Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings

[Kyle Harris]

When I worked in mission planning cells, we generally had accepted TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) for various tactical problems. These TTPs are *regularly challenged* and re-jiggered for evolving threats and new technology as well as evolving aircrew skills. If the white hat provided a problem and you worked all day to provide a solution and then presented it publicly at a “murder board” (where a bunch of equally experienced operators get to try and kill your plan), you better have a damn good reason for not executing an accepted TTP.

This resonated with me as I am deep into research and working with a publisher on a wargame.

You're welcome to challenge me on this, but one thing I (and others in this sphere) have noted is that the Operational Doctrine of the US Military has largely remained unchanged since the Mexican War. Jomini still dominates!

While the battlefield has become more asynchronous and the ability to project force over the horizon expanding in dimension over the past 180 years, the method of meeting operational and strategic goals has largely remained unchanged.

With that in mind, I'd be curious how much of these regular challenges actually produced change. Is this an example of GroupThink or of a doctrine that is largely effective and proven across the years and changes and innovations?

Golf architecture and design is largely influenced by physical factors that do not change (water will always flow downhill). I would be hard pressed to refute that the consensus best in the world isn't the best in the world and, somewhat hypocritically, also be hard pressed to accept that it couldn't be supplanted. And IF the best in the world is supplanted, is it because something changed with it or something else was done better?

[Kyle Harris]

That’s a tough one. I think I would prefer to make a judgement on whether the objection was compelling rather than looking for ad-hominem style rejections. That’s happened in the past around here. I remember Matt Ward’s opinion being roundly ignored due to his preferences.

There’s a whole other topic that I’m pushing someone to start about modern courses vs older courses. Generally speaking I prefer the playing characteristics of modern courses. If I sit here and make a compelling argument for why Ballyneal, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, and Friars Head are ALL better than Pine Valley, are you going to dismiss it because I’ve found different reasons why the moderns are all better? Or should I have stuck with just saying they’re all better for the one reason?

1.  I was one of the few who didn't dismiss Matt Ward.  [You could ask him.]  He had a valid perspective.  He was way too narrowly focused, so I took everything he said with a large helping of salt, but he had his points.

The second time I was ever in Matt's presence was in that walk about you did at Streamsong in Jan. 2012. His perspectives were just fine but he had a certain fixation on very narrow elements of the design. I don't recall anyone ever using some of the features he claimed were critical strategic elements.

I don't think he was ever able to put himself in any shoes other than his own. Which actually has some value, in my opinion.

[John Kavanaugh]

The problem isn’t so much what the group thinks as much as it’s who the group allows to speak.

[MCirba]

I wade into this with some trepidation, but...

How would folks classify the results of a rating system based on a 10 point (with decimals) scale where a random, statistical sample of 17 golf courses yielded an average difference rating between the highest score and lowest score of 2.8?   Consensus or Groupthink?

What if I were to add that the closest high to low was 1.0, with the largest delta between high to low a whopping 6.0!?

The majority were in the 2.1 to 3.7 range, which may seem not particularly statistically staggering, but would result in hundreds (thousands?) of placement differences of any affected course within those rankings.

[Kyle Harris]

I wade into this with some trepidation, but...

How would folks classify the results of a rating system based on a 10 point (with decimals) scale where a random, statistical sample of 17 golf courses yielded an average difference rating between the highest score and lowest score of 2.8?   Consensus or Groupthink?

What if I were to add that the closest high to low was 1.0, with the largest delta between high to low a whopping 6.0!?

The majority were in the 2.1 to 3.7 range, which may seem not particularly statistically staggering, but would result in hundreds (thousands?) of placement differences of any affected course within those rankings.

If it's as you say you can easily determine if there is a statistical significance to any random sample. Or is this about optics? If it's about optics then two sigfigs is basically a personal Top 100. So, something within that Top 100 may have ratings that vary the ranking by 60.

I don't think it's that far out of bounds that someone's 40th best golf course is someone else's 100th best.

[Mark Pearce]

I remember Matt Ward’s opinion being roundly ignored due to his preferences.

Is that why it was?

[John Kavanaugh]

Didn’t people whose essence is based in groupthink claim that they quit posting because Matt Ward’s opinions and methods were offensive?  Matt went from troll to bully and was eradicated in a heart beat.

