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.


Kyle Harris

Re: Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #25 on: Today at 05:27:43 PM »
First, one has to buy into the notion that the best golf course in the world is identifiable.
Then, one has to buy into the notion that at any given point in time the best golf course in the world is within the range of whomever is doing the ranking/rating (Your foray into the Himalays, as an example, Tom).
Lastly, one might have to accept that the best golf course in the world has already been built and may never be supplanted.

The Groupthink, and I agree that it exists, is an exigent that we need a meaningful start in order to rank everything else. Ordinal numbers only work if there's a first place in the first place.

Without the Groupthink, every list would be a personal list of personal experiences.

I recently finally listed all the courses I've played and gave them a rapid rating. The distribution here is largely normal with only 10% of my courses receiving the highest rating and another 10% getting the lowest. Median, mean, and mode are all the same.

Does this imply a ranking as well? How do I parse the 9s/8s/7s that litter my Top 100? GroupThink is a good a start as any for me to determine that the 9ness of Merion East is better than the 9ness of Old Town Club.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

“Split fairways are for teenagers.”

-Tom Doak

Ira Fishman

Re: Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #26 on: Today at 05:28:49 PM »
Jake,


It would be helpful and educational for you to specify names of courses. But if you don’t want to be deluged with access requests (not from me), understood.


Thanks.

Andrew Harvie

Re: Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #27 on: Today at 05:29:17 PM »
Why is it controversial to say that it’s preposterous that only 3 of the best 20 courses in America were built in the last 40 years?


Because it's not about eras, it's about diversity in architects. In Golf Magazine's US Top 100 among courses older than 40 years old:


  • 3 - Donald Ross (No. 13 Pinehurst No. 2 | No. 17 Seminole | No. 20 Oakland Hills)
  • 2 - Mackenzie (No. 2 Cypress Point | No. 6 Augusta National)
  • 2 - Seth Raynor (No. 11 Fishers Island | No. 12 Chicago Golf Club)
  • 2 - George Thomas (No. 10 LACC North | No. 14 Riviera)
  • 2 - William Flynn (No. 3 Shinnecock Hills | No. 8 Merion)
  • 1 - A.W. Tillinghast, Perry & Press Maxwell, Hugh Wilson, Henry Fownes, C.B. Macdonald, Harry Colt, & George Crump
Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw have 2, and Tom Doak has 1 in that top 20. How many other architects have had a property that could be top 20? Gil Hanse would be one, his highest ranked on that same list is Ohoopee and CapRock at 44 & 46, respectively. But other than that...?


I'd contend it's simply about the diversity in architects who were building golf at that time, rather than historical bias.
Managing Partner, Golf Club Atlas

John Kirk

Re: Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #28 on: Today at 06:20:22 PM »
I'm currently reading "A Few Words in Defense of Our Country" by Robert Hilburn, an excellent biography of musician Randy Newman.  I just read a couple pages about a lesser-known song named "I Want Everyone to Like Me."  Very confessional in nature, the book's discussion of this song includes a quote from his good friend Lenny Warnoker about Newman's ambivalence about being liked for his great contributions to popular music.

In my opinion, I suffer the "wanting everyone to like me" malady more than most.  Having contrary opinions about things can get in the way of that.  I tend to moderate my opinions if the consensus opinion differs greatly from my own, because I value other opinions and allow for my own shortcomings.

I desire both frank commentary and a sense of camaraderie, defined by Oxford as "mutual trust and friendship among people who spend a lot of time together."  In my opinion, the greatest threat to this ideal is a competitive desire to win, which regularly manifests itself in discussions here.   Now that I'm older, I'm less likely to spout controversial opinions.


I'm just getting warmed up on this topic, so I'll wrap up this post.  Part of Groupthink is trying to get along and go along.  Part of Groupthink is trying to not look stupid.  We'll go back to the subjective vs. objective stuff next. 




John Kirk

Re: Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #29 on: Today at 06:42:06 PM »
Dangit!  Lost my post.  Back in a while.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:14:48 PM by John Kirk »

John Kirk

Re: Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings New
« Reply #30 on: Today at 07:41:18 PM »
Why is it controversial to say that it’s preposterous that only 3 of the best 20 courses in America were built in the last 40 years?


Because it's not about eras, it's about diversity in architects. In Golf Magazine's US Top 100 among courses older than 40 years old:


  • 3 - Donald Ross (No. 13 Pinehurst No. 2 | No. 17 Seminole | No. 20 Oakland Hills)
  • 2 - Mackenzie (No. 2 Cypress Point | No. 6 Augusta National)
  • 2 - Seth Raynor (No. 11 Fishers Island | No. 12 Chicago Golf Club)
  • 2 - George Thomas (No. 10 LACC North | No. 14 Riviera)
  • 2 - William Flynn (No. 3 Shinnecock Hills | No. 8 Merion)
  • 1 - A.W. Tillinghast, Perry & Press Maxwell, Hugh Wilson, Henry Fownes, C.B. Macdonald, Harry Colt, & George Crump
Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw have 2, and Tom Doak has 1 in that top 20. How many other architects have had a property that could be top 20? Gil Hanse would be one, his highest ranked on that same list is Ohoopee and CapRock at 44 & 46, respectively. But other than that...?


I'd contend it's simply about the diversity in architects who were building golf at that time, rather than historical bias.


Hi Andrew,

I agree with Ben that modern courses may be underrated in general.  In my experience, I feel the best moderns tend to have a greater variety of outcomes and a larger number of strategic considerations.  I think it's fair to suggest that some of the big, complex courses of the 21st century surpass century-old designs and represent a new baseline for strategic excellence in design.  With all of the accumulated knowledge about the sport, that seems to be a logical end result.

It's not worth arguing about but I would disagree with the idea that diversity among great architects is important.  I think it just came out that way. 

It takes a long time to earn consensus approval..  Previous attempts to anoint a new course in the top 20 during its first few years of existence have largely been premature.  In this century, the exception is Sand Hills, while Friar's Head gradually worked its way into the top 20 over about 20 years.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:52:12 PM by John Kirk »

Tags: