Bias

[jim_lewis]

Robert:

My interpretation of your comment is that you think that if I disagree with you, for instance regarding Maidstone and Shoreacres, then I must be biased. Is that kind of like me saying that if you disagree with me, you must be stupid? I can accept being called stupid. I've gotten used to it. I think you have to know someone pretty well to know if they are biased. It is much easier to tell is someone is stupid. A person is born stupid and can't help it. Bias is an acquired flaw which can be overcome.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Are they biases or preferences? They seem like the latter to me.

Scott

You are probably correct.  That said, of all items listed, the three wo which I am becoming the most entrenched on are drivable par 4s, reach in two par 5s and a good walk.  The first two allow for such flexibility in a design that I am amazed archies wouldn't want one or two of each per course.  The good walk is a two-fingers up at archies that insist on creating the perfect hole rather than the focusing on the 18 hole experience.

Gee George, you got me feeling like the Beav. 

Ciao

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Jim,
Maybe you are biased and just realized the extent.  Such personally directed viterol is usually a defense mechanism for some sort of a shortfalling.  The other possibility could be ignorance.  Generally, most ranking mistakes come from a lack enough diversity.  I have strong opinions, but can back them up because I've been fortunate to have played a lot of great courses and have a solid basis for making evaluations. If you have played Maidstone or Shoreacres, and have played a numer of unranked UK courses or quite a few Raynor courses, then you would find it very difficult to rank those courses so highly, unless, you hadn access to exclusivity bias functioning!

[jim_lewis]

Robert:

Let me start over and try this again. Over the years the topic of rater bias has often been discussed here. It usually comes up when new rankings come out. Probably all of us disagree with some of the rankings. I don't even agree with all of the GOLFWEEK rankings, although I am one of their raters. Those disagreements can be attributed to several factors. What bothers me is when some on this DG assert that the problem is rater bias. On this thread, you and Sean Arble have made those assertions. I rise to speak on behalf of all raters, at least the ones I know. There are hundreds that I don't know, and I presume that you and Sean don't know them all either. So I wonder, how can you know that bias is at play. It seems to me that you would have to know a rater personally to make such a claim. Or course, all humans probably have some biases, but in this context the term "bias" implies that the ratings are improperly influenced by bias. I just don't buy it. It may be true is some cases. How could I (or you) know. I prefer to attribute ranking disagreements as simple differences of opinion. In fact, some differences are the result of different publications using different criteria.

In your last post you suggested two other potential causes of incorrect rankings, "ignorance" and lack of "diversity", meaning not having seen a wide variety of great courses. I must tell you that most of the raters I know have played a very wide range of courses. Now, speaking only for myself, I can honestly say that I try hard not to be inappropriately influenced by outside factors, biases or preconcieved notions when rating a course. Just so you know, I will match with most anyone on this DG my experience of playing nearly 700 courses all around the world , including many of the "great" courses and several dozens in the British Isles, Australia, and New Zealand. That will include about 10-12 Raynor courses, depending on which of the CB McDonald courses you give Raynor credit for. So, if I must say so myself, I consider myself well traveled, not ignorant and not biased.

If we don't agree on the ranking of a particular course, I will presume the same is true of you. Actually, we probably agree most of the time, but you did lose me when you list Lookout Mountain as one of Raynor's best. A really cool and fun course it is. I have played many that I think are better.

Jim Lewis

[John Kavanaugh]

Jim,

To say all raters are like you is like saying all chain restaurants are like Morton's.   

[jim_lewis]

John:

I would be happy if all chain restaurants were as good as my favorite.........Waffle House.

[John Kavanaugh]

In the interest of full disclosure, and those wondering why I threw out a compliment, Jim treated me to one of the finest golfing trips of my life while alone at Pinehurst.  I got me a crusty bias.

[Sean_A]

Robert:

Let me start over and try this again. Over the years the topic of rater bias has often been discussed here. It usually comes up when new rankings come out. Probably all of us disagree with some of the rankings. I don't even agree with all of the GOLFWEEK rankings, although I am one of their raters. Those disagreements can be attributed to several factors. What bothers me is when some on this DG assert that the problem is rater bias. On this thread, you and Sean Arble have made those assertions. I rise to speak on behalf of all raters, at least the ones I know. There are hundreds that I don't know, and I presume that you and Sean don't know them all either. So I wonder, how can you know that bias is at play. It seems to me that you would have to know a rater personally to make such a claim. Or course, all humans probably have some biases, but in this context the term "bias" implies that the ratings are improperly influenced by bias. I just don't buy it. It may be true is some cases. How could I (or you) know. I prefer to attribute ranking disagreements as simple differences of opinion. In fact, some differences are the result of different publications using different criteria.

In your last post you suggested two other potential causes of incorrect rankings, "ignorance" and lack of "diversity", meaning not having seen a wide variety of great courses. I must tell you that most of the raters I know have played a very wide range of courses. Now, speaking only for myself, I can honestly say that I try hard not to be inappropriately influenced by outside factors, biases or preconcieved notions when rating a course. Just so you know, I will match with most anyone on this DG my experience of playing nearly 700 courses all around the world , including many of the "great" courses and several dozens in the British Isles, Australia, and New Zealand. That will include about 10-12 Raynor courses, depending on which of the CB McDonald courses you give Raynor credit for. So, if I must say so myself, I consider myself well traveled, not ignorant and not biased.

If we don't agree on the ranking of a particular course, I will presume the same is true of you. Actually, we probably agree most of the time, but you did lose me when you list Lookout Mountain as one of Raynor's best. A really cool and fun course it is. I have played many that I think are better.

Jim Lewis

Jim

I didn't mention there is a problem with rater bias.  I don't care enough about the ratings to worry about it.  In any case, all the biases probably more or less even out and bias isn't inherently a negative trait when discussing gca.  Bias is really only favouring one's own ideas of what is important over other ideas, which may be equaly valid.  So long as a rater acknowledges this I can't see what the problem is.  However, that said, yes, I do believe bias must be in play because rating is a subjective endeavour.  If anything, bias should be a reminder to us all why ordinal ranking is silly and why a system based more on the Michelin Guide is superior - thats my bias for the day.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

I think the bigger problem is preselection bias.  Most of us know what strikes our fancy and gravitate to those courses at the exclusion of others.  If you only have say 30 rounds of golf per year, why waste time playing lousy courses or even take a chance on an unknown track when there's a reliable gem in the vicinity?  Sure if someone you trust recommends a course, you may make time for it.  But a lot of guys here, myself included, will travel to the ends of the earth to play a new Doak or C&C course or a Golden Age gem, yet won't drive 2 hours to play another Nicklaus or Fazio, let alone some unknown GCA...

[John Kirk]

I wrote this a couple years ago.  An additional data point.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41629

[Sean Leary]

I think the bigger problem is preselection bias.  Most of us know what strikes our fancy and gravitate to those courses at the exclusion of others.  If you only have say 30 rounds of golf per year, why waste time playing lousy courses or even take a chance on an unknown track when there's a reliable gem in the vicinity?  Sure if someone you trust recommends a course, you may make time for it.  But a lot of guys here, myself included, will travel to the ends of the earth to play a new Doak or C&C course or a Golden Age gem, yet won't drive 2 hours to play another Nicklaus or Fazio, let alone some unknown GCA...

What about the bias where someone does go to see courses that may not be their fave architect and look mainly for the expected "shortcomings" of a particular designer? Basically they can't see the good because they are focusing on the "bad"?  Bad could be bunker style, containment mounding or anything that they generally don't like or prefer.

[Lou_Duran]

We all have biases and hard-to-justify or explain preferences.  Some are aware of them and sometimes attempt to mitigate them when they are of some consequence.

I recently had a discussion with a former national rater and prominent member of a well-known classical course who believes that the way a person is treated at a club he is visiting has a significant impact on his evaluation of the golf course.  This insight has considerable support in the psychology literature and in the business world (the customer is always right, and even when he is not, treat him with respect and warm regard).

In my own experience, I think that the quality of the amenities (clubhouse, driving range, lockerroom, comfort stations, food service, etc.) bleeds into the rating of the golf course.  Ditto for the presentation, cleanliness, overall appearance of the property and its surroundings.

Like most of us, opinion leaders also have biases.  It is rather disheartening how they can dominate the perceptions of so many others who have the capacity to know better.