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.
Michael,
Thank you for that post. I understand where you are coming from and it’s hard to disagree. To a point.
Where I will counter is that you are putting all your eggs in the basket of education. That we are all gradually becoming more informed than our predecessors on GCA and therefore arriving at a consensus that we now understand what is good architecture and what is bad.
It’s that point of view that I question; not wholly because I do believe there is a spattering of truth in there. But it’s why I - cynically - post my 10 rules of modern GCA. There’s a surface understanding among many commentators that has become quite militant on deciding what represents good architecture. Similar to what Social Media is promoting in all walks of life, shutting down opposing views.
Serious debate will tell you that the gap between - say - a Hanse and an RTJ is not as big as current day commentators will have you believe. Most of what is seriously debated is the 10 or 20% on top, the aesthetic. Yes, the philosophy too. But the philosophy without the aesthetic is less prominent a slice of the pie than one might think.
Tom Doak is a pioneer. There is no questioning that. I recall Ben Stephens arguing this but it is not in doubt. He has absolutely shaped the modern beliefs in golf design. People may counter that he is still a niche name in the bigger world of golf. But if you’re not talking about Tom Doak, you don’t have a real interest in architecture.
I - for one - feel very closely aligned with the details I know and speculate about his philosophy, uncannily so sometimes. Some of that is me learning from his lead, a lot of it is me independently coming to the same conclusion…. But I am not blinded by it…. I find myself questioning things more than ever now, in part because I believe much of this new social media generation
is blinded by it. When you only see the cherry on top (the last 10-20%), it’s hard to understand for some that much of the cake is the same.
So what happens if some new pioneer comes along in 50 years with a slightly different philosophy. Are we arrogant enough to believe that the next generation won’t be the same as this one, following someone else’s lead?
I’m not willing to bet on that. I grew up on links courses. For 10 years, all I wanted was American style target golf with water hazards. Because that’s what we didn’t have in Scotland. I wasn’t alone…. What will our grandchildren want?