What If We Went In Blind?

[Sam Morrow]

How would our analysis of courses be different if we didn't know who the architect was until after we played? What if we didn't read anything about what this site has to say about a course?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've learnt a lot from this site... And I've learnt a lot by learning to question everything I read on it...

We're all influenced to one degree or another and I think it would be much healthier if we all played every new course without ever seeing a photo, review or hearing a name involved...

[Paul Jones]

I think once you play enough courses by a variety of architects you know what you like and dislike.  I have played some courses where my expectations were not that high going in and got blown away by one and vice versa.

One thing I have noticed is there is a lot of differently designed courses by the same architect over the years.

Paul

[Jason Topp]

I think rankings would be pretty different - at least below the no-brainer top courses.  I think the Ross courses in the Twin Cities get bonus points. 

[RJ_Daley]

Sam, I think I understand what you are getting at.  I would say that if we played all new courses blind, without any knowledge of who designed it, and what others are saying, we'd simply evaluate it by a pure fun factor.  Perhaps you'd observe how your playing companions play and react to it, and you'd go by other perceptions like having choices and seeing variety in how to tack your way around the course.  If you finish and want to run right over to the first tee and go again, you have a winner.  

But in those personal criteria you apply, without knowing the archie, I suspect that the cream will always rise to the top.  I think that as you go, you'll find yourself liking courses that are designed by the favorites of this site, because that is what they do consistently; is design enjoyable courses-whether you know who they are or not.

[Anthony Gray]

  I think Gary Player would get more love. The older private courses would be thought of less. Augusta National would be too hilly and over manicured like many unadmired Nichlaus courses. Pine Valley would be too penal. Cruden Bay would become the new standard for excelence. Pete Dye would join The Discussion Group.

  Anthony

[Philippe Binette]

as long as we are not blind when we play the golf course...

[Sean_A]

It wasn't that long ago that I paid no attention to the designer before or after a game.  Nor did I know much about rankings other than to know the very famous courses were obviously ranked highly.  Other than paying attention to Ross courses, it wasn't until I moved to England and began to come across cool course after cool course and start to recognize some patterns that I began to actively seek specific work of archies.  For the most part, I haven't gotten far past Colt, Park Jr, Braid, Dr Mac and Fowler.  I am just starting to scratch at Simpson, but his work takes some very special effort to see.

I would dearly love to do the same in the States with their main culprits, but the cat is out of the bag for me and for sure it is all that much less appealing in terms of discovery.  But there are still a few guys I would love to do some hands on exploring of; Travis, Stiles, Doak and Moran come to mind.  

Ciao        

[Tom_Doak]

How would our analysis of courses be different if we didn't know who the architect was until after we played? What if we didn't read anything about what this site has to say about a course?

Sam:

I've sometimes wished aloud here that people wouldn't post a lot of pictures of my courses when they are brand new, so that at least a few people have a chance to discover them for what they are, instead of comparing them to expectations.  It's a selfish goal on my part -- because I know from experience that the former way of getting to know a course is potentially much more exciting on an emotional level.

I am certain, too, that many people begin their expectations of a course with the identity of the designer.

But, even if you "went in blind," if you have a lot of experience with golf courses, don't you think that figuring out who the designer was would be one of the first things on your mind?  My ex-wife had never played golf when we first met, but after she saw about twenty courses, she would ask if the course we were touring was by the same designer as a certain other one we'd seen before ... and she was usually right.

Of course, it is also hard to ignore when some courses put a picture of their designer on the scorecard!

[Peter Pallotta]

I'd imagine, though, that most of us would be slightly less insightful on and nuanced about what 'features' we noted on the course, and that we might come to find (after playing several courses 'blind') that much of gca both old and new flows/fits along a much smoother and gradual 'continuum' than we usually think, and that constructs such as the penal-strategic divide and the minimalist-maximalist debate are to at least some degree artificial ones.

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

If we played golf courses totally blind, except we all have to pay to play, one prejudiced factor that would cause a bias would be how much we had to pay to play it.  From there, we would be more critical of what was out on that golf course in terms of design features and presentation in direct comparison to what we had to pay; and was it worth it?

Now, if they were all free... that would entail another complete set of bias's and perhaps lack of consideration to features and issues that may be excessive, superfluous to a pure golf experience, etc. 

I guess it goes to show ya, if it is not one thing, it is the other...