Four Biases in Course Evaluation

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Kirk,

I tend to agree with you.

Years ago I suggested to Brad Klein that a "filter" of sorts be introduced to the rating system such that regional bias could be reduced or minimalized.

I felt that an equalizer or quality control point was needed in order to mute regional bias.

It's difficult to do since most raters will rate courses close to their home.

Inherent bias doesn't mean that someone is incapable of being objective.

As an example, an architectural buff, who's a NJ resident, whose golfing experiences are limited, or expansive, would be hard pressed NOT to recognize the superior architecture and products offered at the courses at Bandon, Pebble, Kohler, Sand Hills, Wild Horse and other distant sites.

While he might be predisposed one way or the other that doesn't mean that he's incapable of recognizing the architectural and playing merits of those golf courses.

He may prefer his home course due to convienence and familiarity, but that doesn't mean that if provided the same opportunity to play the courses mentioned two paragraphs above, that he wouldn't consider them as peers or superior to his own course or the local courses he prefers.

As to pedigree, that would seem to be more of a factor attributed to limited play, no play or just arrogance.  I see pedigree in a different perspective.
I've encountered more people who dismiss a course vis a vis, pedigree.
I've heard people state, "if it wasn't designed by X, nobody would have heard of it."  So, I believe it tends to be more of a negative than a a form of reaffirmation..

I think "STYLE" is the real bias under the "courses for horses" theory.

I admit that I happen to prefer wide fairways with highly interesting greens and green surrounds..

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize the merits of courses without that configuration, but, given the opportunity to play a "Style" of course day in and day out, that's the style I'd choose.

NGLA, GCGC, Seminole, Hidden Creek and others come to mind, but, other courses have their appeal as well.

If I'm introduced to a course with wide fairways and interesting greens and green surrounds my natural predisposition will favorably incline me toward the "golfer - golf course " connection.

[Norbert P]

    Bump.

John, as usual, you have presented a terrific notion for us to ponder over.  Sorry I missed this one when it first aired.  I'm afraid I've got too many biases to list but one that I always have to weigh in with is the walkability of a course. If it is cart only, and by design, then I will generally sigh and grumble about the games fading ideals as a whole.  Another strong bias of mine is the appropriateness of how the design fits the land.

 BTW... I tend to be biased toward liking courses I spend less money at. The luxo-expectation thing doesn't ease my chronic eviscerated wallet disease.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Other "biases" that may or may not have been mentioned:

Central tendency

Peer influence

[John Kirk]

Thanks very much for bumping.  This is an unfinished topic.  I will review the thread and try to complete an improved version of the topic.

I do not consider walkability as subject to evaluation bias.  It is a tangible, measurable trait of the course.  Unwalkable courses desrve to be docked.

Lou,

Peer influence is definitely a consideration.


While I'm at it, without looking at the leaderboard, I'll restate my belief that Augusta National is a less than favorable tournament venue for Tiger Woods.  Since he has won 18 of his last 31 events, I submit his chances of winning are less than 18/31, which is about 58%.  The course is very difficult for everyone, and seems to yield a few medium length hitters over the last 10 years.

[Lester George]

John,

What if we didn't allow raters to play the golf course first?  All they could do is OBSERVE, then rate, then play. 

Would that be free of bias in your mind?

Lester

[John Kirk]

Interesting thought, Lester.  Maybe.  In general, I believe rating courses based on one round can mislead the rater.  You would have to be a good judge of design to rate it without playing it.  I tend to judge on aesthetics plus enjoyment of shots encountered, and therefore like good courses the more I play them.

[Lester George]

John,

You help make my point.  You would have to be a GOOD JUDGE OF DESIGN -- which is the point.  If you play poorly (even numerous rounds) does that make it a bad course?  You know where I am going with this don't you.  Since you brought up the concept of BIAS, playing the golf course could be a form of bias that does not have anything to do with design.

Lester

[Kirk Gill]

I see - you're talking about "I scored/played badly, and therefore the course must not be that great" bias. Yes?

Intriguing, although if I'm to be somewhat suspicious of evaluations based on one play, how much more suspicious should I be when the evaluation isn't based on playing the course at all? From a personal standpoint, I find walking a course without playing (something I'll admit to not having done often) opens my eyes to a lot of things I might not necessarily think about as I attempt to negotiate the various requirements presented to me by the course and by the shots I've made. I don't know if you can call that "bias," per se, but it does create a certain point of view that definitely affects course evaluation.

Again, for me personally, I'd guess that how well I play doesn't have any effect whatsoever on how I evaluate a course, but when it comes to evaluating my own ability to evaluate, I'm certainly biased.

[John Kirk]

My experience has been that poor play on my part does not negatively bias my opinion of the course.  I played Bandon Trails twice last month, shot 90-81 and upgraded my view of the course (from 8 to 9).  However, I think the majority of grouchy bastards that play poorly will downgrade a course.  For Golf Digest though, wouldn't that increase the "resistance to par" category?

The "resistance to par" category is defined as resistance to par for the scratch player.  Unless you're a scratch, how the hell would you know?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

That's not exactly what that criterion is.

It's Resistance to Scoring, defined as "how difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees."

Given the raters are all supposed to be low handicappers, well.. it doesn't take that much imagination to evaluate.

Now back to biases... I have said more than my piece the first time around....

 

[Charlie Goerges]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but maybe the raters should have to play the course the way a pro plays a practice round. No chance of posting the score, hit up to 3 shots from a location, drop a ball or two in a couple of places where they never hit it, etc. That way the score doesn't/can't affect the rating, and they'll be forced to interface with features they wouldn't on a single play. Of course I wouldn't want to be behind such a group, but maybe it would be effective.

[Doug Siebert]

My experience has been that poor play on my part does not negatively bias my opinion of the course.  I played Bandon Trails twice last month, shot 90-81 and upgraded my view of the course (from 8 to 9).  However, I think the majority of grouchy bastards that play poorly will downgrade a course.  For Golf Digest though, wouldn't that increase the "resistance to par" category?

The "resistance to par" category is defined as resistance to par for the scratch player.  Unless you're a scratch, how the hell would you know?

 
I agree that's a bogus bias as well.  I rank Prestwick above Turnberry, for example.  My two rounds at Prestwick in '91 and '01 were a 95 and a 102 (it was really windy those days, but that 102 is the worst score I've had since I was a kid!)  Both my rounds at Turnberry were played the very next day, in some fairly strong winds (more like 25 mph instead of 35-40 mph I faced at Prestwick) and I shot 77 both times.

I find Turnberry to be a bit overrated generally - I think it benefits from the "Open rota bias"   Of course someone might claim I am dropping Turnberry's ranking because I think its too easy, and they could possibly have a point....it is generally pretty easy to get up and down from a missed green, and there is plenty of room to be wild on some holes (at least in one direction) and you don't really need driver on some of the tighter ones.  Unlike Muirfield, they keep it pretty tame most of the time to keep the tourists forking over the pounds.

Dunno about the resistance to par thing.  I'm about a 5 or 6 right now, and have never been scratch, but I think I could make a pretty fair evalation of the difficulty in parring it from the basis of a scratch golfer.  A guy who shoots in the 90s from the regular tees is probably going to have a more difficult time making this evaluation, but they don't care about that, they care how hard it is going to be for them to stay in the 90s.  A high slope course that's easy to shoot par for scratch golfers but the 90 shooters shoot 105 on has some problems that ought to be reflected in lower rankings.

[Tags:]

Tags: