[Sven Nilsen]

There's been a lot of discussion lately regarding bias.

John Kavanaugh is of the mindset that how you gain access to a course will affect your impressions of it.  If I read him correctly, his point is that this site is a resource for many in determining how to spend their golf $$, and as such anything that smells of bias should be disclosed to the reader.

It has also been suggested that certain architects' work is given the benefit of the doubt (or placed on a pedestal) simply because they are members of this DG.

I am not a rater, so I can't speak to the effect it might have on my own opinions. I have been invited to play several courses by members, and I do not think it clouds my ability to critically analyze the architectural merits of lack thereof (to the extent I have the knowledge base to do so).

1.  Does method of access have an effect on opinions offered?

2.  Should it be disclosed?

3.  Do you favor/promote the work of certain architects because they participate in the DG?

[jim_lewis]

I will answer your questions for me, only:

1. My method of access has no bearing on my rating of a course. It may influence my willingness to criticize the course in a public forum.

2. I don't understand this question. What does "it" refer to?

3. Absolutely not! Opinions expressed on GCA may motivate me to go see a course, but they do not impact my opinion of the course.

[David Kelly]

I'm biased towards the things I like.

[PCCraig]

Sven,

Of course their are bias among GCA posters when discussing golf courses. People like certain GCA's and strongly dislike others. Personally I would rather people have an opinion vs. no opinion at all and post their thoughts. I don't care how you played a course, how much you paid for your round, or who you played with. My only real pet peeve is with people who post very strong opinions (positive or negative alike) and HAVE EVER BEEN TO OR PLAYED THE GOLF COURSE.

I've met plenty of golfers that have a strong bias towards a designer or course before they've played it, and have passed judgment early in the round. Personally, give my own personal opinion without making assumptions. The idea of refusing to play a Trump golf course because he likes fountains or likes big clubhouses is goofy.

Generally speaking I like what I like, and prefer to decide what I like on my own.

[Sven Nilsen]

I will answer your questions for me, only:

1. My method of access has no bearing on my rating of a course. It may influence my willingness to criticize the course in a public forum.

2. I don't understand this question. What does "it" refer to?

3. Absolutely not! Opinions expressed on GCA may motivate me to go see a course, but they do not impact my opinion of the course.

It being the method of access.

[Anthony Gray]

  It is not proper to critisize a course publically that you were accessed as a favor. There have been a couple courses that I have played that I just didn't see the big fuss but kept it to myself.

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

And, Anthony is a stickler for proper behavior, and proper dress!

[Ulrich Mayring]

I'd say there's a difference between being a rater (and gaining access that way) and being invited by a friend. In the case of rating the course itself asked you to do the job (directly or indirectly, depending on the rating system). In that case gaining access is merely a prerequisite to doing what you are asked to do - and not a favor out of friendship.

So I guess that would make a huge difference in whether you would criticize that course publically.

Ulrich

[J Sadowsky]

Survey of group finds group has no improper bias.  News at 11.

[John Kavanaugh]

On the Doak/Colton survey I see nothing wrong with treating Mike Nuzzo better than Mike DeVries.  I like Nuzzo quite a bit and have a long relationship due to this site and some of the original outings.  Wolf Point beat out Kingsley by a mile.  Good for my buddy.

[Michael George]

1.  How you get access should not influence your opinion on the course.  At least for myself, I find that the weather, time of day and who I am playing with subconsciously influence my opinion of a course much more than how I gained access.


2.  However, it certainly should influence whether you publicly criticize the course.  I would never criticize a golf course in which I was the guest of someone - it is just disrespectful of your host.  I simply follow the "if you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all".  For instance, there is a nationally ranked course that I have played where I was the guest of someone.  I was not overly impressed with the course.  When people ask me about the course, I mention things I liked about the course - it was the best maintained golf course that I have ever played and had the best member services that I had ever experienced, course was a great test of my golf game - all of which are true.  I did not say that it was a ton of fun to play or that there were a lot of interesting choices through the round or that the greens were interesting.  

3.  I will be truthful and admit that I probably do let the architect influence my opinion.  However, I don't necessary think that is necessarily bad.  My opinions have been formed based on personal experience and when I enjoy multiple courses by one architect, I should expect to enjoy another of his courses.  Likewise, if I have not enjoyed other courses by another architect, I should be inclined to think that I won't enjoy a new course.  For instance, I really enjoy Pete Dye golf courses (esp. Pete Dye GC in WV).  I found that almost every course that I have played by him, I find myself battling staying focused on hitting good, aggressive shots instead of escaping the trouble.  On the contrary, I have not enjoyed the RT Jones courses that I have played.  I find them great tests of golf (I know the weaknesses of my game after playing them), but they are not very interesting or fun to play and rarely play mental games on you.  

[Scott Warren]

It's simple: When you disagree with someone, they're biased, when you agree, they're enlightened.

[George Pazin]

It's simple: When you disagree with someone, they're biased, when you agree, they're enlightened.

  And objective, just like oneself.

Lots of things create bias. Method of access is not high on my list, might be to others. It's no one's business but the parties involved, imho.

Too often - faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too often - the bias cry is used to try to shout down people's opinions. I don't think that's JK's goal at all, he seems all for everyone sharing, maybe more than most would even care to share. But others have used this as a hammer on anyone they disagree with. Hence, Scott's wise observation.

[Peter Pallotta]

George, Scott - it is indeed wise. Of the many silly and trite notions and practices that have become all too common, this projecting of biases onto others is amongst the worst -- partly because the word/accusation actually explains nothing, and partly because it usually exposes only the shallowness and lack of insight of the accuser.  Too many of us (me included, sadly) have become 'wise in our own conceit'...and seemingly have all the time in the world to waste proving it to others.

I love Andy Troeger!

Peter

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The raters may pretend to be enlightened and beyond influence, but the results of the rankings indicate otherwise.  Ultra exclusinve clubs such as Maidstone and Shoreacres are rated multiple numbers above where they should exist.  Are they great? Parts are certainly awesome, but not above 50 or so courses that are easily more architecturally worthy.  Prior to the restoration, LACC ranked above Riviera--explain how that was not a result of such bias.

[Jason Topp]

1.  Does method of access have an effect on opinions offered?

Yes, at a minimum on opinions offered.  I am not going to torch a course if someone was nice enough to invite me

2.  Should it be disclosed?

Not unless you do not want to be invited again or you are comfortable your host is ok with such disclosure and the potential access requests that could follow.

3.  Do you favor/promote the work of certain architects because they participate in the DG?

I am definitely more interested in the work of those that participate in the DG because I appreciate their willingness to engage.  I want to play the European Club some day in part because Pat Ruddy got on here to defend his course. 

[PCCraig]

The raters may pretend to be enlightened and beyond influence, but the results of the rankings indicate otherwise.  Ultra exclusinve clubs such as Maidstone and Shoreacres are rated multiple numbers above where they should exist.  Are they great? Parts are certainly awesome, but not above 50 or so courses that are easily more architecturally worthy.  Prior to the restoration, LACC ranked above Riviera--explain how that was not a result of such bias.

Robert,

Have you played Shoreacres? Why do you feel it's "rated multiple numbers above where (it) should exist"?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Craig,

I have the same question about Maidstone. Not the most welcoming club, of course, but the golf course is pretty special.

[Sean_A]

There is a lot of bias in play from a lot of people.  Homerism/localism can be a big bias.  History/fancy schmantzy club can be a big bias.  But the biggest bias of all is lack of experience.  For many these early overly projected courses disappear over time, but for some there is a lingering effect.  Usually it is more than evident when course lists are seen.  For instance, I think my biasssss are quite evident: I like

Short par 4s
Relatively short courses
Easy and pleasant walk
Interior views
Little rough
Reachable par 5s (if there is a true par 5 it better be outstanding)
Five par 3s (so a course with three or less will probably take a hit unless they are exceptional)
A few long par 4s which can play harder than the par 5s
Interesting green complexes with just a hint of crazy here and there
A variety of bunkers, humps and hollows for the hazards
Great use of average/poor land
Mix of flat and hilly holes
Course open 12 months to be VERY playable for 12 months (very good drainage)

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

Are they biases or preferences? They seem like the latter to me.

[Mark Chaplin]

IMHO - method of access should always be stated. I do not know about the US or Australia but in the British papers travel sections it will always state for instance; "travelled as guest of British Airways and Miami Tourist Board".

In the UK there are only a handful of clubs where you cannot access by payment of a fee. The new big money ventures often have glowing reviews and high ratings - which often disappear in 2-4 years - and I suspect on some occasions it is on the back of VIP treatment for raters. If the rater had caddie, gift pack and lunch that isn't available to the paying public it should be made clear.   

[George Pazin]

Sean,

Are they biases or preferences? They seem like the latter to me.

In my best Gabriel Byrne as Dean Keaton voice, "'bit o both".

For my part, I'm biased toward liking Sean and Scott.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't met either, though Sean has purchased t shirts from me, which obviously makes me biased. And Scott invited me to play Deal while he was living in England, so there's another bias.

Hi everyone, my name is George, and I am one biased SOB!

[Peter Pallotta]

Off with your head, Pazin! Don't you realize that your fondness for Sean and Scott colours your reaction to every one of their posts? How can I trust or believe anything you say about them if you admit - admit! - that you like them? You have made yourself useless on this site, as far as sharing your obviously biased opinions. I don't want to hear another word you say. Good day to you, sir!

Peter

[George Pazin]

ok - whoops,  I meant .

 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have played Maidstone a few times, and could have played more, but would rather play other Hamptons clubs. There are some great holes, but there are quite a few Irish and UK courses not so highly ranked that blow Maidstone out of the water.  I have played Shoreacres twice and have the same problem, but even more so with Shoreacres in relation to other Raynor courses.  It has the worst versions of Alps, Redan, and Biarritz of all the Raynor's that I have played--I've played a pretty good number.  Of course 10-13 are super memorable and awesome.  And holes 2 and 15 are superb.  The combination of a few mundane holes and worst ever holes does not warrent such a high ranking when Fairfield, Fox Chapel, and Lookout Mountain are ranked much lower.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()