Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings

[Kyle Harris]

First, one has to buy into the notion that the best golf course in the world is identifiable.
Then, one has to buy into the notion that at any given point in time the best golf course in the world is within the range of whomever is doing the ranking/rating (Your foray into the Himalays, as an example, Tom).
Lastly, one might have to accept that the best golf course in the world has already been built and may never be supplanted.

The Groupthink, and I agree that it exists, is an exigent that we need a meaningful start in order to rank everything else. Ordinal numbers only work if there's a first place in the first place.

Without the Groupthink, every list would be a personal list of personal experiences.

I recently finally listed all the courses I've played and gave them a rapid rating. The distribution here is largely normal with only 10% of my courses receiving the highest rating and another 10% getting the lowest. Median, mean, and mode are all the same.

Does this imply a ranking as well? How do I parse the 9s/8s/7s that litter my Top 100? GroupThink is a good a start as any for me to determine that the 9ness of Merion East is better than the 9ness of Old Town Club.

[Ira Fishman]

Jake,


It would be helpful and educational for you to specify names of courses. But if you don’t want to be deluged with access requests (not from me), understood.


Thanks.

[Andrew Harvie]

Why is it controversial to say that it’s preposterous that only 3 of the best 20 courses in America were built in the last 40 years?

Because it's not about eras, it's about diversity in architects. In Golf Magazine's US Top 100 among courses older than 40 years old:

• 3 - Donald Ross (No. 13 Pinehurst No. 2 | No. 17 Seminole | No. 20 Oakland Hills)
• 2 - Mackenzie (No. 2 Cypress Point | No. 6 Augusta National)
• 2 - Seth Raynor (No. 11 Fishers Island | No. 12 Chicago Golf Club)
• 2 - George Thomas (No. 10 LACC North | No. 14 Riviera)
• 2 - William Flynn (No. 3 Shinnecock Hills | No. 8 Merion)
• 1 - A.W. Tillinghast, Perry & Press Maxwell, Hugh Wilson, Henry Fownes, C.B. Macdonald, Harry Colt, & George Crump

Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw have 2, and Tom Doak has 1 in that top 20. How many other architects have had a property that could be top 20? Gil Hanse would be one, his highest ranked on that same list is Ohoopee and CapRock at 44 & 46, respectively. But other than that...?


I'd contend it's simply about the diversity in architects who were building golf at that time, rather than historical bias.

[John Kirk]

I'm currently reading "A Few Words in Defense of Our Country" by Robert Hilburn, an excellent biography of musician Randy Newman.  I just read a couple pages about a lesser-known song named "I Want Everyone to Like Me."  Very confessional in nature, the book's discussion of this song includes a quote from his good friend Lenny Warnoker about Newman's ambivalence about being liked for his great contributions to popular music.

In my opinion, I suffer the "wanting everyone to like me" malady more than most.  Having contrary opinions about things can get in the way of that.  I tend to moderate my opinions if the consensus opinion differs greatly from my own, because I value other opinions and allow for my own shortcomings.

I desire both frank commentary and a sense of camaraderie, defined by Oxford as "mutual trust and friendship among people who spend a lot of time together."  In my opinion, the greatest threat to this ideal is a competitive desire to win, which regularly manifests itself in discussions here.   Now that I'm older, I'm less likely to spout controversial opinions.


I'm just getting warmed up on this topic, so I'll wrap up this post.  Part of Groupthink is trying to get along and go along.  Part of Groupthink is trying to not look stupid.  We'll go back to the subjective vs. objective stuff next. 

[John Kirk]

Dangit!  Lost my post.  Back in a while.

[John Kirk]

Why is it controversial to say that it’s preposterous that only 3 of the best 20 courses in America were built in the last 40 years?

Because it's not about eras, it's about diversity in architects. In Golf Magazine's US Top 100 among courses older than 40 years old:

• 3 - Donald Ross (No. 13 Pinehurst No. 2 | No. 17 Seminole | No. 20 Oakland Hills)
• 2 - Mackenzie (No. 2 Cypress Point | No. 6 Augusta National)
• 2 - Seth Raynor (No. 11 Fishers Island | No. 12 Chicago Golf Club)
• 2 - George Thomas (No. 10 LACC North | No. 14 Riviera)
• 2 - William Flynn (No. 3 Shinnecock Hills | No. 8 Merion)
• 1 - A.W. Tillinghast, Perry & Press Maxwell, Hugh Wilson, Henry Fownes, C.B. Macdonald, Harry Colt, & George Crump

Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw have 2, and Tom Doak has 1 in that top 20. How many other architects have had a property that could be top 20? Gil Hanse would be one, his highest ranked on that same list is Ohoopee and CapRock at 44 & 46, respectively. But other than that...?


I'd contend it's simply about the diversity in architects who were building golf at that time, rather than historical bias.

Hi Andrew,

I agree with Ben that modern courses may be underrated in general.  In my experience, I feel the best moderns tend to have a greater variety of outcomes and a larger number of strategic considerations.  I think it's fair to suggest that some of the big, complex courses of the 21st century surpass century-old designs and represent a new baseline for strategic excellence in design.  With all of the accumulated knowledge about the sport, that seems to be a logical end result.

It's not worth arguing about but I would disagree with the idea that diversity among great architects is important.  I think it just came out that way. 

It takes a long time to earn consensus approval..  Previous attempts to anoint a new course in the top 20 during its first few years of existence have largely been premature.  In this century, the exception is Sand Hills, while Friar's Head gradually worked its way into the top 20 over about 20 years.

[Michael Chadwick]

Is a 26% discrepancy between GD and GM for a US Top 100 an "extraordinary agreement" as John Kirk wrote, with Tom's agreement prompting him to start this thread? I find that to be a meaningful difference, actually, as I'd imagine the student getting a C would feel who sees the person sitting next to him got an A+. 

I'm enjoying and in agreement with many of John's subsequent posts. Tom and Ally, your opinions here strike me as possibly undercutting the following idea I hold to be true: that consensus surrounding good golf design today is more in line with what MacKenzie, Ross, Simpson, and Macdonald thought, than with the Jones or Fazio trees of architecture. Tom, you've had a key role in creating that paradigm shift, and plenty of us here have been educated on and off the course by your work. My hunch is that there are details surrounding current trends or sacred cows over which you're in disagreement, but not the wholesale shift in consensus perspective that you've had a role in making. 

Tom, aren't you destabilizing your own confidential guide here? That if consensus of shared values meant to quantify greatness is impossible, it's just groupthink and capitulating to the most consequential voice in the room? You have four authors from four corners of the globe, and your individual Doak Scores for the vast majority of courses in the volumes differ only by a single digit out of 10. I'd like to think the similarity springs from consensus, a lens for how to perceive and acknowledge good design, but again it seems like yours and Ally's comments are trying to undermine that.   

I'm not a rater, but scores can be anonymous to all but for whomever's collecting and reviewing the data, right? A Golf Mag rater who thinks Sand Hills should actually be 75th in US just has to answer for the opinion to the architectural editor, and can then choose how private or public to be with that opinion. I'm not convinced at all by the separate thread Kyle started. Being a good guest and being invited back is more about being tactful with your opinions, not for having opinions.

I'm going to quote one of your earlier posts, Tom, because I think it's reaching a negative conclusion for what is instead quite positive:

Surely, tastes have changed over time, and the criteria for rating courses has evolved . . . and that is one of my examples of why it's groupthink.My other example is The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses.  When I wrote the original version of the book in 1987, some of the courses I highlighted as my favorites were nowhere to be found in the ranking lists:Cypress Point, as I recall, was in GOLF DIGEST's Fifth TenCruden Bay was in nobody's listCrystal Downs was in nobody's listLahinch was pretty low in many people's estimation, for all its blind shotsThe National Golf Links of America was in nobody's list [!!]North Berwick was considered much too short and easy to be a great courseRye [par 68] was in nobody's listSt. Enodoc [par 69] was in nobody's listSwinley Forest [par 68] was in nobody's listNow, you could argue that times have changed, and that people's criteria have changed, but why is that?  How does consensus just slowly change over time?It changes because of groupthink.

Consensus doesn't slowly change over time from people arbitrarily accepting a viewpoint regardless of whether they actually think it's valid or not (as groupthink is defined). That, I'd argue, happens more in a fad, and after its quick popular burst its emptiness becomes apparent and people move on.

Consensus changes slowly because more and more people actually come to believe something to be true, or (to not wade into objective vs subjective speak) truer than what was considered to be true previously.

I'm getting too long winded if this thread is meant only for top 100 ranking systems. But I think it's an important discussion as it pertains to contemporary architecture. We're entering a moment of increased divergence as Tom's and Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw's careers are in their final arc, and long-time associates from different trees are producing original work. Landmand, Karoo, and Old Barnwell are tremendously different golf courses, and it's important that positive and negative feedback isn't simply written off as groupthink, but is instead collated as an array of opinions meant to contest, shift, and refine consensus going forward. Groupthink is empty and passive. Consensus is active, renewing, and vital.   

   

[Tags:]

Tags: