News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2024, 04:12:14 PM »
...  The best approach is simply to use your opinion, completely subjective, and come up with your own ranking of the courses you see.  I like the deck of cards analogy - the top card is Pine Valley and the bottom card the muni up the street.  You play a new course and decide where in your deck you want to slide it where those above, you think are better, and below, not as good.  No one can argue with your "system" as its purely your opinion...

I'm not sure why I went on this long rant about objectivity, but I've decided to go ahead and post it.  It was inspired mainly by coming across a philosophical summary about subjectivity and objectivity.


Dwayne Mulder, PhD, a faculty member at Sonoma State University in California, has published a summary about the concept of objectivity.  It can be found here:

"Objectivity", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

"We confront, then, an epistemological challenge to explain whether, and if so how, some subjective impressions can lead to knowledge of objective reality."
-- Dwayne Mulder


In the essay Dr. Mulder discusses the concept of intersubjective agreement, which occurs when several or more people agree on a subjective matter.  His example was the agreement of a few people that it was cold outside on a 68 degree day.


"Would we have a high likelihood of objective truth if we had intersubjective agreement among a large number of subjects? This line of reasoning seems promising, except for another observation from Locke about the possible discrepancies between subjective impressions and objective reality."
-- Dwayne Mulder

John Locke notes how the human perception of sound (mechanical waves) and color (electromagnetic waves) have nothing to do with the actual nature of these things.  Here I'd argue that a golf course has measurable physical qualities that are perceivable as the "thing-in-itself."






Jonathan, I struggle with the assertion that golf course evaluation is purely subjective.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's a discussion that could become quite philosophical in nature.



Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions."


Objective means "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."



Preferences in artwork is a classic example of subjective opinion.  There are no facts to consider, other than the artist's name.

Golf courses serve a dual role as a landscape design and a playing field that facilitate a game for which statistics can be compiled. What if I played two courses a hundred times each and evaluated each shot purely in physical terms, like distance to hole, elevation change of shot, orientation of bunkers from the shot origin, how the ball will roll, etc.?  In other words, a massively complex database which characterizes the nature of the shots.

If we broke down the types of shots that the highest ranked courses yield, I think we'd find that they would tend to feature moderate elevation changes with more uneven lies, with sloped and undulating greens that required a keen understanding of gravity and momentum.  There would be fewer straight, flat shots devoid of danger.  And fewer lost balls.

A decade or so ago, one of our former regular contributors was studying in school whether golf course architecture could be refined and perfected through statistical analysis.  I disagreed openly with him at the time, as I felt a golf course was too complicated to characterize, but I can see some similarities in the argument I'm making here.

In golf we rely on our own computer brains (plus some aids to measure distance) to assess the course.  Some analysis is quantitative and some is qualitative.

What if a thousand raters played two courses and the composite average rating of one course was better with a 99% degree of statistical confidence?  Why do the great Mackenzie courses maintain their lofty ranking as great through three or more generations of golfers?  It feels unfair to the best architects to say there's no basis in fact.  When do statistics and consensus opinion become a significant fact?   These best-of lists stay pretty stable over decades of using different raters.  Pine Valley has been #1 in the world for 30 or more years on virtually every list.

Once again, I submit that evaluation is a significantly objective exercise, but the physical properties are too complex to represent as facts, even as your mind is constantly assessing the real, physical nature of the course.

« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 09:08:58 PM by John Kirk »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2024, 04:21:46 PM »
I once had a well traveled golfer ask me what is the best course I ever played. They were so disappointed in my answer that from that day forward I say TOC. Give the people what they want.

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2024, 05:15:58 PM »
...  The best approach is simply to use your opinion, completely subjective, and come up with your own ranking of the courses you see.  I like the deck of cards analogy - the top card is Pine Valley and the bottom card the muni up the street.  You play a new course and decide where in your deck you want to slide it where those above, you think are better, and below, not as good.  No one can argue with your "system" as its purely your opinion...

I'm not sure why I went on this long rant about objectivity, but I've decided to go ahead and post it.  It was inspired mainly by coming across a philosophical summary about subjectivity and objectivity...
Thanks for this John. It's really helpful for me in collecting my thoughts.

The way I best think of this is through a parallel to ethical theory and meta-ethical problems in philosophy. We can have sensible conversations about effective consequentialism theory, or whether the categorical imperative is a reasonable basis for deontology. We can discuss what is ideal virtue in virtue theory, and we can discuss the best way to establish and interpret sacred text in religious ethics.

We cannot, however, really have meaningful discussions on which ethical system or framework is "right." This is a really issue in the structure of formal logic. Logical systems are based in by definition arbitrary axioms. So, the way we choose our basic framework evaluating golf courses, which is what we are doing right now, is a discussion about the axioms we should have. The discussion is thus based on (again, by definition) arbitrary considerations.

Arguing about an argument's framework, itself, is always futile. We usually choose the axioms that we feel best map to the world we live in. How we choose the framework we use will ultimately be based on personal insight, and whether that's based on personal preference, collective preferences, or objective goals really can't be justified. Any time we try to justify those preferences, we are just discussing a higher order framework, which itself need a justification, and it's just turtles all the way down.

This is why I hold the position I espoused at the beginning of this thread. Any discussion of which course rating system we should use is ultimately arbitrary, but finding someone who shares your framework (or something close to it) can be very useful.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 08:35:42 PM by Matt Schoolfield »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2024, 08:31:44 PM »
Hi Matt,


Thanks.  I cleaned up my post to reduce the number of quotes and give better attribution to the author.

I'm sure we could have a reasonable conversation about consequentialism theory, if I knew what it was.  (I looked around a bit to get a basic idea)


Who is the greatest female gymnast in the world?  Well, it's Simone Biles.  Why?  Well, she won the most Olympic medals.  But those scores are subjective measurements made by the judges!  Yes, but those judges are looking for specific criteria in her performances that can be assessed by a knowledgeable evaluator, and she scored the best.  Therefore, she is the greatest female gymnast.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 08:40:36 PM by John Kirk »

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2024, 08:57:04 PM »
Who is the greatest female gymnast in the world?  Well, it's Simone Biles.  Why?  Well, she won the most Olympic medals.  But those scores are subjective measurements made by the judges!  Yes, but those judges are looking for specific criteria in her performances that can be assessed by a knowledgeable evaluator, and she scored the best.  Therefore, she is the greatest female gymnast.
Here you've created a framework where amount of Olympic medals in gymnastics ultimately determines greatness. My point is that deciding that "more Olympic medals" = "better gymnast" is an arbitrary axiom you've chosen. I think it's a good axiom, but it's ultimately arbitrary.

We could also choose who won the most Gymnastics World Championships, instead of the Olympics, or a combination of both. Or even other championships. Or not even relate it to championships, and just talk about specific performances.

We could say the "greatest gymnast" is the person with the highest score ever or highest score differential in one single event, or the highest scores in the most events.

If we can agree on a framework for what determines "greatest gymnast", then that's wonderful, and we can have a useful conversation about it, and easily agree who is the best. However, we can't make a serious argument that our framework is the right one, because the only way to do that is to just argue that it's a truism, that it's obvious. If someone says "but why use the Olympics?", then we would be reduced to trying to convince about why the Olympics matter more than anything else, which is fraught.

That is what I mean by something being an axiom. You think Olympic medals should count (and I agree with you there), but if someone else doesn't agree, it's hard to argue why your Olympic medal system is correct without just saying it's obvious or it just feels correct.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2024, 09:07:40 PM »
Matt,

Yeah, but...

Brilliant.  I'm having a good laugh over your response.  Have a great weekend!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2024, 09:14:20 PM »

Who is the greatest female gymnast in the world?  Well, it's Simone Biles.  Why?  Well, she won the most Olympic medals.  But those scores are subjective measurements made by the judges!  Yes, but those judges are looking for specific criteria in her performances that can be assessed by a knowledgeable evaluator, and she scored the best.  Therefore, she is the greatest female gymnast.


Oh, come on, you're my age.  You know the correct answer is Olga Korbut.  Her 1972 routine was so good that they banned one of the moves as too dangerous for anyone else to try.


[Just kidding.  But it's all subjective.]

Stewart Abramson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2024, 10:02:10 PM »
I will say that I’m not as big a fan of the word “fun” as the majority on here...

It means different things to different people...


Ally, I was thinking the same thing.


There are many criteria that can make a course fun . For me, and I think at least a few other here, they would include:


  • enough width and sufficiently short rough so that I'm not spending a lot of time looking for balls that were not terribly struck.
  • a variety of green sizes and shapes with  surfaces that have enough movement to make me guess what the putt will do
  • a variety of green locations/approach angles/heights and surrounding features so that I have  options on how to pitch, chip and/or otherwise play shots when I've missed the green
  • a variety of hole lengths and shapes so that I don't feel like I've played a very similar hole during the round
  • short walks between holes
  • options to play away from or around hazards that I can't carry
  • fairways that are not completely flat... some humps, hollows, valleys etc and some uphill, downhill and sidehill lies
  • changes in elevation
  • Not too much of anything, especially water to carry
  • overall challenging without making me feel like I'm getting beaten up by the course (but okay to have a couple of brutish holes)
If a course has these characteristics, I'm very likely to think the course was fun, but as you said, fun can be defined very differently by others


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2024, 10:06:45 PM »

Who is the greatest female gymnast in the world?  Well, it's Simone Biles.  Why?  Well, she won the most Olympic medals.  But those scores are subjective measurements made by the judges!  Yes, but those judges are looking for specific criteria in her performances that can be assessed by a knowledgeable evaluator, and she scored the best.  Therefore, she is the greatest female gymnast.


Oh, come on, you're my age.  You know the correct answer is Olga Korbut.  Her 1972 routine was so good that they banned one of the moves as too dangerous for anyone else to try.


[Just kidding.  But it's all subjective.]


A few years your senior, if my memory still serves me pretty well.

I reserve the right to play the objectivity card for comedic value in the future.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 10:08:42 PM by John Kirk »

Rich Thomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2024, 10:10:22 PM »
Hey ya'll...I promise I am not neglecting my post here. I live full time in an RV and it was time to move the last couple days. Thank you for all of your input, ideas, and thoughts. I think I should walk back a little when I said ranking the courses, but more of a course overview and rating. I am thinking of a system where it will be a 6 "tee" rating system with 5's and 6's reserved for the absolute highest of courses. I will include photos and hole/shot descriptions, give an overall thoughts on the course and then a rating based on my criteria that I listed in the original post. I feel like most courses I will be reviewing will be in the 2-4 range with the occasional 5. I will most likely never have the opportunity to play a 6. I played a course today in Las Vegas that is "One of the Best in Town," and I have a feeling it will be somewhere around 2 1/2 tees. I'll work on the review over the next few days and if anyone would like to read it and provide feedback and opinions, I would be greatly appreciative.


Rich

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I rate a course
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2024, 01:05:29 PM »
I'm probably way off-topic here (and I like rankings and am always happy to look through them - they play a role in this little corner of the golf universe), but this kind of thing is why I have a lot of time for critics (or reviewers if you prefer) over ratings/rankings.


So it's the words and not the number that really matters. It's perhaps easier to imagine with movies than with golf courses, but I had a critic who was nearly 100% right with what movies I'd enjoy. It was so useful to saving money on crappy movies. Now I tend to still have fun on a boring golf course (I've never left a golf course because it was too bad), so it's not a 1:1 comparison, but that's kind of how I think about it.



Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius