Should Golf Architecture Have a "Rotten Tomatoes" ?

[Niall C]

I hear talk of $300 and I know I ain't interested what a critic says in terms of influencing my decision to play the course. Those high end courses which interest me were on my list long before a critic got to me.

Sean, I agree for the most part, but what about expensive new courses? Don't you want to consider reviews of courses like Dumbarnie before deciding to drop the cash? At least reviews from critics whose opinions you respect.

Where do you actually read constructive criticism of courses like Dumbarnie apart from websites like this ? Certainly not in the press, any review you read there is just promotional puff. Personally I tend to put far more weight on what I'm told by someone I know who has played a course, even if they aren't a GCA type and don't articulate it the same way we tend to do on here.


Niall

[Steve Lang]

   Too many golf critics, reviewers, and uncertainty out there on the internet already with bias and vested interests, hard enough to find frank discussion, easy to find freak discussion.  So someone compiling the noise into something coherent and presentable would probably work for many retail golfers... of course they might only want to know if it has a good beat and/or was easy to dance to, ala' American Bandstand. 


I imagine there'd be a "shank" instead of splat rating, and an overwhelming majority approval be needed to be a Certified Draw or Power Fade... 


I'm with Joe Hancock, play golf with friends!


https://youtu.be/tJyHktPxKXo

[Sean_A]

I hear talk of $300 and I know I ain't interested what a critic says in terms of influencing my decision to play the course. Those high end courses which interest me were on my list long before a critic got to me.

Sean, I agree for the most part, but what about expensive new courses? Don't you want to consider reviews of courses like Dumbarnie before deciding to drop the cash? At least reviews from critics whose opinions you respect.

I haven't really read anything about Dunbarnie. It was priced out of my range of interest from day one. There were probably a few times I could have played it for maybe £100, but didn't bother trying to get up there. If it's convenient and I can play it for a good price I'll give Dunbarnie a go sometime. I am in no rush...there are plenty of cheaper Scottish courses which interest me more.

Ciao

[Forrest Richardson]

OK, great comments (most, anyway).

I do appreciate that "golf" is unique from "Hollywood", but if we keep telling ourselves (as I do many times) that "Golf architecture is an art form..." then we need to be prepared to accept that not all "art forms" are the same. In fact, they vary widely from fashion....to industrial design....to architecture...to graphic design....to filmmaking....to painting...to interior design. Each an applied "art" that impacts the built environment in its own way.

Also, I take exception to the comment that "Golf is a small industry..."  Golf in the U.S., represents a $70B industry. Hollywood – Movies in specific – represent about $90B...that makes golf, as a whole, just a large (or nearly so). BTW, that $90B for Hollywood is not just production costs, it's the popcorn and everything around the world of movies. No different in golf...the shoes, clubs and food and beverage is fair game.

Yes, in the "course-specific" world we think of ourselves as "small and close-knit", but that can also be said of, let's say, cinematographers, screenwriters or directors. Each is a "small" world.

I am fascinated by math and what can be done in our modern world to extract "opinions". While not as seasoned as Tom D in math, I do have the belief that our method of "rating" courses could be much better, deeper and meaningful. We're just not using all the tools available — which may be by design

[David Kelly]

The ultimate problem with reviewing golf courses is that essentially you are reviewing private property.


I do think that this discussion group, say 15-20 years ago, had the potential to bring a real point of view and voice to to the critical evaluation of golf course architecture but ultimately the term "frank commentary" turned out to be somewhat of a misnomer. The DG still functions as a place to appreciate and talk about golf architecture with like-minded people but critical analysis is for the most part absent.

[Sean_A]

The ultimate problem with reviewing golf courses is that essentially you are reviewing private property.

I do think that this discussion group, say 15-20 years ago, had the potential to bring a real point of view and voice to to the critical evaluation of golf course architecture but ultimately the term "frank commentary" turned out to be somewhat of a misnomer. The DG still functions as a place to appreciate and talk about golf architecture with like-minded people but critical analysis is for the most part absent.

There have been many instances on this when frank commentary was shouted down. Plus, the number one voice rarely drags down a course....and for good reasons...some of which are the same for others.

The problem is people associated with courses are overly protective and territorial when it comes to frank commentary. It's as if they are insulted by the commentary unless it is overwhelmingly positive.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I think the larger issue is the vast majority of golf courses will never be played...aka reviewed...by the same people. As opposed to movies where millions can watch the same one from anywhere.

And without the same people playing and reviewing the same golf courses, the vast vast majority of reviews will be apples to oranges at best.  I looked at the reviews on Golf Advisor for Spokane and the Salt Lake City area, which I know pretty well.  Most courses have less than 10 reviews, and the negative reviews are often from a User ID with only 1 or 2 course reviews.  For example, Indian Canyon which is hands down the best course in the area had 8 reviews and was near the bottom of the list, while a crappy trailer park "resort" course north of the area had dozens of reviews and was allegedly the best in the area.  A complete and utter joke....

Forrest, as much as I appreciate the idea, in the absence of any practical way to get meaningful data, I don't see how on God's green earth that this is doable or adds even a scrap of value.  As flawed as the ratings system is, its the best we got!

[Ally Mcintosh]

The ultimate problem with reviewing golf courses is that essentially you are reviewing private property.

I do think that this discussion group, say 15-20 years ago, had the potential to bring a real point of view and voice to to the critical evaluation of golf course architecture but ultimately the term "frank commentary" turned out to be somewhat of a misnomer. The DG still functions as a place to appreciate and talk about golf architecture with like-minded people but critical analysis is for the most part absent.

There have been many instances on this when frank commentary was shouted down. Plus, the number one voice rarely drags down a course....and for good reasons...some of which are the same for others.

The problem is people associated with courses are overly protective and territorial when it comes to frank commentary. It's as if they are insulated by the commentary unless it is overwhelmingly positive.

Ciao

I think that when this site started, everyone was learning together. That promotes open conversation and commentary.


Now the site is made up of newer people at the beginning of their journey and old hands who either think they know better or are less patient with those just setting out. Even those good hearted souls who like to help (and there are many) have seen all the conversations before so are less likely to be engaged….


It’s probably just the natural lifespan of any group. Always much more fun with fewer agendas at the beginning.

[Ira Fishman]

I read a lot of Book Reviews. The primary reason is not to decide what books to purchase, but rather to learn about a topic. Good reviews generally give both the reviewer's perspective on the subject in addition to the author's take, and they often praise/criticize the author's research and logic. In contrast, golf architecture reviews tend inevitably to end up being about whether a course is good or not and/or where it should place in the rankings. It would be much more informative and interesting if the reviews delved more into the architecture itself and the choices that the architect made. A notable exception are some of the long postings on top100courses. Yes, they help me do travel planning, but more importantly they provide perspective on the architect's philosophy and decision making. Another example is Ian Andrew's blog/site. We need more of that kind of criticism.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Most folks simply don't bother with critics, nor are they troubled by them -- whether in music or books or films or golf courses. They have more fun/important matters to attend to, and are content just to like what they like without needing guidance or a stamp of approval from those purporting to be experts. The only people who care about critics are those with a professional-financial agenda and/or stake in the game, or those who believe they're insightful critics in their own right, and thus have their egos invested in proving themselves right and others wrong.

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


I do not care about critics, but I do care about criticism, especially on a topic in which I have a real interest and some modicum of knowledge. I often learn as much from a good book review of say the US Constitutional Convention as I do from some entire books on the subject. I know far less about golf course architecture, but I know I would benefit from some high quality criticism.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

PS
I should add: exceptionally well written criticism is an art and craft in itself, and (as Ira notes above) a source of both pleasure and edification -- and in those cases I think others can care about critics too. But those cases, IMO, are quite rare.

PSS
Ira, yes, I just saw your response and I agree re high quality criticism

[Kalen Braley]

Most folks simply don't bother with critics, nor are they troubled by them -- whether in music or books or films or golf courses. They have more fun/important matters to attend to, and are content just to like what they like without needing guidance or a stamp of approval from those purporting to be experts. The only people who care about critics are those with a professional-financial agenda and/or stake in the game, or those who believe they're insightful critics in their own right, and thus have their egos invested in proving themselves right and others wrong.

Peter,

I think there's another use case in there for a lot of people.  I use reviews as a short-cut of sorts to wade thru the massive ocean of movies to focus in on a few that I might like.

As a general rule for movies with terrific critic and audience scores, I'm very rarely let down as a movie worth watching.  When its a case of one score or another being really good, it can be a bit more hit and miss, but the movie is still generally interesting, even if nothing special.

As for movies where both scores are not at least 50%, well I can't recall the last time I ever watched one of those.  But its not an ego thing, I just can't be bothered with the massive deluge of mediocre, predictable, cliche-ridden movies

[Forrest Richardson]

Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.

I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it. 

[Sean_A]

Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.


I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.

Numbers?

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.

I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.

It isn't that difficult to create a ranking system that enables a wide range of voters (as wide as you like) but that assigns a weighting to each voter depending on criteria the creator of the system sets, for example, the number of reviews or votes you have cast, so the voters who are more experienced get a bigger say. This is the model used by Opinionated About Dining, the restaurant review site created by former music and TV entrepreneur Steve Plotnicki. I've often thought about contacting Steve (who I used to know very vaguely) and suggesting he does a golf course rating using the same methodology.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam — it’s a great project for you!!

I fully respect golf courses are unique, but many similar issues persist when comparing films. Using my Rotten Tomatoes analogy, even if critics and film festival screeners “hate” a particular film, if it can outlive the early bad mouthing — because the public appreciation (or hate) at least gets a rating. Comparing the “elite” critic’s rating to the public’s rating becomes interesting — and, as I noted, many times a very wide gap in opinion.

That is perhaps the big question here: Is our current system of rating (primarily critics and writers with special access and perks) giving the golf consumer an accurate snapshot? And, then, does any good come from the golf designer who — in desperation — tries to get better reviews through imitation of courses that are either designed by favorite designers of (or have been liked by) this elite critic group?

[Stewart Abramson]

It isn't that difficult to create a ranking system that enables a wide range of voters (as wide as you like) but that assigns a weighting to each voter depending on criteria the creator of the system sets, for example, the number of reviews or votes you have cast, so the voters who are more experienced get a bigger say.

I agree, except I don't think the number of reviews or votes cast are good criteria. I think the number and variety of courses played would be better vis a vis golf course voters.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.

I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.

It isn't that difficult to create a ranking system that enables a wide range of voters (as wide as you like) but that assigns a weighting to each voter depending on criteria the creator of the system sets, for example, the number of reviews or votes you have cast, so the voters who are more experienced get a bigger say. This is the model used by Opinionated About Dining, the restaurant review site created by former music and TV entrepreneur Steve Plotnicki. I've often thought about contacting Steve (who I used to know very vaguely) and suggesting he does a golf course rating using the same methodology.

I like this Plotnicki guy. Apparently the coolest restaurant in Britain is in my home town! 


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/best-restaurants-sheffield-mancheter-nottingham-plotnicki-review/

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest, have you ever heard the acronym, GIGO?  It was big back in the days when I was in college.  Today some guys feel like data is everything, but when the data is all opinions rather than results, GIGO.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D — My father used that a lot to describe his work building optics for NASA and, later on, the US Air Force. Richardson Camera would get lots of "data" of which not much was useful.

Timely discussion as Elon Musk take Twitter to task on their "bot" accounts. Twitter claims they "adjust" for this, while Musk disagrees. To me this is the likely difference in my original question — Rotten Tomatoes seems to have built a bunch of controls and software that enables them to weed out the cheating and stacking of "votes" and "ratings" — or, so they claim. I am not sure that sophistication is at all inherent in golf's ratings, including the consumer-only platforms.

[V_Halyard]

Forrest, have you ever heard the acronym, GIGO?  It was big back in the days when I was in college.  Today some guys feel like data is everything, but when the data is all opinions rather than results, GIGO.

Garbage In Garbage Out etc. Lol
As one who deals with Q ratings and Hotlists for music and film on a daily basis professionally, the media arts and GCA rooms are not that dissimilar. Both have consumers and have to appeal to a wide variety of consumer tastes and both can fueled by lobbying which is not in any way untoward. Many of these are consumer business. 
Both Are driven by expensive branding and ads as well as word of mouth and buzz.

There are artists, shows, and golf courses that don't care about ratings. Others are annoyed if they don't appear on a list.
I have expertise to produce music, film and tv that some will enjoy, and others detest.
There are also genres I would never touch and really shouldn't because I neither enjoy nor respect them.
Same goes for the gca world at large.
 
I'm going to pose that all of this is ok as this is an indication of an appetite for golf.
In theory, this room can help folks expand their appetite for better golf architecture and conditioning.
The challenge is keeping the new folks engaged without pissing of the old heads.
Interestingly, the past decade or so of GCA is not unlike the advent of downloadable music.

I was at the very meeting when the shooting war started:
The old guard of music insisted "The Labels will never let music be free or downloaded."
The room full of hackers started laughing out loud,"We already have your shit sampled."
From there, labels made a ridiculous number of errors as they alienated their very audience.
One of the creatively moronic moves was they tried to "make an example of a scofflaw" by suing the grandmother of a kid who downloaded some music on to her computer. We all know how that whole thing ended up.

If the music download wars were match play, Consumers Vs. Music Business
Consumers: 10 and 8

Search the threads and there are arguments in here about everything from trees to drones. It's all good.
Golf and gca/GCA in general seem to be in good places, post pandemic.
That said, change is hard, but evolution is inevitable.
In TV, Film, and music we have the Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Rotten Tomatoes, Billboard etc but, the viewership numbers, stream counts, subscribers and downloads cut through the shit. 

[Forrest Richardson]

It would be interesting to "rate" golf courses on their volume of play, yet I think this would have all sorts of issues. For one, many highly acclaimed courses simply do not desire the volume and, second, pricing (especially low point pricing) would skew the results. You would also have the variables of capacity relative to PACE RATING (one could use the USGA's pace rating) and such variables as seasonal "no play" periods, rain days, etc.  Add bookings such as outings, events, etc.

This is the interesting aspect of a "Rotten Tomatoes" approach — It does not consider whether a movie has grossed $200 million or been seen by 15 million people ....... to that small, indie film that only appeared in a few markets and grossed $100k.