Commenting on merits/weaknesses of courses you haven't played

[Scott Warren]

I have noticed a bit of this of late and it seems to occur much more on GCA in discussion of US courses.

I wonder is it a byproduct of the exclusivity of many great American courses? People think they probably won't ever play there, so they feel more comfortable relying on some pics and possibly TV coverage to make up what in many cases is a pretty settled and assured position, even debating the point with others who have experience playing the course.

You don't seem to see it much from the UK/Aussie contingent (though it did happen a decent bit with recent changes to Wentworth West).

With Augusta, I do get it a bit more, because it gets such saturated coverage annually, but on here in recent discussions on Oakmont and Aronimink, there have been comments along the lines I have outlined above.

What do folks think?

This is not an exercise in anti-Americanism, by the way, the thought process revolves around the exclusivity of the courses, not the nationality of the people doing the posting.

[Mike Cirba]

Oh Scott, it's much worse than that and you're being too kind.

You not only have people seriously commenting on the quality of golf courses they've never seen in person, but also often then comparing them from 10,000 foot aerial photos, or even more humorously, from artist sketches, sometimes portraying courses as they think they existed 90 years ago.  

The fact that its done with a tone of assured authenticity and seeming serious scholarship makes it even more ridiculous.

[George Pazin]

Interesting thoughts.

This topic certainly has a long and storied history on this site. To me, it's all a matter of each reader placing his own evaluation of the thoughts offered. Too often, playing a course, or playing it repeatedly, or playing it under different conditions, is used as a device to shout down the opinions of others, or even the questions of others.

I've asked before, if playing a course trumps watching it on TV, or walking it, how does playing it repeatedly not trump playing it once? Where does designing a course fit into that scheme? Building it? Maintaining it? How about building multiple courses and the great knowledge base that goes along with that?

In the end, I think the notion of one experience beating another is flawed. My own opinion of the one offering the thoughts has far more to do with how I view those thoughts than the person's actual experience, if that makes sense.

I do think it is important that posters be open with what they are basing their opinions on - TV, one play, multiple plays, whatever.

Oh Scott, it's much worse than that and you're being too kind.

You not only have people seriously commenting on the quality of golf courses they've never seen in person, but also often then comparing them from 10,000 foot aerial photos, or even more humorously, from artist sketches, sometimes portraying courses as they think they existed 90 years ago.   

The fact that its done with a tone of assured authenticity and seeming serious scholarship makes it even more ridiculous.

But isn't it up to each of us to decide that on his own?

[Scott Warren]

My own opinion of the one offering the thoughts has far more to do with how I view those thoughts than the person's actual experience, if that makes sense.

I do think it is important that posters be open with what they are basing their opinions on - TV, one play, multiple plays, whatever.

Very good points, George.

[Matthew Sander]

Scott,

It's a very fair question. I don't have the depth of golf experiences of most on this site, however, from reading about courses and seeing them via TV and pics I have formed opinions (however ill-informed). Whenever I comment on any course that I haven't played, I try to always preface the comment with something like, "I've never played the course therefore I could be way off". I hope the nature of my statements come across that my observations are largely underinformed interpretations and can/should be trumped by those with experience or ignored altogether...That goes for comments on this site as well as regular golf course discussion.

[Charlie Goerges]

Scott,

Why are you so anti-american?!?!! Have you stopped beating your wife?!

Sincerely,


Charles Christopher Goerges

-a model american
 

[Scott Warren]

Scott,

Why are you so anti-american?!?!!

I'm only coming over in October so I can abuse a selection of your 350million face-to-face. A Festival of Hate. Sadly for you, no Wisconsin... you dumb ass.

Have you stopped beating your wife?!

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

We are only engaging in activity sanctioned by our fearless leader Ran. I used to have a tagline which quoted him saying in effect he didn't care if he had not seen a particular course, he was going to comment anyway.

There is lots of commentary by those not having seen a course that is more valuable than that by those that have seen a course (especially if the person having seen the course is receiving monetary reward for commentary (Matt Ward)). For example, Kalen Braley has been known to get on Google Earth and measure green to tee walks to disprove assertions of those having played a course.

Each reader should exercise his own judgment as to the quality of the commentary, and not try to shout someone down because they haven't seen a course in person. Sometimes that is irrelevant. For example, I am going to accept much of Ran's commentary even if he hasn't seen a course over several posters on this site (like one from Kentucky).

[Charlie Goerges]

Sadly for you, no Wisconsin... you dumb ass.

What?!?!?!?! Why I've never heard such a... a.... despicable thing!!!!!

This dumbass is from Minnesota. I am most certainly not and have never been a cheesehead and I GREATLY resent the insinuation!



That said, if you're in MN drop me a line.

[JNC Lyon]

I have noticed a bit of this of late and it seems to occur much more on GCA in discussion of US courses.

I wonder is it a byproduct of the exclusivity of many great American courses? People think they probably won't ever play there, so they feel more comfortable relying on some pics and possibly TV coverage to make up what in many cases is a pretty settled and assured position, even debating the point with others who have experience playing the course.

You don't seem to see it much from the UK/Aussie contingent (though it did happen a decent bit with recent changes to Wentworth West).

With Augusta, I do get it a bit more, because it gets such saturated coverage annually, but on here in recent discussions on Oakmont and Aronimink, there have been comments along the lines I have outlined above.

What do folks think?

This is not an exercise in anti-Americanism, by the way, the thought process revolves around the exclusivity of the courses, not the nationality of the people doing the posting.

Scott,

I think it is okay to comment on how a certain course appears on TV but not necessarily on how a course plays.  I guess I am guilty of these comments sometimes myself, but I try to refrain about commenting on, say, specific holes at Pine Valley or NGLA.

As for the American thing, it might have something to do with the fact that many of America's great courses have highly restricted access, whereas most great GB&I are far more open.

[Garland Bayley]

...Sadly for you, no Wisconsin... you dumb ass.
...

That's so sorry, because Wisconsin dearly wants you to come and smell their dairy air.

[Scott Warren]

Sadly for you, no Wisconsin... you dumb ass.

What?!?!?!?! Why I've never heard such a... a.... despicable thing!!!!!

This dumbass is from Minnesota. I am most certainly not and have never been a cheesehead and I GREATLY resent the insinuation!



That said, if you're in MN drop me a line.

Wisconsin/Minnesota. My genuine apologies... I always mix up states that don't matter

[Charlie Goerges]

All I can say is you're engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Does that make you feel superior and manly?!?!

[PCCraig]

Sadly for you, no Wisconsin... you dumb ass.

What?!?!?!?! Why I've never heard such a... a.... despicable thing!!!!!

This dumbass is from Minnesota. I am most certainly not and have never been a cheesehead and I GREATLY resent the insinuation!



That said, if you're in MN drop me a line.

Wisconsin/Minnesota. My genuine apologies... I always mix up states that don't matter

Ironic considering that Wisconsin/Minnesota have a combined regional GDP that is 23.86% higher than the London area of the UK.

[Scott Warren]

All I can say is you're engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Does that make you feel superior and manly?!?!

Pat: That's probably true. I put that down to there being more GCAers in London than MN/WI = more lost productivity!

[Garland Bayley]

All I can say is you're engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Does that make you feel superior and manly?!?!

Pat: That's probably true. I put that down to there being more GCAers in London than MN/WI = more lost productivity!

You might want to count them up before you make such a startling conclusion.

[DMoriarty]

Scott,

There may be occassions when one ought to have played a course before offering certain types of opinions, but when it comes to general rules about the qualifications or experience one needs in order to qualified to offer an opinion, I tend to agree with George Pazin.   Usually, when someone is called out for commenting without personal experience it is by one who is wielding his own personal experience as if it were some sort of ultimate trump card, like personal playing experience made one's views obviously superior all matters even loosely relating to the course in question.  

In other words, the "lack of personal experience" accusation is often made when someone disagrees with something but is unwilling or unable to provide a reasonable refutation.  

There are plenty of sources of information, and personal experience is only one.  So long as the poster is willing to explain the reasoning and source information behind the opinion, any sort of opinion is potentially valuable.  If not it should be easily refuteable by resorting to the merits rather than by simply claiming that the one with experience knows better.  

Moreover, while personal experience is obviously a valuable source of information, it also happens to be the most immediately susceptible to personal bias and institututional prejudice.   People love their clubs, and their own emotional attachment impacts their objectivity.  

Don't believe me?   I was once berated for weeks because I had the nerve to challenge the actual distance of a certain golf hole (and the distance of some famous drives) on an exclusive American golf course.  And when I say berated, I mean berated-- called a liar, an idiot, a fraud, hassled off-line, etc.  One poster even stormed off the site in a huff, insisiting he would never discuss anything with me again!  All this because, in their opinion, I had no businness offering an observation about a course I had only played once.  Never mind that I had repeatedly explained my methodology and it was never seriously challenged; those who thought they knew better weren't going to allow their legends to be questioned by an outsider.  

In my opinion and experience, this sort of thing is very common around here and poses a much more serious challenge to the usefullness of this website that those who offer an occasional opinion without having played a course.

[DMoriarty]

Pardon me for another post but TEPaul just provided a very good example of exactly what I am talking about.   A poster asked for confirmation that Sharp Park in San Francisco was designed by MacKenzie.  In response I reposted a color rendering of a plan indicating that MacKenzie's firm had designed the course (Tom MacWood had recently posted the rendering on another thread.)   Here is TEPaul's response:

Who on this website or on this thread who speaks of Sharp Park and who tries to do so with some modicum of understanding or authority has actually gone to that golf course and tried to speak to its historians and to analyze the history and architectural evolution of that golf course on site?

Have you Moriarty?

Have you MacWood?

And if not, why not?

It's one thing to sit at one's computer and find and post pictures and to try to pass oneself off as some authority on something but it's another thing entirely, and a far more important thing to actually take the time and make the effort to go on site and do some personal research work with the golf course and the people left who know it best.

Apparently, TEPaul thinks that we are not even qualified to post a rendering of a plan of Sharp Park unless we have spent substantial time at Sharp Park itself.    The flip-side is that TEPaul just recently visited Sharp Park for the first time, so he apparently now thinks himself some sort of an authority on the place.  

These sorts of draconian abuses of the "personal knowledge" claim happen far too often around here, and in my opinion are much more destructive than productive.  

[TEPaul]

"Apparently, TEPaul thinks that we are not even qualified to post a rendering of a plan of Sharp Park unless we have spent substantial time at Sharp Park itself."


Moriarty:

Did I say anything like that to anyone on this website and if not why did you say it?  

I think it's great to have that rendering of a plan of Sharp Park on this website but I think it's more important to see the golf course and be able to talk to the best historians around that place who are more than happy to show anyone with interest in the history and evolution of that course that rendering and a whole lot more.

I was with Bob Crosby when I went there and in the parking lot leaving the place after seeing the course and speaking with the historians we did about the place he said; "This is what it's all about."

Have you ever done anything like that Moriarty, and if not why not? Why don't you try doing things like that rather than spewing your petty little insecure vituperations at those who do?

I'm going to give you another shot right here, Moriarty? The shot and question to you is do you want to help the USGA Architecture Archive research architecture and courses? And if not, why not? That's some of what Bob and I were doing out there.

Do you have some problem with that and if so what is it?

I've offered you an olive branch a number of times and you know as well as I do you've turned it down every time. Here's another one and right on this DG. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if we can all work in a collaborative mode and I feel the USGA Architecture Archive and doing research for it is the trick, the key and the vehicle.

Are you willing to go along with that and if not why not? I've offered the same thing to MacWood over the last five years and he's refused every time.

What does that say about him?

I know what it says to me? Are you any different?  

[John Moore II]

I have had a run-in on this subject with another member of the site who had played Pebble Beach and I had made comments about how the course played during the US Open. He seemed to think that because I had never personally played the course I was unable to make the comment that I felt like tour pro's struggling to hit the green with short wedges (holes 7 and 14). I don't have to have played the course to tell you that what I am seeing on the TV is silly.

I think you can make comments about how a course is playing even though you have never played it. And you can make comments about how something might not seem to fit based on pictures. Just make sure that is known. I make numerous comments about Pinehurst #2 even though I have never played the entire course (played holes 1, 17-18 and walked the rest on different occasions), that doesn't make me a horrible guy for commenting on the course.

[Sean_A]

I don't see anything inherently wrong about commenting on courses one hasn't seen/played or based on some pix.  Its awfully hard to judge how a course plays, but it isn't so tough to wonder about rough, hazard placement etc.  I like to look at pix because it goes a long way to helping me decide if I want to make the effort to visit. In a way this is the ultimate judgement, but I think one has to be harsh in these matters unless they have unlimited time and budget.  If I don't like what I seein pix it will take someone I really trust to have a go, but that would be rare and likely if I was in the area anyway. 

Ciao 

[DMoriarty]

I think  it becomes a minor problem when someone comes up with a very strong opinion based upon some sort of an anomoly or because of a single play under an unusual condition, yet they insist that their experience qualifies them to comment well beyond the specific constraints of that experience.  Not to try and start another tangential fight (sorry for the one above) but this is one of the problems I have with the rating system.    But then this is more a problem of elevating one's own experience beyond its actual importance.  

As for those comments made on strengths and weaknesses without the basis of any playing experience, shouldn't this be easily corrected by those who know better, and without them resorting to a condescending 'I know better than you' approach? ________________________________

TEPaul,

I am not comfortable taking this thread any further away from its topic than I already have, so I will address your post and "olive branch" elsewhere when I get the chance.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - good post and observations.  I tend to think that, since we're throwing around ideas and not bombs, it's fine the way it is, just people expressing themselves and engaging in (usually) even-tempered discussions for the fun of it.  There is but one course that gets talked about around here that I have ever played, so for me it's all just observations from afar. Maybe that doesn't make me an ideal participant; in fact, I know for sure that it doesn't -- but since everyone is free to ignore my posts, I assume that no real harm is being done.  What I have noticed and don't much like around here is a) that good, old-fashioned deference is rare - the kind that says "hey, you do know more than me, so thanks for those insights", and b) that some of those who really do know tend to get quite prickly when that deference isn't paid to them....almost as if it's not deference they want but a rapt and attentive audience for their next monologue. And that just gets boring, unless the monlogue is pithy and not full of tired old platitudes. 

Peter   

[Bryan Icenhower]

But it okay to comment on the intentions of long dead poets, playwrights and authors ... 

[mike_malone]

 Since I have played TOC I can safely say that if you are watching in HD then you can certainly comment. ( My family got me HD for my 60th; I am watching from my couch and feel like I am there.)