[Sean_A]

I wade into this with some trepidation, but...

How would folks classify the results of a rating system based on a 10 point (with decimals) scale where a random, statistical sample of 17 golf courses yielded an average difference rating between the highest score and lowest score of 2.8?   Consensus or Groupthink?

What if I were to add that the closest high to low was 1.0, with the largest delta between high to low a whopping 6.0!?

The majority were in the 2.1 to 3.7 range, which may seem not particularly statistically staggering, but would result in hundreds (thousands?) of placement differences of any affected course within those rankings.

If it's as you say you can easily determine if there is a statistical significance to any random sample. Or is this about optics? If it's about optics then two sigfigs is basically a personal Top 100. So, something within that Top 100 may have ratings that vary the ranking by 60.

I don't think it's that far out of bounds that someone's 40th best golf course is someone else's 100th best.

Yer not wrong.

Ciao

[MCirba]

If it's as you say you can easily determine if there is a statistical significance to any random sample. Or is this about optics? If it's about optics then two sigfigs is basically a personal Top 100. So, something within that Top 100 may have ratings that vary the ranking by 60.

I don't think it's that far out of bounds that someone's 40th best golf course is someone else's 100th best.

Kyle,

It's a bit more significant than that.

That 2.8% average sample difference also happens to be the average rating difference between the course ranked #1 and the course ranked #200.   

But as you get further out of the first 100, that sample difference grows in significance.   The average delta within the first 100 courses is 2.26, but for courses 101-200 it's a paltry .48.   

[Kyle Harris]

If it's as you say you can easily determine if there is a statistical significance to any random sample. Or is this about optics? If it's about optics then two sigfigs is basically a personal Top 100. So, something within that Top 100 may have ratings that vary the ranking by 60.

I don't think it's that far out of bounds that someone's 40th best golf course is someone else's 100th best.

Kyle,

It's a big more significant than that.

That 2.8% average sample difference also happens to be the average rating difference between the course ranked #1 and the course ranked #200.   

But as you get further out of the first 100, that sample difference grows in significance.   The average delta within the first 100 courses is 2.26, but for courses 101-200 it's a paltry .48.

This follows modality in a normal distribution. There are more 6s than 9s. It follows there are more 6.xx than 9.xx.

[Ben Sims]

When I worked in mission planning cells, we generally had accepted TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) for various tactical problems. These TTPs are *regularly challenged* and re-jiggered for evolving threats and new technology as well as evolving aircrew skills. If the white hat provided a problem and you worked all day to provide a solution and then presented it publicly at a “murder board” (where a bunch of equally experienced operators get to try and kill your plan), you better have a damn good reason for not executing an accepted TTP.

This resonated with me as I am deep into research and working with a publisher on a wargame.

You're welcome to challenge me on this, but one thing I (and others in this sphere) have noted is that the Operational Doctrine of the US Military has largely remained unchanged since the Mexican War. Jomini still dominates!

While the battlefield has become more asynchronous and the ability to project force over the horizon expanding in dimension over the past 180 years, the method of meeting operational and strategic goals has largely remained unchanged.

With that in mind, I'd be curious how much of these regular challenges actually produced change. Is this an example of GroupThink or of a doctrine that is largely effective and proven across the years and changes and innovations?

Golf architecture and design is largely influenced by physical factors that do not change (water will always flow downhill). I would be hard pressed to refute that the consensus best in the world isn't the best in the world and, somewhat hypocritically, also be hard pressed to accept that it couldn't be supplanted. And IF the best in the world is supplanted, is it because something changed with it or something else was done better?

Kyle,


Not to derail the conversation, but I think you’re falling into a common trap around here at GCA.com: you’re conflating doctrine, strategy, and tactics. Even at the level I was at, we were solving tactical problems not strategic ones and certainly not revamping American doctrine. Not to knock you, people that dabble in wargaming tend to make that same error. Don’t take for granted how hard-won those tactical effects that accomplish strategy are. They have surely changed over the years despite your correct assertion that doctrine has been stagnant.


I think it’s much the same in golf. I think strategic vision is similar to the golden age. But I also think the tactical decisions made to get to those ends are vastly different. Hence the idea that modern courses are inherently better. 

[Sean_A]

When I worked in mission planning cells, we generally had accepted TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) for various tactical problems. These TTPs are *regularly challenged* and re-jiggered for evolving threats and new technology as well as evolving aircrew skills. If the white hat provided a problem and you worked all day to provide a solution and then presented it publicly at a “murder board” (where a bunch of equally experienced operators get to try and kill your plan), you better have a damn good reason for not executing an accepted TTP.

This resonated with me as I am deep into research and working with a publisher on a wargame.

You're welcome to challenge me on this, but one thing I (and others in this sphere) have noted is that the Operational Doctrine of the US Military has largely remained unchanged since the Mexican War. Jomini still dominates!

While the battlefield has become more asynchronous and the ability to project force over the horizon expanding in dimension over the past 180 years, the method of meeting operational and strategic goals has largely remained unchanged.

With that in mind, I'd be curious how much of these regular challenges actually produced change. Is this an example of GroupThink or of a doctrine that is largely effective and proven across the years and changes and innovations?

Golf architecture and design is largely influenced by physical factors that do not change (water will always flow downhill). I would be hard pressed to refute that the consensus best in the world isn't the best in the world and, somewhat hypocritically, also be hard pressed to accept that it couldn't be supplanted. And IF the best in the world is supplanted, is it because something changed with it or something else was done better?

Kyle,


Not to derail the conversation, but I think you’re falling into a common trap around here at GCA.com: you’re conflating doctrine, strategy, and tactics. Even at the level I was at, we were solving tactical problems not strategic ones and certainly not revamping American doctrine. Not to knock you, people that dabble in wargaming tend to make that same error. Don’t take for granted how hard-won those tactical effects that accomplish strategy are. They have surely changed over the years despite your correct assertion that doctrine has been stagnant.


I think it’s much the same in golf. I think strategic vision is similar to the golden age. But I also think the tactical decisions made to get to those ends are vastly different. Hence the idea that modern courses are inherently better.

Ben, you are comparing military decision making with golf course rankings procedure. Does this make sense given the vast difference in complexity?

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

When I worked in mission planning cells, we generally had accepted TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) for various tactical problems. These TTPs are *regularly challenged* and re-jiggered for evolving threats and new technology as well as evolving aircrew skills. If the white hat provided a problem and you worked all day to provide a solution and then presented it publicly at a “murder board” (where a bunch of equally experienced operators get to try and kill your plan), you better have a damn good reason for not executing an accepted TTP.

This resonated with me as I am deep into research and working with a publisher on a wargame.

You're welcome to challenge me on this, but one thing I (and others in this sphere) have noted is that the Operational Doctrine of the US Military has largely remained unchanged since the Mexican War. Jomini still dominates!

While the battlefield has become more asynchronous and the ability to project force over the horizon expanding in dimension over the past 180 years, the method of meeting operational and strategic goals has largely remained unchanged.

With that in mind, I'd be curious how much of these regular challenges actually produced change. Is this an example of GroupThink or of a doctrine that is largely effective and proven across the years and changes and innovations?

Golf architecture and design is largely influenced by physical factors that do not change (water will always flow downhill). I would be hard pressed to refute that the consensus best in the world isn't the best in the world and, somewhat hypocritically, also be hard pressed to accept that it couldn't be supplanted. And IF the best in the world is supplanted, is it because something changed with it or something else was done better?

Kyle,


Not to derail the conversation, but I think you’re falling into a common trap around here at GCA.com: you’re conflating doctrine, strategy, and tactics. Even at the level I was at, we were solving tactical problems not strategic ones and certainly not revamping American doctrine. Not to knock you, people that dabble in wargaming tend to make that same error. Don’t take for granted how hard-won those tactical effects that accomplish strategy are. They have surely changed over the years despite your correct assertion that doctrine has been stagnant.


I think it’s much the same in golf. I think strategic vision is similar to the golden age. But I also think the tactical decisions made to get to those ends are vastly different. Hence the idea that modern courses are inherently better.

Ben,

With respect, there is a reason I emphasized OPERATIONAL in my statement and made mention of the changes to the scope and scale of the battlefield from the tactical perspective. The same people I learned wargaming from dabbled in it within the walls of the Pentagon so there is some fruitful discussion here somewhere else.

My point is that the tactical equivalent in golf design is largely unchanged due to the laws of physics and therefore challenging established methods and doctrine, while important, is likely not going to widely move the needle off of what is already established as best in class.

If anything, the changes are on the maintenance end and how that may or may not influence the design. Green speeds and machine guns - who would have thought!?

[John Kirk]

I wade into this with some trepidation, but...

How would folks classify the results of a rating system based on a 10 point (with decimals) scale where a random, statistical sample of 17 golf courses yielded an average difference rating between the highest score and lowest score of 2.8?   Consensus or Groupthink?

What if I were to add that the closest high to low was 1.0, with the largest delta between high to low a whopping 6.0!?

The majority were in the 2.1 to 3.7 range, which may seem not particularly statistically staggering, but would result in hundreds (thousands?) of placement differences of any affected course within those rankings.

It depends on the sample size, a simple statistical analysis of confidence in the result.

As always, there is an issue with data that is way outside the mean.  There are ratings for everything nowadays.  Yelp ratings for restaurants have lots of 5, and then lots of 1s from unhappy customers or even the local competition.  I've been told that these sorts of distributions can be handled statistically.

In a game like golf course ratings, a group of unhappy raters who, let's say, played the course as the second round of the day in 110 degree swelter can displace a course's proper ranking for years.

[MCirba]

It depends on the sample size, a simple statistical analysis of confidence in the result.

As always, there is an issue with data that is way outside the mean.  There are ratings for everything nowadays.  Yelp ratings for restaurants have lots of 5, and then lots of 1s from unhappy customers or even the local competition.  I've been told that these sorts of distributions can be handled statistically.

In a game like golf course ratings, a group of unhappy raters who, let's say, played the course as the second round of the day in 110 degree swelter can displace a course's proper ranking for years.

John,

Yes, agreed, and if I were king of the world those high and low outliers would be tossed.  I have no idea whether that actually happens in this example.

In the example I used, however, these were not Yelp-like consumers but actually ratings variations from individuals designated as golf course raters and in each case were determined to be a large enough pool for a statistically valid sample.   

I'm trying to get down to the essence of the original question of whether Golf Course Rankings are generally the result of imitative Groupthink or Statistical Consensus of relatively broad, varying opinions and trying to use actual sample data to see what results.

I was surprised to see the variances were that wide, to be honest. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Why does rater after rater claim that their favorite courses are not their highest ranked courses? How is that possible without institutionalized groupthink? I would have loved to have been asked to be a rater but am grateful I never was because of the unavoidable dismissal I would have faced.


The only courses that I have ever played that disgusted me bone deep are courses ranked in someone’s top 100.

[John Kirk]

The problem isn’t so much what the group thinks as much as it’s who the group allows to speak.

More random thoughts.

I've been trying to figure out where subjectivity and objectivity fit into groupthink and consensus.  Naturally, Louis Armstrong plays a key role.

The one course where the consensus opinion differs most greatly from my personal experience is the Old Course at St. Andrews.  I had a wonderful time playing the course with the three traveling Americans I was paired with.  I had a good caddie and played a 6,000ish yard course quite well.  I remember a few of the shots I hit as well.  I thought the course was very nice, a wonderful 3.7 hour round at the break of day.

On the same trip I played North Berwick with two friends I deeply admire.  None of us had seen the course.  All of us had a great time.  I would summarize my sentiments about North Berwick as amazing or spectacular.  My impression was that both were great courses, but I clearly liked North Berwick better.

Some here know that a few years ago I redirected my attention from being a golf course dilettante to a popular music dilettante.  One thing you learn when reading music criticism is that virtually everyone agrees that Louis Armstrong is the most important popular musician of the 20th century.  Not only the greatest instrumentalist, but also the greatest vocalist.  I think it was Stanley Crouch who said in the Ken Burns Jazz documentary that singing changed forever after Armstrong, and going back to the old way of singing was simply a bad choice.  Similarly, the opening trumpet flourish of "West End Blues" is famous and groundbreaking.  My Dad first mentioned that song when I was just a kid.

In these unique cases, an artist or a golf course is so important to the entire development of an art form or a game that its importance must be considered in its evaluation.  I trust the consensus opinion of The Old is deserved because its importance in the game's history is undeniable, but I don't otherwise think I would rank it in my top 50 courses, among a relatively small sample size compared to many well-traveled members here.

Finally, I'd like to mention something that JC Jones said recently.  JC considers the Loop a top 50 course in the U.S.  Perhaps a truly reversible course is not an innovation that changes the course of history, but it's a big leap in design and this post suggests that JC is making a good argument.

[Tom_Doak]

Why does rater after rater claim that their favorite courses are not their highest ranked courses? How is that possible without institutionalized groupthink? I would have loved to have been asked to be a rater but am grateful I never was because of the unavoidable dismissal I would have faced.

John:


It's a great question.  It depends on what you understand you are being asked to do.


If you're being asked to rate / rank the courses you prefer, then there is no room for groupthink.


If you're being asked to rate / rank what you think are the best courses in the world "for everybody", and not just for your own tastes, then you would probably change your order significantly to factor in how you imagine other people might like the course.  But then you're definitely into groupthink . . . and your choices of who and what you might factor in are very arbitrary.

[Tom_Doak]

Apologies if "Big Three" seems reductive from your position, but it is nothing more than shorthand to list you, Coore & Crenshaw and Hanse & Wagner, who have received considerable attention for your respective individual golf course design projects in recent years. "Big Three-adjacent" would encompass a number of talented and exciting architects who are also active at the moment.

FWIW, I agree that it's worthwhile to discuss individual courses - that is by far my favorite sort of piece to write - but art criticism has also historically included higher-level discussion of trends, movements, genres, etc. Your particular art form is not exempt, IMO, though I understand your ambivalence towards it.

Tim:


I'm not ambivalent about it, I really don't like it.


I don't think I have ever read a piece from anyone that did even a halfway good job of trying to explain the key differences between the work of Bill & Ben, Gil Hanse, and myself -- even of Streamsong where we all built courses side by side.  [Most of the articles just proclaimed that Gil's course was the latest and greatest, because that's what the golf course / advertiser wanted to hear.] 


An article like that would be actual art criticism, but it is totally out of bounds for most writers and most publications, because they might offend one of us [or some of our fans].  And you can't interview our clients about who spent their money wisely, or superintendents about who was easiest to work with and who left them with technical problems to solve, because no one in either sphere would ever be so rude as to declare a favorite in public.  [If you asked a specific question that didn't make them declare a favorite, you might get enough answers to figure it out, but nobody does.] 


So, instead, there is a lot of vague gesturing toward the minimalist "movement", and lots of articles about how "difficult" I am [or was, or was not].  Character studies instead of actual analysis of the work.  That's the part I hate, and not just because they get the characters wrong, too.

[Ira Fishman]

I think John Kirk's original premise holds up 4 pages into this thread.

As Mark alluded to if you're feeling brave, show us you're not subject to groupthink and give us your list and include reasons why its its better.  I'd bet dollars to donuts its not going to be much different top to bottom than the existing stuff from the mags.

P.S.  I miss Matt Ward's descriptions like "This course isn't steak and potatoes, its more like exotic Thai Food" which I believe is the line he used to defend Wolf Creek in Mesquite

Kalen,


I already admitted to groupthink. I also identified courses that I think are overrated and underrated. Here are some more:


Ballyneal, Bandon Trails, and Pasatiempo are better courses than Pac Dunes.
SS Red and Blue are way underrated.
Primland is way underrated.
Cog Hill 4 (at least before the Rees Jones renovation) should be in the top 100; Bandon Dunes should not be.
So should Butler National and Blackwolf Run River.
The Island Club is at least the equal to Ballybunion.
Waterville is underrated.
Carne and St Andrew’s Beach are brilliant.
Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns would not be in top 200 if they were in the US.
Woking and Paraparauma Beach are in a category by themselves.


I admit to not offering explanations, but I was specific. Which is more than most will do on here in response to your post.

[Tom_Doak]

Learning while also re-attacking is the key here. I assume you don’t see a lot of re-attacking of the GCA.com consensus thoughts and ideals and this thread (and others) is the result.

Ben:


Yeah, there's more than a little frustration here with the lack of meaningful dialogue, and falling back on what things look like.  [See my post above.]


Ooh, but you've given me an idea for a new thread.

[Ira Fishman]

Apologies if "Big Three" seems reductive from your position, but it is nothing more than shorthand to list you, Coore & Crenshaw and Hanse & Wagner, who have received considerable attention for your respective individual golf course design projects in recent years. "Big Three-adjacent" would encompass a number of talented and exciting architects who are also active at the moment.

FWIW, I agree that it's worthwhile to discuss individual courses - that is by far my favorite sort of piece to write - but art criticism has also historically included higher-level discussion of trends, movements, genres, etc. Your particular art form is not exempt, IMO, though I understand your ambivalence towards it.

Tim:


I'm not ambivalent about it, I really don't like it.


I don't think I have ever read a piece from anyone that did even a halfway good job of trying to explain the key differences between the work of Bill & Ben, Gil Hanse, and myself -- even of Streamsong where we all built courses side by side.  [Most of the articles just proclaimed that Gil's course was the latest and greatest, because that's what the golf course / advertiser wanted to hear.] 


An article like that would be actual art criticism, but it is totally out of bounds for most writers and most publications, because they might offend one of us [or some of our fans].  And you can't interview our clients about who spent their money wisely, or superintendents about who was easiest to work with and who left them with technical problems to solve, because no one in either sphere would ever be so rude as to declare a favorite in public.  [If you asked a specific question that didn't make them declare a favorite, you might get enough answers to figure it out, but nobody does.] 


So, instead, there is a lot of vague gesturing toward the minimalist "movement", and lots of articles about how "difficult" I am [or was, or was not].  Character studies instead of actual analysis of the work.  That's the part I hate, and not just because they get the characters wrong, too.

I have posted this before. SS Black is nothing like SS Red and Blue. And it was not nearly as good. Pinehurst 4 is pretty ordinary. I have played only three Hanse courses, but I really do not get the lumping of the three architects together.


Ira

[Kyle Harris]

The "best" Dick Wilson course in the state of Florida isn't the best Dick Wilson course in the state of Florida and I've not heard one person ever mention what is the best Dick Wilson course in the state of Florida as being even noteworthy to see. 

Also, shocked nobody has brought up Top100 Golf yet. Plenty of reviews there march against orders. And Matt Ward is an active contributor!

https://www.top100golfcourses.com/news-item/review-of-the-month-february-2024

My shameless plug from last year. And I mention GroupThink in it.

[Matt Schoolfield]

There was a time when the consensus was that the Earth was flat.  At that time multiple experts had come to the same conclusion.  Of course the consensus can be (and most often is) correct.  But it becomes group think when it can't be challenged.

I've already made my arguments against the prevalence of group think, but I thought there was an idea here worth exploring.

We again should not forget the problem of epistemology. That the top three-to-ten courses on these list tend to be places that most club players would have a difficult time getting on, there is no real way to challenge the taste makers, and this may be an argument for group think. I find it amusing that the top course that gets shit on the most is Pebble -- especially when people criticize the price -- simply because, it's fairly easy to publicly criticize a public course that's going to happily take your money the next time you want to play. We shouldn't pretend that there isn't a chilling effect on criticism happening because of asymmetric access. It may not be enough to change the raters minds, but it's still there and worth thinking about.

I think there may be plenty of folks who would be able to make good arguments as to why many top five courses shouldn't be in the top five, but those folks probably aren't playing those course in the first place.

[Tom_Doak]

I find it amusing that the top course that gets shit on the most is Pebble -- especially when people criticize the price -- simply because, it's fairly easy to publicly criticize a public course that's going to happy to take your money the next time you want to play. We shouldn't pretend that there isn't a chilling effect on criticism happening because of asymmetric access. It may not be enough to change the raters minds, but it's still there and worth thinking about.

I have never considered this.  It certainly isn't the reason I criticize Pebble Beach more than other places.  I've criticized Augusta National just as much, but maybe you'll say that is also easy because I wouldn't assume I am ever going to play there again.  I also called The National Golf Links of America "quirky" and the caddie master there still teases me about it to this day [but somehow I am still welcome].

[Tags:]

Tags: