way to measure if you are open minded or not is by asking yourself, when is the last time you changed your mind on something really significant, something big.  If you can't recall the last time perhaps the problem lies in the 1st hurdle.

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe, Tom.
But on the other hand, I don't know what I would've learned from, say, Glenn Gould about the best Charlie Parker recordings/solos of all time, no matter how hard he tried to be open-minded. I think it's reasonable for me to believe that I'd learn much more from Wynton Marsalis on that front, and to leave Gould totally free to teach me about Bach instead.
And on your other point: again you may be right about getting 'stereotypes'; but on the other hand, why wouldn't I want to hear (most) from the people who know your work or C&C's most and best of all?
I watched The Irishman the other night. Now, I don't know any director's work nearly as well as I know Scorcese's (I've watched every film, from his first to his last, and many of them a half a dozen times); and I don't love any other director's body of work as much as I love his. Does that make me an expert? No. Should you listen to my views on The Irishman because of my love and experience of his total body of work. No. But if my views about 'cinema' have *any* value whatsoever, they are going to have the *most* value when it comes to his films compared to those by any other filmmaker.

Well, okay then.  Is what you are saying that rankings are a silly false consensus of subjective opinions, and we would be better off paying no attention to them and just reading what someone knowledgable has to say about the courses in question?


If so, we are pretty much on the same page.


As for criticism by experts / fanboys . . . I agree that someone who actually studies and understands the person's work is a good choice to listen to, but there are lots of "fans" of one certain architect or another whose opinions do not aid in our discernment.  I haven't seen every Coore & Crenshaw course, but I think I am a good critic of their work because I hold them to a very high standard -- I can tell when they are getting outside of their comfort zone, and how well they succeeded.  For Bill Schulz, everything they do is golden.

[Don Mahaffey]

The problem with this whole line of thinking is the notion we should be rating architects, not golf courses. It’s the built in conflict when architects are involved in the process.

[Jeff Schley]

For Bill Schulz, everything they do is golden.

Schultzie..... gone but not forgotten! Getting ready to watch Cal v. UCLA today I'm sure.