First of all, I ended up in this conversation because I felt Sam Morrow's and Paul Jones's opinions about The Covey were not given the respect they deserved. In the same thread, I objected to the way Derek Duncan's comments were received, so out of curiosity I compared the two Top 100 lists and found they were very similar. Finally, I entered the conversation because the level of discourse in recent weeks has been more combative and less interesting to me.
I remain unconvinced that "groupthink", which involves some level of coercion, is the primary driver of the similarity between the lists. I vote for a high degree of intersubjective agreement as the primary reason. But part of that is the way I think about things. My education was highly geared towards math and science, and I tend to see answers in black and white terms.
Groupthink is one of those nebulous concepts where it's kind of political. At what point of zealous advocacy does an argument become coercive and cause people to just go along to get along? It depends on the receiver of any given message.
If there are 50 or 100 or 200 primary concepts to consider when determining whether golf is interesting, fun, exciting or pretty, they've all been discussed in detail and solid arguments have been made. That's why the level of agreement is so high. As far as the site tending to discuss the best courses, it's because they have the features that are most worth discussing.
Although these recent discussions have been reasonably civil, I sense some frustration lying beneath the surface. It's getting prickly and you can count me among the people who are getting a little pissed.
There are two books about playing golf that were influential in my life. One was a book my Dad owned called The Nine Bad Shots of Golf, and What to Do About Them. This is a very old book that discussed the swing flaws that lead to things like topping, hooking, slicing or sclaffing the ball. The second was a cartoon picture book written with Jack Nicklaus called Jack Nicklaus' Lesson Tee (it has been given other names). Both books are instructional books. The Nicklaus book in particular discusses how to play certain shots — long bunker shots, fairway bunker shots, shots with uphill, sidehill and downhill lies, just dozens of situational strategies for playing the game. Perhaps more than anything, these books shaped my perceptions of golf architecture.
I didn't start playing golf until I was almost out of college, but I caught the golf bug and I worked at it. I practiced regularly, and as I was able to play in different conditions, I learned to hit the ball high and low. I learned to curve it left and right. In short, I learned how to make the game fun for me. I also learned the concept of casual indifference to results, with fleeting results. I even broke par a few times. I put in the work to learn the game and to thereby have a working knowledge of architecture.
I've been long-winded this week, with many long posts. I'm done on this subject and will read for a while. Thanks for reading.
I rarely travel and play new courses anymore. I'm getting old, downsizing my life, and I don't have much to offer this site, only theoretical arguments based on old examples. But part of the website is about having friends you've made over the years. I am loyal and I love my friends.