[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - that wasn't a criticism of Pat; I like Pat, and I enjoyed his posts -- in large part because he was often so definite about the qualities he saw in a given golf course, and thus I learned a lot from him. I thought that would be clear in the context of my entire post, if not in isolation, as in the small section you quoted.

Pat rarely initiated discussions about golf courses that he *didn't* know very well, and so was not looking for lots of other 'opinions' (particularly uninformed ones); judging from how he argued and fought for what he believed, he was trying to get to 'the truth' about a Garden City or Seminole or any other great course. 

Indeed, as you say, he wanted to discus the "merits" of a golf course.  And that was my point to Dan. For all our talk about subjectivity, those who really know golf courses believe there are undeniable "merits" -- i.e. objective merits, that some are able to recognize and some (for various reasons) are not.

The bit about "there's more than a little Pat M in all of us" meant that, unlike Pat, who was open and honest in his assessment that *he* knew and that those who disagreed with him *didn't*, it is my impression that many of us can tend to hide behind the cloak of "subjective opinion" when it suits us. If there are indeed undeniable merits, then objective statements of fact *can* be made. 

But this gets back to my questions of/differences with Dan and Tom D etc: I tend to see gca as an art-craft that can be 'analyzed' more as if it was a mathematical equation than as if it was a book or movie. 

I like hearing other people's opinions, and their actual 'experience' of a golf course is of value -- to them, certainly -- and of interest to me as someone else's valuable experience. But when it comes to all these great golf courses I haven't played, I'd like to hear or get a sense of an objective analysis rather than a subjective opinion.

But again, as mentioned, maybe I'm flat out wrong in seeking that and in thinking I can *learn* that about any given golf course; maybe as many others have said, it's all subjective opinion.

That's really the bottom line for me, Tim - i.e. I *want* to believe there are objective merits about quality gca that can be shared and discussed objectively, because then it becomes possible for me to learn and *understand* them.

Otherwise we're all just chatting -- which is fine too, but not nearly as engaging and satisfying (for me, personally, I mean.) 
 
Peter

[Tim Martin]

Tim - that wasn't a criticism of Pat; I like Pat, and I enjoyed his posts -- in large part because he was often so definite about the qualities he saw in a given golf course, and thus I learned a lot from him. I thought that would be clear in the context of my entire post, if not in isolation, as in the small section you quoted.

Pat rarely initiated discussions about golf courses that he *didn't* know very well, and so was not looking for lots of other 'opinions' (particularly uninformed ones); judging from how he argued and fought for what he believed, he was trying to get to 'the truth' about a Garden City or Seminole or any other great course. 

Indeed, as you say, he wanted to discus the "merits" of a golf course.  And that was my point to Dan. For all our talk about subjectivity, those who really know golf courses believe there are undeniable "merits" -- i.e. objective merits, that some are able to recognize and some (for various reasons) are not.

The bit about "there's more than a little Pat M in all of us" meant that, unlike Pat, who was open and honest in his assessment that *he* knew and that those who disagreed with him *didn't*, it is my impression that many of us can tend to hide behind the cloak of "subjective opinion" when it suits us. If there are indeed undeniable merits, then objective statements of fact *can* be made. 

But this gets back to my questions of/differences with Dan and Tom D etc: I tend to see gca as an art-craft that can be 'analyzed' more as if it was a mathematical equation than as if it was a book or movie. 

I like hearing other people's opinions, and their actual 'experience' of a golf course is of value -- to them, certainly -- and of interest to me as a valuable experience. But when it comes to all these great golf courses I haven't played, I'd like to hear or get a sense of an objective analysis rather than a subjective opinion.

But again, as mentioned, maybe I'm flat out wrong in seeking that and in thinking I can *learn* that about any given golf course; maybe as many others have said, it's all subjective opinion.

Peter

Peter-I didn't take it as a critisism against Pat as I often enjoyed his take. Maybe it's possible to offer objectivity if you haven't any firsthand experience but I think that goes out the window once you get a chance to play any course regardless of rating or ranking.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - see, that is where I lose you and Dan and Tom and others; and it may be a function of me having played maybe 100 courses in my life (and one great one) while you and others may have played 1000s (and many great ones). But I'm not talking about rules or theories; what I often read in Pat's posts was a definite and often precise *description* of why a great golf course functioned as a great field of play. Those descriptions were very effective in highlighting the merits of a course -- and i rarely got the sense from Pat that he thought those merits (and relatively merits, compared to other courses) were merely his opinion.

But again, it seems that I may be misguided in trying to "understand" great gca in the same way I would an equation, and wrong in thinking that I can truly learn -- i.e. from someone else, no matter how much of an expert he is -- the *objective* facts about why a given golf course is great.   

Btw, here's my subjective opinion about Crystal Downs, after one play on a beautiful summer's day. It has several outstanding holes, great greens throughout, and a set of under-rated par 3s...but such does not make a "10". It may make a "9", but only theoretically, not as it was presented the day I played. That day I'd score it an "8". IMHO. 

Ah - now that was fun   

[George Pazin]

I rank this thread among the top 10 threads on ranking, rating a solid 9.3783764. I rate the opening post as a 9.868974. I think this translates to *****, but it may just be ****. If you have really great vision, I have hidden the ratings of each post on this thread in a jeffwarne tiny font.


Good luck...

[Joe Hancock]

I rank this thread among the top 10 threads on ranking, rating a solid 9.3783764. I rate the opening post as a 9.868974. I think this translates to *****, but it may just be ****. If you have really great vision, I have hidden the ratings of each post on this thread in a jeffwarne tiny font.


Good luck...

Now you guys are just being silly. Carry on.

[Tim Martin]

Tim - see, that is where I lose you and Dan and Tom and others; and it may be a function of me having played maybe 100 courses in my life (and one great one) while you and others may have played 1000s (and many great ones). But I'm not talking about rules or theories; what I often read in Pat's posts was a definite and often precise *description* of why a great golf course functioned as a great field of play. Those descriptions were very effective in highlighting the merits of a course -- and i rarely got the sense from Pat that he thought those merits (and relatively merits, compared to other courses) were merely his opinion.

But again, it seems that I may be misguided in trying to "understand" great gca in the same way I would an equation, and wrong in thinking that I can truly learn -- i.e. from someone else, no matter how much of an expert he is -- the *objective* facts about why a given golf course is great.   

Btw, here's my subjective opinion about Crystal Downs, after one play on a beautiful summer's day. It has several outstanding holes, great greens throughout, and a set of under-rated par 3s...but such does not make a "10". It may make a "9", but only theoretically, not as it was presented the day I played. That day I'd score it an "8". IMHO. 

Ah - now that was fun 

Peter-Congrats on playing Crystal Downs as it is one I would surely like to play. Your opinion seems subjectively well informed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dude, I'm telling you - it's the *truth*.

 

Seriously though: on the subject of gca in general or great golf courses in particular, I know I don't have a shred of objective analysis/knowledge to offer.  But I do think that people like Tom on a vast array of courses, and Dan on Midland Hills, and Sean on a hole bunch of inland English courses, and you on Yale etc etc *can* offer it.

The trouble is, none of you guys seem to agree with me....

[Ira Fishman]

When it comes to mere mortals observing things, the only objective thing is the speed of light (and there is even some legitimate doubt about that fact). Everything else—history, philosophy, literature, poetry, art, music, film, etc—is subjective. If you think we “fight” here about Gca, what do you think the debates over the AFI list of the 100 best movies must entail? Or how about the Canon of Western Literature? The greatest golfer of all time, let alone the greatest athlete of all time?


Ratings, rankings, and lists are all great fun, but even when done by the most expert, they are just subjective judgements.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

I hear you, Ira, and I agree - about art and movies and literature and maybe even sport. But take, say, mathematics. Is it subjective to say that 2+2 = 4? 


(No, it isn't. Not unless you're the Jimmy Caan character in The Gambler, who tries to show his basketball playing student that sometimes 2 + 2 = 5)


I'm not saying gca (and the principles of quality gca) is mathematics; but it may be closer to math and science than to painting and books. 


But alas, as the Scottish golfer says to Bugs Bunny after Bugs' spirited defence against his accusation of cheating: "Ach...the weight of evidence is against me"!

[Dan Kelly]

Take Medinah #3, Old Elm and Arcadia Bluffs for example.  While they may all fall into the 4 star category on your scale (for example), it doesn’t tell me anything toward the fact that, given my personal preference for fun first, pretty a distant second and challenge an even further third, I would greatly prefer Old Elm over the other two, may enjoy an occasional round at Arcadia Bluffs and have no business playing Medinah #3 from virtually any tee.  Others, of course, may see it completely differently yet are similarly flummoxed looking at 3 4-star ratings. (Mind you, the Doak scale has the same issue, hence the value of the write-ups)

Jud,


Agree completely. Didn’t mean to sUggest that my star system answers all questions and is sufficient unto itself.


 That is why God gave us the power to write!


Dan

[Ira Fishman]

I hear you, Ira, and I agree - about art and movies and literature and maybe even sport. But take, say, mathematics. Is it subjective to say that 2+2 = 4? 


(No, it isn't. Not unless you're the Jimmy Caan character in The Gambler, who tries to show his basketball playing student that sometimes 2 + 2 = 5)


I'm not saying gca (and the principles of quality gca) is mathematics; but it may be closer to math and science than to painting and books. 


But alas, as the Scottish golfer says to Bugs Bunny after Bugs' spirited defence against his accusation of cheating: "Ach...the weight of evidence is against me"!

Peter,


I thought about math before I wrote my post. But math is not something external to ourselves that we observe and judge. Golf course architecture is much closer to the other categories, and there simply is no objective standard set of reference points for judging. Even the four raters in the Confidential Guide do not always agree, and they seem to generally share the same philosophy.


Ira

[Dave Doxey]

I see the weakness in current ranking systems being in that raters do not play all, or even most, of the courses,  The use of averaging numerical scores to overcome this is questionable science, to me.   Numerical scores are questionable to me, while liking course A over course B, given a well defined set of rating tests, seems simpler and more accurate.


I've always been a fan of Jeff Sagarin's methodology in ranking players.  It combines the 'head-to-head' performances, where players played in the same tournament rounds.  Doing the same by combining 'head-to-head' ratings of courses, where the same rater has played courses, would, I think, result in better rankings.  He does player ratings for Golfweek.  It would be interesting for them to give him their rater data & see what he comes up with.

[Lou_Duran]

That is why God gave us the power to write!

What makes you think it was God?

I am with the guy who believes you should eat before opining about the food.  By now, all but the Newbies here should know in great detail the limitations of any ranking system.

Having considerable knowledge of three and some 16 years experience on the site, I am comfortable with evaluating the information they provide.  If I had time for 10 rounds in MN and picked from GD's state list or the Top 30 thread, I am reasonably confident that missing a course from outside those lists wouldn't have detracted from my experience.

BTW, to whom do you attribute granting us the power to reason?

[Dan Kelly]

That is why God gave us the power to write!

What makes you think it was God?

BTW, to whom do you attribute granting us the power to reason?

Answering your questions in order:


(1) I don't really. Rhetorical license!


(2) No idea. Not certain all of "us" have it!


All emojis and emoticons eschewed.

[Lou_Duran]

Eschewed.  Ouch!

All ranking systems have flaws.  Understanding their limitations, thinking critically, and applying reason helps to overcome the shortcomings.  E.g., some here don't like GD's resistance to scoring category.  It is easy enough to go online at their top 200 list and adjust accordingly.

In my many years paying attention to the various lists, I can remember only one course where after I was done playing I was still scratching my head.  That's not to say that I often agree with the exact order, but I generally understand how they got there.  My experience with recommendations strictly from this site have not been as felicitous.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - yes, you and many others make a strong case. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but here's one last such flog:

By mathematics I mean more geometry than long-division; and think I can sometimes see (on very good golf courses) how the architect has meaningfully and masterfully used 'angles' and 'vectors' and concave/convex slopes and various (differing) degrees of slope and triangular shapes (say, from an elevated tee on a Par 3, where the true distance to the pin -- the long side of the triangle -- has a relationship to both the posted yardage and the height of the tee) to great effect, primarily in the context of the actual playing the game of golf.

And, thinking I can 'see' these angles and slopes and triangles, I'm bold and/or foolish enough to then sometimes believe that I can "separate out" that essential architecture from the ocean that may or may not be off in the distance or the huge expanse of sand that may or may not border a Par 3. And that's what I'm calling an "objective" assessment.

Do I think it important (or even necessary) to separate out the pure design from the course as a whole? No, not really. I understand pretty well that it's the overall "experience" that counts most of all. 

But in the context of discussion on a website dedicated to golf course architecture, I do think it's a subject worth asking about; and I have to admit that when almost everyone agrees that it's "all subjective" I'm even more interested in asking about it.         

It's one of the 'lost causes' that's quite appealing to me; what other kind of causes are worth discussing?

[Jeff Shelman]

I like rankings, even ones that I don't really agree with.

I have said previously that rankings are a little like pizza. The GD rankings for example, place more value on difficulty. The GW rankings a little more on interest. The state rankings on here or even the top 100 Ross course thread probably factor a little bit of most. It's kind of like deep dish, thin crust and a medium crust.

They might not all be exactly what you like the most, but all are pretty good.

The reality is that on here, in the magazines and in Doak's books is that bad courses are rarely ranked. Sure there might be some you like more or less than others. But even the courses in the GD top 100 that get ripped (Rich Harvest Links and others) are still places I would be willing to see and play at least once. Heck, I always learn something when course rankings are discussed on here.

So what's the best way to figure out where you want to play? For me, it's a little bit science and a little bit art. I look at the rankings, and figure out which ones resonate most with me. I maybe even send a message to someone on here who I think I have common taste with and get their input. I throw in some consideration for favorite architects or places you have a greater desire to see for one reason or another. And then I see what works with geography, access and schedule and go from there. That's how I do it at least and I've been pretty lucky to see some cool places - even places that aren't as highly ranked as other places.

After all, a day on a course that is on pretty much any ranking list is better than a day in the office.

[Tim Martin]

After all, a day on a course that is on pretty much any ranking list is better than a day in the office.

Jeff-Order up some bumper stickers as I like that better than "I'd rather be driving a Titleist".

[George Pazin]

Peter, why does it matter to you that Tom Sean or Dan or whoever are considered objective?


I'm not at all a rankings guy, but I do generally enjoy reading just about anyone's course review. And the more I read of any particular poster, the more I understand his own tastes, biases, etc. Then it's up to me to decide how much weight to give his thoughts.


I tend to smile to myself when I read any poster's protestations of being objective, understanding how everyone else plays the game, and other such matters.


It's almost like the difference between honesty and the truth. Just because you're being honest, doesn't mean it's the truth...

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, George - a good post and a terrific last line, which leads very neatly to what should be *my* last line on this subject:

I think that true statements *can* be made about gca, not merely honest thoughts, informed opinions, or subjective ramblings. 

No need to tell me I'm looking in the wrong place for it, George - I've already gotten the message loud and clear   

[Jason Topp]

Rankings force us to define quality as it relates to a golf course.  Answering the specific question of whether one course is better than another forces us to answer the follow on question - "why."Answering "why" is important because it helps define "quality" for future courses.  If one does not think the criteria used for rankings are important, I suggest they play the 10 best courses built in the 70's or 80's when quality was largely defined by difficulty, and compare the experience to the best 10 built in the last 20 years. 


Simply putting courses into broad categories eliminates the difficult questions  Such an approach might result in more polite conversation but at the cost of insight. 

[Jason Topp]

Rankings have plenty of flaws.  There is a lot of subjectivity.  Any set of criteria one uses has flaws.  Magazines use rankings for financial purposes which undermine their credibility. 


Answering the question of "why" one course is better than another and debating the merits of that position is far more important than the result.

[George Pazin]

Well said, Jason, in both posts. I get why others like rankings, even if I don't, and I get why people in the industry wouldn't like them, as they are something that is beyond their control that does affect them, sometimes in a big fashion.


But I do agree that on here, rankings help to foment discussion that can be quite good.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira - yes, you and many others make a strong case. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but here's one last such flog:

By mathematics I mean more geometry than long-division; and think I can sometimes see (on very good golf courses) how the architect has meaningfully and masterfully used 'angles' and 'vectors' and concave/convex slopes and various (differing) degrees of slope and triangular shapes (say, from an elevated tee on a Par 3, where the true distance to the pin -- the long side of the triangle -- has a relationship to both the posted yardage and the height of the tee) to great effect, primarily in the context of the actual playing the game of golf.

And, thinking I can 'see' these angles and slopes and triangles, I'm bold and/or foolish enough to then sometimes believe that I can "separate out" that essential architecture from the ocean that may or may not be off in the distance or the huge expanse of sand that may or may not border a Par 3. And that's what I'm calling an "objective" assessment.

Do I think it important (or even necessary) to separate out the pure design from the course as a whole? No, not really. I understand pretty well that it's the overall "experience" that counts most of all. 

But in the context of discussion on a website dedicated to golf course architecture, I do think it's a subject worth asking about; and I have to admit that when almost everyone agrees that it's "all subjective" I'm even more interested in asking about it.         

It's one of the 'lost causes' that's quite appealing to me; what other kind of causes are worth discussing?

Peter,


Descartes returned to Euclid and his geometrical proofs to help launch the Enlightenment, but he never could convince others that their sensory perceptions were to be ignored. MacKenzie’s Principles may be the best we have for judging Gca,
but they certainly are not subject to mathematical proof, and their application to particular courses is in the eye of the beholder. I for one find it more engaging to view Gca as closer to art than geometry or physics.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

So, no one is buying into my "golf course personality test?"


Okay, how about a swimsuit competition?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()