[Tim Gallant]

Robert Zajonc was a social psyhologist who demonstrated the effects of the Mere-Exposure Theory. Effectively, he proved that those that were exposed to a given stimulus repeatedly were more predisposed to take a liking to the subject / object than on a first exposure.


Further, through experimentation, he showed that even when the stimulus was presented to individuals who only comprehended what they were seeing at a subconscious level, it still had an impact on their ability to form a positive reaction to the stimulus quicker than those that had never been shown said stimulus.


What does this have to do with golf?! Maybe not a lot. But it may have more to do with what courses we prefer than we might think, or want.


I have spoken to a number of people who have played Seminole one time, and they have universally come back with the same impression: good course, but not one of the top 15 in the US. I have also spoken with with others who have played the course on a number of occasions and they have almost universally said that they had grown to love the course and its nuances more and more.


Additionally, I found it intriguing that on the Ballybunion thread, there is almost a perfect divide between those who have played the course a handful of times finding weaknesses in the overall merit of the course, versus those that have played it more than a few times feeling passionately that it is one of the best courses in the world.


So, based on the above theory, should we admit that playing a course repeatedly and growing to appreciate its overall quality has absolutely nothing to do with its merits as a course, but rather, it is only our familiarity with it that generates more positive affection?


AND! By seeing more and more photos on social media, are we more predisposed to liking particular courses because at a subconscious level we are already becoming familiar with the course? Think Sleepy Hollow.

[Tim Gallant]

I should add: what is at stake with the question? Well, if we agree on the hypothesis, then it may prove that those who have played a course multiple times are no more qualified to give an objective opinion or 'rate' a course than those who have only played a course one time, which may impact how we view certain rankings and how they are compiled.

[Derek_Duncan]

So, based on the above theory, should we admit that playing a course repeatedly and growing to appreciate its overall quality has absolutely nothing to do with its merits as a course, but rather, it is only our familiarity with it that generates more positive affection?

Yes.


The more you play any course, no matter its merits, the more you come to appreciate it, whatever it is. Appreciation rises with exposure.


Of course that's a different paradigm than evaluating greatness. I don't think you can ever really "understand" a great course unless you've played it, what, 50 times? 100? So in that respect the concept of rating or evaluation is a fools errand. Ultimately first, or once-over, impressions matter since no one person has the time or ability to learn the range or complexity of all the great courses.


Good evaluators learn to suss out the important stuff quickly with the forming of emotional/intellectual impressions running in the background.


As to the social media question, it cuts both ways. Viral exposure can also set the player up for a level of disappointment that wouldn't have happened if expectations hadn't been hyped.

[Tony_Muldoon]

So, based on the above theory, should we admit that playing a course repeatedly and growing to appreciate its overall quality has absolutely nothing to do with its merits as a course, but rather, it is only our familiarity with it that generates more positive affection?

Yes.


The more you play any course, no matter its merits, the more you come to appreciate it, whatever it is. Appreciation rises with exposure.

Sorry but...I can name you several courses you've never heard of that I appreciate less and less each time I return. Sometimes I wonder what it was I liked the first time. Reason why you've never heard of them is they really aren't that good.


 Same with some human's...no names...

[Ian Andrew]

Being perfectly honest ....

I find additional context can make me question my own initial opinion. For me, it's the impact of being an architect and always involves a brand new course. I can become a little too excited by an unusual setting or a new style. But when there are other courses in the same location or other courses built in the same style or even by the same architect. I have a broader point of comparison. Most will courses will stay where they began, but one or two hold up even better and I might have more appreciation of them, others may lose a little luster given greater context.

This occurred for me with the early stages of Minimalism. But now its not really a factor. I didn't go through the same thing with links courses, or Golden Age courses because I tended to see the work in large clusters. This gave me a broader context.

[Thomas Dai]

There’s another side to the coin .... familiarity breeds contempt. After a while it’s pretty easy to not appreciate something you are very familiar with. A visit to a lessor, maybe much lessor course, can help alleviate this.
Plus, how do you know what’s good until you’ve also experienced what’s bad?
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Fascinating topic.

I think there are points to be made on both sides of the coin.

On the one hand, in my one and only playing of Cypress Point, no doubt it was one of my all time golfing highlights.  Even with high expectations going in, they were still exceeded.  However, for a member who lives nearby and plays the courses hundreds of times over several years, would that fascination wear off or otherwise be less enthralled on each ensuing visit?

Contrast that with a DS 3 course I've played at least 50+ times while living in the Spokane area.  I found myself liking it on my first playing and developing an even greater fondness of it over the years, where I always enjoyed playing it.  Would that eventually wear off too?  Its hard to say.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think there's a wild card here, and that's the matter of *will*.
What are we most *willing* to appreciate, and/or to learn to appreciate?
There may be a whole range of reasons (some of them unconscious/subconscious, just like the outside stimuli Tim mentions) why we'd be willing to love Course X but not Course Y. -- e.g. our image of ourselves, our goals, the value system of our friends/class etc.
It's like that old saying: love is a choice, not a feeling.   
And if we choose *not* to love, I'm not sure any amount of 'exposure' will change our minds in a meaningful way.
 

[Tom_Doak]

I have stated many times that the idea that you need to play a course 50-100 times to declare it great is daft.  Hardly any courses get that sort of consideration.  I love great golf courses, but there are only maybe half a dozen courses I've played that much [and some of them were not great].  You would only be allowed to rate the courses you love so much you've played them 100 times, and that wouldn't yield many surprising results.  Of course, a certain class of people do love their status quo.




Most people start by believing what they've been told.  That's why there is such a thing as advertising, and such a thing as social media hype, even though there is absolutely no reason to believe that what people are being paid to tell you is true.  Indeed, if you thought about it at all, the fact that you have to pay them to say it casts a significant shadow on the subject.




Then, especially, many people's default is to believe what "experts" tell them, which is why rankings are such a big deal [and why people care about my silly Doak Scale scores].




As Ian says, and as someone mentioned the other day, context is important to one's opinion.  Aronimink, the day after Merion and Pine Valley, did not make much of an impression; it would have done better if the order had been backwards.  The people who don't like Seminole the first time [or who think some particular links course is "too easy"] probably saw it on a calm day.  The people who didn't like Barnbougle or Cape Wickham probably saw them on a very windy day which caused them to lose a few balls.  You didn't see them at their best.


But, to drag this back to how it affects rankings, are we supposed to always rate a golf course based on when it's at its best?  What if it's only at its best a few days per year, or what if it's on the decline and may never get back to its best?


Some courses go out of their way not to let panelists visit when the course is not at peak condition, or if they can't get together a group of caddies to sing to the player on the first tee.     But, that's not really a new phenomenon:  you will never see a photo of Augusta National without flowers in bloom, because they don't allow photography at off-peak times.

[Sean_A]

The more I play the "great" courses the less impressed I generally am. I have even found this to be the case with my home course. However, as Thomas mentions, when I critically compare it to many more liked or critically acclaimed courses it rarely fails to match up very well.

I think for me it has been a slow realization over 20 years that in the main the best courses are so because they deliver a test based on yardage and hazards. I am well into my questioning phase of these assumptions and it continues the more I see the greats. I think that if I started playing golf right now with a fresh outlook on the game I would think most of the expert raters are half wits. Of course I can't erase my memory so I too am a half wit. It's like the babble twins. One doesn't know anything and everything the other knows is wrong.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

The more I play the "great" courses the less impressed I generally am. I have even found this to be the case with my home course. However, as Thomas mentions, when I critically compare it to many more liked or critically acclaimed courses it rarely fails to match up very well.

Sean,


I'd be curious if this rule applies to other parts of your life as well? Ie - are you generally less-impressed with fine cuisine?

[Tim Gallant]

Reading the above responses is very interesting. It feels like the respondents are generally willing to accept that this theory could apply to golf courses and 'ratings'. Does it matter that a course is something you interact with, rather than something that you hear, see, smell, etc like most of the stimuli that Zajonc would have used?


A hypothesis: Ratings submitted by panelists for publications should be weighted by visits where more emphasis is placed on those panelists who have seen a course a 'sweet-spot' amount of times (say 5-10). Lower weighting is placed on those that have only seen a course once, thus not having a full appreciation of the course in relevant context (ie - has seen it at different times of year, in different conditions, etc), and on those that have seen a course more than 10 times, thus being biased by mere-exposure.

Thoughts?

[Sean_A]

The more I play the "great" courses the less impressed I generally am. I have even found this to be the case with my home course. However, as Thomas mentions, when I critically compare it to many more liked or critically acclaimed courses it rarely fails to match up very well.

Sean,

I'd be curious if this rule applies to other parts of your life as well? Ie - are you generally less-impressed with fine cuisine?

Tim

While I like good food served in characterful surroundings, I am highly suspect of "fine dining".  Although, I will say that with food I am more likely to be pleasantly surprised than is the case with golf courses.

I don't know exactly how rater weighting should be calculated, but I agree there is likely a sweet spot range of plays.  That said, that range probably varies quite a bit depending on the rater.  Its probably also true that the specific rating criteria should also vary depending on the rater.  I don't think any formula can readily sort out how to get the most out of a panel.  I suspect it would take an excellent panel curator to sort this stuff out while remaining cognizant of personal biases.  I am of the general belief that is probably best to be quite choosy as to who is on a panel and trust them to do their thing.  Its always possible to have a senior panelists to conduct an eye test to make sure nothing looks really odd.  On the other hand, the oddities are where the stories lie in any ranking so nit throwing the babyout with the bathwater is important.  The one thing to absolutely avoid is giving the impression of mathematical truths. There is little point in a discussion about a ranking getting hung up with talk of the math behind the numbers. The point should always be to focus on the courses, not the criteria, raters, numbers etc.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The more you play any course, no matter its merits, the more you come to appreciate it, whatever it is. Appreciation rises with exposure.

I think the growing knowledge can cut both ways.

[JC Urbina]

Tim,


One of my favorites quotes,


"A good golf course is like good music or good anything else; it is not necessarily a course which appeals the first time one plays over it, but one which grows on the player the more frequently he visits it "


                                                                               Alister Mackenzie


I struggle with one time visits to any golf course and immediately a stone is cast upon it,  Be patient, maybe its better then you will give it credit for on a one time visit. 


Golf courses are living breathing things, they change with the days activities.

[jeffwarne]

So, based on the above theory, should we admit that playing a course repeatedly and growing to appreciate its overall quality has absolutely nothing to do with its merits as a course, but rather, it is only our familiarity with it that generates more positive affection?

If one is "willing to play a course repeatedly"....doesn't that by definition mean they are predisposed to like it? or at leas they feel they should like it?


If you  aren't impressed by a course enough to go back, this doesn't happen.


Though sometimes you are already there with a host or in an event(see my thoughts on MV)




I also agree with Sean's comments regarding so called "Great courses" and yardages/hazards---and often don't even play the "Big Gun" in an area for fear of missing something new and simple-and mainly due to decreased tolerance for anything "big deal""(not really objective I know)

[Peter Pallotta]

JC -
yes, but if modern architects *really* believed that I think we'd have had (these last 50 years or so) much different golf courses -- and many more kinds of golf courses -- being built: i.e. courses that wouldn't/couldn't have 'opened' so successfully and/or that weren't immediately so 'accessible' and 'understandable'. Granted, with so much at stake these days, professionally, and the risks involved financially, I don't blame architects for not believing it or for not making in 'real' (often enough) on the ground. But by and large, haven't most architects over the last half century tried either to 'hit a home run' or 'play it safe'? And, by and large, aren't those two approaches basically the same? Both are based on the belief that a golf course *is* what it is the moment it's finished. The underlying assumption in modern gca seems to be that the majority of golfers won't give a golf course a 'second chance' -- which, as I say, is probably a very good bet. 
Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

The most relevant point to golf seems to be the pre-disposition to like signature architects work if it has been heavily promoted.  Related to the advertising and marketing points, but in truth, I think over the years people went to RTJ/Fazio/Nicklaus/Doak courses and liked them because of what they read in golf magazines.  In essence, they had, via magazine and then the Golf Channel, etc. been exposed to at least a little bit of the course they were going to play, perhaps replacing the first five plays they might have taken to make up their minds.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If one is "willing to play a course repeatedly"....doesn't that by definition mean they are predisposed to like it? or at leas they feel they should like it?

If you  aren't impressed by a course enough to go back, this doesn't happen.

Not everyone has the choice to just go play wherever they want.


I think plenty of golfers grow to dislike even specific holes on their home golf course over time.

[jeffwarne]

If one is "willing to play a course repeatedly"....doesn't that by definition mean they are predisposed to like it? or at leas they feel they should like it?

If you  aren't impressed by a course enough to go back, this doesn't happen.

Not everyone has the choice to just go play wherever they want.

very true-I was referring to the Ballybunion example and course raters/influencers and visiting golfers in general.
There are plenty of golfers that I know who do have had the choice and the means to have played a wide variety of courses, but choose not to.
Those just aren't golfers who I would ask for an opinion on a specific course-even their own if they had very little comparative data.
They're just

[Ian Andrew]

I have found the biggest change in my opinion over the last 30 years is summed up by this question...

Would you rather play a course with a multiple iconic holes, some great ones and a few clear misses?

                                                                        -  or  -

Would you rather plan a a course with no iconic holes, lots of great ones, but nothing that is bad?


I find the more I see, the stronger I feel about my answer.

[Tim Gallant]

If one is "willing to play a course repeatedly"....doesn't that by definition mean they are predisposed to like it? or at leas they feel they should like it?

If you  aren't impressed by a course enough to go back, this doesn't happen.

Not everyone has the choice to just go play wherever they want.


I think plenty of golfers grow to dislike even specific holes on their home golf course over time.

Erik,


I think this is a great point! A golf course is unique as a stimulus because in essence in can 'fight back' as it were. Possibly all the more reason to think that multiple plays may negatively bias players as well as positively!

[Tim Gallant]

I have found the biggest change in my opinion over the last 30 years is summed up by this question...

Would you rather play a course with a multiple iconic holes, some great ones and a few clear misses?

                                                                        -  or  -

Would you rather plan a a course with no iconic holes, lots of great ones, but nothing that is bad?


I find the more I see, the stronger I feel about my answer.

I'm curious - which do you prefer?


When you say iconic, do you mean unique to the world of golf? If that's the case, I think I would go for the first option. I value originality and unique character of a course, even if that means there are bad holes sprinked in. But at least one has a sense of place, vs. a 'good' course with good strategic holes, but devoid of individuality.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


One of my favorites quotes,


"A good golf course is like good music or good anything else; it is not necessarily a course which appeals the first time one plays over it, but one which grows on the player the more frequently he visits it "


                                                                               Alister Mackenzie


I struggle with one time visits to any golf course and immediately a stone is cast upon it,  Be patient, maybe its better then you will give it credit for on a one time visit. 


Golf courses are living breathing things, they change with the days activities.

JC,


Lovely quote. I often find myself looking back to see what iconic records were rated by magazines when they were first produced. It's more or less quite accurate. Very rarely will the major publications miss by much in terms of star ratings. While our appreciation for a course may grow with time and plays, does that make our ability to view & assess it objectively any better?

[Ira Fishman]

As the self proclaimed arrogant one time play poster about Ballybunion, this thread has led me to believe that my early impressions do not change much. The sample size is not large but of the courses that I have played more than 10 times in the past 15 years, I thought Mid Pines, Pine, Needles, and Hope Valley were excellent from the first play and our home course mediocre. None of those views have changed although I have come to appreciate particular holes even on the home course more over multiple plays.


I would add that perhaps the most revealing time was a non-play when I walked Mid Pines after tweaking my back. I noticed so much more, particularly the wonderful bunker shaping.


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()