The Rush to Judgment

[Tom_Doak]

I have been listening helplessly for the last five days to the Rafael Palmeiro story ... basically sports reporters asking every person on the planet (whether they know Palmeiro personally or not) to speculate on the situation.  And it reminded me a lot of this web site!

It seems everything in the modern world demands instant judgment.  AOL's front page today says "The critics have spoken" about a new movie which was released TODAY.  We have 24-hour news, and lots of TV programs and internet content which goes out into the ether without any pause for reflection.

On this site, you can't go play a golf course and come on here and report on it as a very good golf course.  It has to be one of the "best ever", "top 10" (sorry Cary) or at least "top 100", or "cutting edge".  It has to compare favorably to the TOTALITY of the architect's previous work ... as if ANYONE could judge that on the basis of one round of golf.  I can only guess that everyone assumes they have to overhype their opinion or no one will pay attention to them.

I would like to propose a more reasoned way to discuss new courses.  What if we set up a system where we would nominate new courses for discussion, WAIT until at least five or ten members of the DG have played them, and then open the floor for discussion just among those who have played them?  

It might eliminate some of the BIAS threads.  

It would eliminate all the whining about who has played more courses and is qualified to judge; those who see and play more would be allowed to participate more.

It would be more meaningful to the architects here, because they'd get feedback from people who had played their course, instead of from people who are generalizing about what they would EXPECT to find.

And I might actually read a whole thread again.

Just a thought.  You may now return to speculating about the character of every baseball player over the past 15 years.

[Brent Hutto]

The issues you raise are certainly valid but the sticking point in your suggestion is that when someone gets a chance to play a new course, they want to talk about it here. If I go play an out of the way course somewhere and think it was great or terrible or somewhere in between, I wouldn't really want to wait a couple of years until several other CGA types have stumbled across it and then try to remember what I thought about it.

Or maybe that's not what you're suggesting, Tom. I suppose there could be the regular old (speculative, unstructured) discussion threads and then a class of threads with names like

Official Discussion of [Your Course Name Here]

for the sort of measured, reasoned, consensus discussion that you're describing. But short of that we're stuck with the fact that many people like to use hysterical overstatement any time they play a new course and that in turns breeds a form of oneupmanship in which those who agree or disagree with the original overstatement try to top it with their own hyperbolic responses.

[ChasLawler]

Tom,
I have to say I agree with you to an extent, but limiting the discussion to only those who have played a specific course could lead to some short threads.

While I agree one should refrain judgment if they haven’t actually seen a course in person, I also think someone who hasn’t seen it can ask valuable questions based on a picture or even another’s dialogue.

The problem with this website is that too many people focus on the architect, and not the architecture. Can’t golf course architecture, like art, be evaluated in a vacuum?

[Philip Gawith]

Tom - I am sympathetic to your logic, but where does this leave what I would describe, for want of a better phrase as "missionary" posts?

Put differently, there is a lot of interest when someone plays a new course which others have heard about and then posts, particularly if they post pictures. That would apply to some of your new courses "down under" where only a fraction of GCA members have been, but everyone I am sure is very grateful when an early, "missionary" report comes in.

I am sure you would not want to delay discussion until some sort of quorum existed? After all, albeit not this site's primary role, it still has some news content and most people enjoy getting new "news".

[TEPaul]

"I would like to propose a more reasoned way to discuss new courses."

TomD:

So would I. Get rid of these f.... magazine ranking lists and panels, period, end of story. Either that or just stop discussing their results on here.

Just talk about what's good about a golf course or what isn't. Even talk about what's great about a golf course or even what stinks about it. What possible use is it to compare it to anything else or everything else? Golfers just play one course at a time anyway and that's the way they should discuss them too, in my opinion. These magazines and ranking lists are for the birds and that's never going to change.

[Mike Benham]

Tom -

I'm trying the simple approach, posting photos of Pacific Grove and seeing if it will stimulate any conversation.

I bet no ...

[Brent Hutto]

TomP,

How about we take the pledge. You and I can agree to refrain from posting comments about the relative merits of one golf course versus another. How about that?

Now obviously I'm not talking about comments like "The Par 3 fourteenth hole at such-and-such golf club has a green almost as tiny as the Postage Stamp at Troon, minus the brisk wind, of course". But no comments on the relative quality of a course or a hole versus others.

[THuckaby2]

Again maybe it's proximity to lawyers making me think like one, but there's one eensy-teensy problem with Tom Doak's approach:

Without asking on here, how in the hell will one know if five or ten members have played a course, thereby allowing for the "official" discussion?

 

[Tom_U]

In a society where the lines separating news, opinion, and advocacy have been blurred, it's hard to imagine that an internet-based golf course architecture discussion group comprised of professionals (like Tom D) and uninformed armchair amateurs (like Tom U, me) could become a sanctuary for restrained judgment.  Do we appreciate "classical" architecture because it appears to have been there so long, or because the principles that have allowed this staying power (whatever they are) are so enduring?  How do we distinguish the two when neo-classical architects design course features (like bunkers) to make them appear as though they've been there for years, found in the same way Michelangelo "found" the sculpture hidden in the stone?  While the ideals that Mr. Doak suggests are admirable, we could no more undo the rush-to-judgment nature of our culture and ourselves than we can avoid the effects of Disney, the Wiggles, and Madonna.  And I thought it would be cool for Tom to be mentioned in the same post as Michelangelo, Disney, the Wiggles and Madonna.

[Brian_Gracely]

TomD,

I understand the big picture idea of not rushing to discuss a living thing at Day1, since it needs time to grow, evolve, be maintained, etc..

But playing Devil's Advocate a little bit, has your approach to this subject changed in the last few years as your status has grown and the judgement timeframe on your courses has decreased?  

I would have to guess that somewhere in your pitch to client (or their expecations for contacting you) is that they want "something as good as PD or Barnbougle, if given the right land".  So if you're now charging larger fees, the client is in turn expecting not only a great course, but almost immediate feedback that his/her investment was a good one.  

When you reach a certain status (in any profession), the rush to judgement will always be a bigger factor.  It's the risk/reward side of life.  

[TEPaul]

"TomP,
How about we take the pledge. You and I can agree to refrain from posting comments about the relative merits of one golf course versus another. How about that?"

Brent:

No problem at all, but you're joking right? When have I EVER compared golf courses or even golf holes? I hate that stuff and that's the primary reason I think these numerical ranking lists are crap. That's the reason I never cease to be amazed by Matt Ward---that's just about all he ever thinks about on here or talks about. I've said I think some course or even some hole is great or maybe even my favorite of all time and I say why I think that but if someone thinks that's comparing that hole to everything else in the world I think they're nuts.

[TEPaul]

Hey TomD;

Who the hell is Raphael Palmeiro anyway? I never even heard the dude's name until there was all this flap over something or other but I didn't read what the problem was. Did he take some 14 year old over a state line and rape her by mistake thereby violating the Mann Act of something?  

[Andy Doyle]

Apparently only with the help of Viagra.  

AD

[Brian_Gracely]

Raphael Palmiero was recently outed for being the old man still in existance with a porn 'stach from the 1970s.  He won't be reinstated to baseball until that thing is removed.  The 'roids stuff is just a smoke-screen.  

[Craig Sweet]

TEPAUL, I agree, rankings are silly. Absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I suggested we might as well rank Interstate Highways.

If someone has played a course that I haven't...new or classic...just tell me whether you had fun and why. Some pictures are also nice.

[Brent Hutto]

Yes, in our society it's a matter of pride to be paid to endorse a hard-on pill in a television commercial but it's a matter of shame to use certain other substances to...err, pump up ones biceps.

[Brent Hutto]

No problem at all, but you're joking right? When have I EVER compared golf courses or even golf holes? I hate that stuff and that's the primary reason I think these numerical ranking lists are crap.

Sorry, but I wasn't joking. Let's pretend I was. OK, then I'll take the pledge. No rankings, no better/worse than comparisons. Just the course being discussed. I feel better already.

[Andy Doyle]

If someone has played a course that I haven't...new or classic...just tell me whether you had fun and why. Some pictures are also nice.

One of my frustrations with this site is that you do exactly that ...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17881;start=msg316617#msg316617

... and it generates 4 comments and slides off the front page into oblivion in half a day in favor of some raging Michele Wie thread.

AD

[Scott_Burroughs]

I like to think that when I post photos of courses I've played, I try to present them in an informative and even-handed manner.  I will mention some features I like or think have good "strategery", but you'll be hard-pressed to find them laced with superlatives.



The Palmeiro situation has certainly kept the firing of O's coach Lee Mazzilli under the radar.  Steinbrenner-of-Old Junior strikes again.

[Mike_Cirba]

Asking people not to compare and contrast is like asking a dog not to scratch fleas.  

Even Tom Doak's book compares and contrasts courses simply by giving them a numerical designation on a 10-scale.  I find that a very nice way to rank courses and try to use it on any post where I discuss a course.  

Even the Rich Goodale/Tom Paul "Michelin" approach uses a numerical scale, albeit the much more vague and ultimately meaningless "three star" approach.  

