About a year ago, I wrote an essay called "The Four Biases of Course Evaluation", or something like that. I received a good deal of feedback, and thought I should revise and expand the essay. It took me a while. I work pretty slowly, and have lots of writing projects I'm dabbling with. Not completely happy with every word, but it's good enough to submit. I hope you like it.
Bias is defined in dictionary.com as follows:
"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
In this case, we define bias as any psychological prejudice which influences golf course evaluation, an experience or emotion that prevents pure objective analysis. A preference would indicate choosing between two or more types of previous experiences.
For several years now, I've observed how people evaluate courses, and see some patterns. Here is a list of biases that affect our evaluation skills:
1. Regional or Hometown Bias
2. Home Course or Repeat Play Bias
The course’s proximity to one’s home, and how many times that course has been played, strongly correlate to the perception of a course's quality. Golfers often cite a course in their state or metropolitan area as the best, though this can also be attributed to repeat play bias. A great golf course gets better with repeat play, as the golfer learns the subtleties and permutations, only revealed with multiple plays. I’ve been "blown away" by my first round at a course (Riviera, Merion, but not Crystal Downs or Winged Foot), but that is the exception, not the rule, and can easily be attributed to my mood on that given day. I have now played Crystal Downs four times; each new visit reveals something new and exciting. Even Pacific Dunes required a second play before I fully embraced it.
I find it hard to accept that even the veteran golf rater can accurately assess a course with one round. The trained observer can look for certain features, and a course's beauty should factor into evaluation, but how can you know how it plays unless you play it? I suppose a large sample of raters, many of whom base their rating on one experience, is a reasonable substitute.
It is heartening that golfers regularly cite courses near their home as among the best. Home is where the heart is. There is a noticeable correlation between a golfer’s hometown and his evaluation of local courses, and a strong bias for the courses we play the most. Players love their home course, and a good golf course seems better and better with repeated rounds.
3. Expectations or Reputation Bias
I believe most course raters have a reasonably open mind when playing a new course. Some are jaded by a lofty pedigree, others not so much. Expectations get in the way of clear analysis. Having high or low expectations can change one's opinion dramatically. Best to keep expectations in check.
Experience makes a tougher critic. What applies to golf courses applies to other artistic efforts. Whether it’s movies, popular music or golf courses, the older I get, the more difficult to impress me with a new effort, because I've seen and heard so many. But when I find something new and special, it's a great gift, and new revelations are sweeter with age and experience.
A course’s reputation can influence both ways. If I play a highly rated design, I tend to be a tougher critic, and often find my high expectations weren’t met. Conversely, the elation of playing somewhere special may heighten the senses and appreciation of the moment.
4. Cost Bias
5. Remoteness Bias
It has been proven that people enjoy expensive luxuries. Golf courses are no exception. When something costs dearly, the importance of enjoying that extravagance increases, and compromises objectivity.
There’s something special about traveling far to play a course. In the last couple years, I've had some nice tournament rounds away from home. Inside, I know I've traveled all this way for a special moment, and I'm going to make the most of it. As a result, I'm a pretty good “away” player, perhaps one point worse, index-wise.
There's a psychological need to justify the effort and expense. Of course, if Sand Hills and Ballyneal were right down the street, I'd try and join both!
6. Performance Bias
7. Mood Bias
Did your play affect your opinion? Were you in a good mood that day? The happy player in command of his golf game is more likely to evaluate a course positively. One’s mood, good or sour, may be the greatest impediment to objective evaluation based on a single round. Here are a few of my personal experiences, which influence my opinion on this subject.
I played Plainfield a few years ago, and I was really tired that day. I shot an 87 and was kind of grumpy. Although I wasn't very complimentary at the time, I eventually realized how much I enjoyed the course, and highly recommend Plainfield. The next day, I played Winged Foot (West), and played well, hitting only one fairway but still got around in 80 strokes. Winged Foot (West) disappointed me. I thought the front nine terrain was boring, and I didn't misread a putt all day. I am friends with a member, and hope to have a second crack at it. I suspect I’d like it better the second time around.
I played Arcadia Bluffs about three years ago. I birdied the first four holes and shot 75, with seven birdies, a personal record. I evaluate Arcadia Bluffs as good, not great. If I get seven birdies the first time out, the course must be easy to decipher.
I've played San Francisco GC twice. The first time, about six years ago, I shot a 74 with a severe hangover, thought it was easy to decipher, and though it is an extremely impressive club and course, the course just didn't quite do it for me. The second time, a couple years ago, I shot an 87 clean and sober, and thought San Francisco was hard as hell, and though it is an extremely impressive course, it still didn’t quite do it for me. San Francisco GC has unsurpassed beauty, ambience and pedigree, but I believe the approach and greenside recovery strategy are one-dimensional.
8. Amenities Bias
A bias may exist when a club anticipates a course rater visit, and “rolls out the red carpet”, treating the rater to free golf, additional perks or exceptional playing conditions. Some raters may be swayed by the red carpet treatment; there is no clear-cut evidence but it is suspected the bias exists. This type of bias is highly discouraged.
9. Miscellaneous Factors
There are a variety of miscellaneous factors that impact one’s perception of golf course quality:
A. The enjoyment they derive from their playing partners.
B. The level of enthusiasm their playing partners have for the course in question.
C. Level of intoxication can have a dramatic impact. “Wow! This is the greatest course ever!!!” I remember sneaking off to smoke a joint before playing Bandon Dunes with my father; he couldn’t quite understand my elation that day.
D. Pace of play and other factors also affect one’s mood.
E. Some golfers value course history and age, and are biased accordingly.
Some factors that may initially be thought to bias one’s opinion are actually preferences:
I. Course Conditioning
Course conditioning is both a preference and a tangible characteristic of the course, not subject to bias. Some prefer soft, green conditions, while others prefer a firm, brown playing field. The smoothness of a green is always desirable, whereas green speed is a preference.
II. Style Preference
Course evaluators tend to prefer a familiar style of golf course, and tend to dislike a style they are unfamiliar with. Four primary styles of golf courses:
A. Parkland courses
B. Linksland courses
C. Desert mountain courses
D. Resort courses
Some courses don't neatly fall into one category; places like Prairie Dunes or Cypress Point are unique, special places that should be prized. Take a parkland golfer out to the windswept links or a hilly mountain layout, and there will be discomfort. The new environment will require different navigation skills.
I had my first linksland golf experience in 1998, a visit to Scotland with my father. My two rounds at Royal Dornoch were a revelation, the awakening to the complex challenge provided by the firm, undulating course exposed to the wind. It was love at first sight, as my mathematical mind saw the added complexity of controlling ball trajectory, not to mention the mental rigors of a five-foot putt in a high wind. Royal Dornoch, and especially repeat visits to Bandon Dunes, changed my life.
Golfers are often repulsed when introduced to some aspects of golf design that aficionados covet the most: the undulating green, the occasional blind shot, and the uneven lie. Do golfers embrace these concepts with repeat exposure?
Parkland courses are a special case. My first years playing golf were spent mostly at the Stanford University course, a wide, hilly course on oak-studded foothills, not a typical parkland design. I did not begin golf with a positive bias to this type of course. Older parkland courses generally share the following features:
A. Softer playing surfaces, with dominant, mature poa annua.
B. Large numbers of specimen (and often, non-native) trees lining the fairways.
C. Ovoid greens, lower in the front.
D. Sand and water hazards in traditional locations, some strategic and some penal.
I have difficulty distinguishing one parkland design from the next, and perceive parkland golf courses as a "dime a dozen", especially those built during the Golden Age of 1910-1930. Here in Portland, Oregon, the best parkland courses, such as Eugene, Portland, Royal Oaks, and Waverley, have very similar playing characteristics, requiring the same soft approaches and punch out recoveries.
It's awfully tough to see beyond one’s own preferences. A player/evaluator has difficulty comprehending and appreciating a first round at a unique new course. If anything, uniqueness serves to identify the best golf courses.
III. Playing Ability
The strengths and weaknesses of a golfer’s repertoire of skills may help determine the type of course he/she prefers. I'm not an accurate driver, and find narrow, tree-lined parkland courses difficult. This type of course does not appeal to me, and I tend to rate them accordingly. Am I displaying personal bias? Sure. If you think hitting laser straight drives, punching out from under trees, and flopping sand wedges onto greens is great golf, great. I don't. I like wide-open, short-grass, recover-from-anywhere golf better.
If a golfer dislikes a course because their skills prevent hem from easily playing the course, there's something wrong with the course, not the golfer. Some courses are very enjoyable for the scratch player, but nearly or totally unplayable for the average player. Forced carries, narrow playing corridors, deep hazards, and prohibitively difficult greenside undulation make it hard for the typical golfer to stay positive.
“It’s nearly impossible for a golfer to look beyond how he or she interfaces with a course, unless the player simply walks it and studies other players." -- George Pazin
The aforementioned Mr. Pazin is a powerful, mid-handicap player, a tough combination of skills to accommodate. He dislikes desert golf, with its limited turf acreage and no trees lining fairways to keep balls in play, which can make his day demoralizing. Mr. Pazin has every right to downgrade this course, based on his experience. To cite one of my core ideas, "The golf course should accommodate that shot", and since it does not accommodate him well, the course is flawed.
IV. Architect Preference
I mentioned my inability to distinguish the work of the great Golden Age architects. Most eastern parkland courses look very similar to me. The subtleties and differing philosophies have never been clearly explained to me. I've acquired tidbits along the way, like Ross's affinity to route fairways in valleys and greens on knolls, but I can’t take ten parkland course pictures and tell you who designed them. Distinguishing marks may disappear over time, due to maintenance practices and overzealous greens committees, leading to homogeneity. There are experts on each architect who recognize the differences.
As a native Californian, I may discern a MacKenzie or a Thomas/Bell design from others, but that may be the familiar terrain, or the bunkering style, and not the architect. I might confuse Willie Watson’s Sonoma Golf Club, with its golden grasses and oak-dotted hills, for another west coast architect.
I see greater variety among modern designs. Both Tom Doak and the team of Bill Coore/Ben Crenshaw build first-class courses with exciting strategy and pleasing views, but employ different philosophies using the land and defending par. Jim Engh’s daring work is unmistakable. Tom Fazio’s unerring eye for aesthetic detail is distinctive. Architects present challenges that yield a certain spectrum of shots and visual enticements. Whether it’s a Coore/Crenshaw, Fazio or Engh, one’s preference is just that.
Summary
There is much discussion about the merits of each architect. I see little predisposition to applaud our favorites and criticize others, before personally evaluating the work. We critics generally have an open mind, though many are reluctant to criticize. Limited support for new high profile designs implies a lack of endorsement. Some efforts are dismissed as pedestrian, while others are given impressive reviews. We want to enjoy the new golf experience, and start with a positive attitude.
I strive for dispassionate course evaluation. I don't care about ratings, or history, or architectural pedigree. They are meaningless distractions. I enjoy the scenery, which is important to me. I hit golf shots, I watch my playing partners hit golf shots, and evaluate the enjoyment we derive. I am mindful of the inherent biases I possess, and evaluate to the best of my ability.