Perhaps somewhat narcisstically, I'm wondering if this thread wasn't at least partially stimulated by my recent review of Trump National, where I claimed that it was a Doak Scale "8", and one of the best five courses in the state of NJ, in my opinion.  

I knew those opinions would raise eyebrows for a few reasons;

1) Those who claim "bias" wouldn't know what to say when they saw me hailing a Tom Fazio course.

2) There are a lot of personal feelings among people about Donald Trump and his organization, and his previous forays into golf courses have generally not lived up to his grandiose pronouncements (i.e. "Best course in the state of NY").

3) There are a lot of good to great courses in the state.

Yet, I said what I did because I've played most of them and that's what I believe.  Future playings may cause me to modify that opinion, but I don't think by very much.  I can't recall ever playing a course that I thought was fabulous, only to have it falter over time.  

Ultimately, our opinions will be judged by those who know us, and by how effectively we present our case.  Those given to total hyperbole without backing it up will lose credibility and people can feel justified in ignoring their opinion, or challenging it.

If I'm one of those, that's fine.  I still think a person can make a pretty solid value judgement on a course through a single playing, particularly if that person has some insight, a good knowledge of architecture, solid historical perspective, and experience in seeing a lot of the best courses that the game has to offer.

I think Tom Doak and most of you believe that, as well.  Otherwise, why would he have written the "Confidential Guide" in the first place, and why would so many of us have hailed it as a wonderful contribution to the game?    

[THuckaby2]

Brent:  there remains a little problem with this pledge.  Say I ask you:  how good is the University of South Carolina golf course?  How are you going to explain it to me so that I can really understand it?  "Very fun"... "nice"... heck any description you want to give is still going to have me wondering just how good it is.  But if you tell me it's not quite as great as Yeaman's Hall but better than most courses at Myrtle, then I know what you're talking about.

Comparisons are not only worthwhile but necessary.

So this Tom shall be taking no pledge.

 

[THuckaby2]

Redanman:

Generally great thoughts... but re the "official discussion" idea - see my previous post.  How in the name of Fazio are we supposed to know when a course becomes eligible for "official" status if we can't ask on here.  I dare say it's a rare participant indeed who regularly corresponds off-line with enough people to facilitate this...

[THuckaby2]

Gotcha.  Like lots of seemingly good ideas, this one works in theory but not very well in practice.

[A.G._Crockett]

If someone has played a course that I haven't...new or classic...just tell me whether you had fun and why. Some pictures are also nice.

One of my frustrations with this site is that you do exactly that ...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17881;start=msg316617#msg316617

... and it generates 4 comments and slides off the front page into oblivion in half a day in favor of some raging Michele Wie thread.

AD

Andy,
There seem to be relatively few people of the site from the SE; I share that frustration with you.  The Kinderlou thread, like the Settindown thread this week, just don't generate much comment, despite the great quality of the courses.  I had the same thing happen with a Cape Fear CC thread and a Cateechee thread earlier in the summer, though I don't post pictures.

Conversely, I haven't played extensively in the NE, so my ability to discuss courses there is equally limited.  I don't have a solution to this, but it is frustrating at times.  On the other hand, without this site, there would be NO discussion of these things, so it ends up being a "half-full vs. half-empty" situation, I suppose.

I don't know if you have played Arrowhead Pt. at Richard Russell State Park on the GA-SC line or not, but it was a wonderful surprise when I went there in July.  Relatively new (2 yrs.?), virtually unpublicized, and a true hidden gem by Robert Walker that plays along the shoreline the RB Russell Lake.  The course compares favorably, IMHO, with anything on Lake Oconee, but I haven't bothered to post on it because I knew that there would be little or no response.  Such is life in a big, big country.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

Sorry, but I will continue to post on new courses that I play that haven't gotten major coverage on CGA.

I want to share my experience with fellow CGA posters so that if they care to play what I report on, they will have the opportunity to play it sooner rather than later.

On 8/23/05 my wife and I will be touring your Ballyneal, and while  it is not finished nor open for play, I will post on it. Ditto on Erin Hills in September and Greywalls.

Ditto in the spring when we hit the Northwest and a bunch of courses opening in late 05.

While we haven't played Pacific Dunes nor Rustic Canyon yet, I doubt I'll post much on those as the world has played those and reported on those already and I doubt if I can contribute anything worthwhile.If they make my top 10, I will indeed post, but how much creditibility do I have after my Lakota Canyon post and getting trashed for that.

By the way, we have played it about 15 times now, and taken about 1/2 dozen couples from Florida and Chicago who we know here in Colorado, and they all love it, but none of them ever heard of GCA.

Stuff posts here should be picked and chosen from.