Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings

[Michael Morandi]

Keynes comments on investing might apply to course ratings:


“Professional investment may be likened to those newspaper competitions in which the competitors have to pick out the six prettiest faces from a hundred photographs, the prize being awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the average preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that teach competitor has to pick not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one's judgement are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.”

[Ben Sims]

Ben, you are comparing military decision making with golf course rankings procedure. Does this make sense given the vast difference in complexity?

Ciao

Sean,


No that’s not what I am doing. I am comparing the task of building a low level tactical plan with the consensus vs groupthink conversation we are having. The process of building consensus for how we did things took years and alot of trial and error. When it was time to challenge and refine our thoughts, we did. But we absolutely didn’t make new tactics and techniques because someone wanted to be different.


It’s taken a couple decades for the best practices to be codified. That’s around the same amount of time it’s taken for GCA ideals to become what Tom is calling groupthink and I’m arguing is consensus.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I have never considered this.  It certainly isn't the reason I criticize Pebble Beach more than other places.  I've criticized Augusta National just as much, but maybe you'll say that is also easy because I wouldn't assume I am ever going to play there again.  I also called The National Golf Links of America "quirky" and the caddie master there still teases me about it to this day [but somehow I am still welcome].

Tom, there's a reason you're being invited to Augusta and you're probably not paying at Pebble anyway, and it's obviously not because you're some rater for Golf. It's exceptionally admirable that pretty much everyone knows you're going to speak your mind the vast majority of the time. I suspect it is also pretty rare. My aside about Pebble isn't that raters aren't able to give their honest opinion. It's that the diversity of opinion is necessarily limited by access.

The raters who play the most exclusionary courses are very probably not a random sampling of the pool of raters (much less golf enthusiasts). Suppose you have 15 or 20 raters that come play PV, and they end up rated #1. We don't then suggest that PV invites 20 new raters to come through the next year until all 100, 1000, or 10,000 raters (depending on the org) has played, right? I'm pretty skeptical that that would happen, but I honestly don't know.

If we have a limited number of raters come through, we should suspect that those ratings will by sticky. Combine that with the fact that folks who didn't love the course probably won't go though the effort to get back. Whereas someone who doesn't like Pebble might be able to swing by if they're in Monterey, because why not? Here, we've got and system that creates lopsided outcomes when access is restricted. Add in the fact that most rating orgs either "toss" or "investigate" statistical outliers, and you've got a system designed to create outcomes that look like group think.

Here, nothing nefarious need be happening, it's just that a chilling effect on criticism can show up as much in selection bias as it can in folks genuinely holding their tongue to maintain good relationships. Folks who make the effort to return to an exclusive course probably already love it, and few will make that same effort to return to an exclusive course just to shit on it.

[Ben Sims]

Sorry Tom, delayed response. You started the other thread by saying


“Ben Sims' post on the importance of consensus [in the Groupthink thread] has frustrated me, because the very nature of Groupthink is that it's safer to stay with the consensus than to stick your neck out and disagree.”

Okay fair enough. But using the word “safe” is interesting to me. Evolving and being innovative in a given field is something to be championed. Having seen a site visit of yours in person, I can confidently say that telling an associate to sleep on something is akin to a weapons officer seeing a plan for an egress and saying, “yeah okay that’s cool but maybe look at a better way.” And in these scenarios, consensus is reached by trial and error and experience. It’s not groupthink to acquiesce to a “safer” line of thinking. It’s using best practices.

But we’re talking about rating and comparing courses here. I’d argue getting it right when editing a green or judging the survivability of an egress is  more important than who’s taking a chance rating/reviewing a course. So maybe you’re right. Consensus as it applies to *judging* courses can be groupthink. I’m still willing to debate that it isn’t. That over time, we learn and develop our opinions and that espousing those ideals doesn’t mean we’re sheep. It means we’re listening.

Edit PS—but if you want some opinions on some sacred cows, just ask.

[Mark_Fine]

I had to laugh as I just read an article listing the 29 most beautiful lakes in the U.S.     You have to wonder who was on the panel to come up with the ratings and how did they do it? Talk about a controversial list!!  Can’t you imagine how you put a meaningful and accurate list like that together?  Basically you don’t!  I think we are way ahead of the game with our ratings of golf courses.  But that won’t stop all the discussion and debate about how good or bad they are or if all the magazines are colluding which is why they basically look the same


GW essentially does this with their Classic vs Modern lists but maybe the list of the Top 100 courses should have to be courses at least 50 or 75 years old to be included.  At least then we will know they are not a flash in the pan and have passed the test of time! 

[Mike Nuzzo]

P.S.  If Pine Valley is so perfect then why is Tom Fazio flexing about blowing up several greens and rebuilding them?

Isn't this the ultimate groupthink? changing one of the best courses in the world because enough deem it deficient.
Same as when Dawson changed The Old Course.


Seems green speeds are a result of groupthink.
No plugging bunkers.
Fairness.


When I appreciate an artwork, song, or a beer at some point I ask myself have I ever seen, heard, or tasted anything like it before.


The Covey - may be the best playing course in Texas - but to my eye, it doesn't look different (interesting) enough to make me want to go visit tomorrow.


Peace

[Mark_Fine]

No golf course is perfect.  We discussed this at length even with PV which most consider the best design in the world.

Golf courses are not just art work.  They are not static or meant to be only admired and looked at.  They are living playing fields for an evolving game. 

There is a saying I have always remembered when it comes to innovation:

“If it’s not broke you didn’t look hard enough.  Fix it anyway.”

No architect likes to hear this about their golf course but this is how innovation happens and improvements are made.  Unfortunately sometimes in the process of change we go backwards but most things that are stagnant die or get left behind.

How many of you still have and use a first edition iPhone or a Blackberry 

Finally how many architects feel their best work is behind them and they can’t do any better?

I don’t think groupthink is what is changing PV.  But it is someone, right or wrong, thinking they can improve it. This is what happens every time there is change on a golf course. 

[MCirba]

Why is it assumed that raters are somehow afraid putting up a critical rating score on an exclusive course, lest they lost access?

No one is sharing their ballots with their hosts.

If asked, most find something complimentary and benign to say (i.e. "best course of its kind", "wow, the conditioning is top-notch", "wow, it sure is beautiful out there") and then go rate the course honestly and critically in private.

[Tom_Doak]

But using the word “safe” is interesting to me. Evolving and being innovative in a given field is something to be championed. Having seen a site visit of yours in person, I can confidently say that telling an associate to sleep on something is akin to a weapons officer seeing a plan for an egress and saying, “yeah okay that’s cool but maybe look at a better way.” And in these scenarios, consensus is reached by trial and error and experience. It’s not groupthink to acquiesce to a “safer” line of thinking. It’s using best practices.

But we’re talking about rating and comparing courses here. I’d argue getting it right when editing a green or judging the survivability of an egress is  more important than who’s taking a chance rating/reviewing a course. So maybe you’re right. Consensus as it applies to *judging* courses can be groupthink. I’m still willing to debate that it isn’t. That over time, we learn and develop our opinions and that espousing those ideals doesn’t mean we’re sheep. It means we’re listening.

Ben:


That's a funny story.  I don't remember where it was so you'll have to remind me -- offline, to protect the innocent.


I am totally open to your last paragraph that it's possible to study the subject extensively and come to conclusions that are in line with the mainstream [and, that not everyone has the capacity to contribute a new thought to the study and practice of golf course architecture].  I think I did that myself, and just discovered that most of my tastes were in line with the mainstream of a previous generation. But I think that more people, and particularly panelists and others who want to gain access to the best private courses in the U.S., tend to agree with the mainstream without much introspection, because it serves their interests, in much the same way that most people choose their politics now.


But if you actually do the research, it should, at least, provoke some differences with the consensus opinion of particular courses, which has often not been well thought out due to other biases [first and foremost, whose project it was].  Part of what got this whole thing started was that a guy nobody here knows [Chet Williams] beat out some people we do know in a poorly-designed competition . . . which doesn't mean the result was wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

Keynes comments on investing might apply to course ratings:


“Professional investment may be likened to those newspaper competitions in which the competitors have to pick out the six prettiest faces from a hundred photographs, the prize being awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the average preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that teach competitor has to pick not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one's judgement are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.”

That is a perfect summary of where we're at, although I think in the case of golf course ratings it is a matter of anticipating what elite opinion expects the elite opinion to be . . . because average people can't get onto these courses.

[Ira Fishman]

One other factor occurred to me. Going to see a course requires a commitment of time and money. It often is difficult to acknowledge that one “wasted” both when one plays one of the already top ranked courses. How many people do you know ever say that there vacation was not good?


As noted, I am not a rater, but I do think I am more likely to criticize a course where playing it added only on the margin to the travel and cost—for example when visiting a multi course resort or when on a trip playing multiple courses.

[Tom_Doak]

The raters who play the most exclusionary courses are very probably not a random sampling of the pool of raters (much less golf enthusiasts). Suppose you have 15 or 20 raters that come play PV, and they end up rated #1. We don't then suggest that PV invites 20 new raters to come through the next year until all 100, 1000, or 10,000 raters (depending on the org) has played, right? I'm pretty skeptical that that would happen, but I honestly don't know.

If we have a limited number of raters come through, we should suspect that those ratings will by sticky. Combine that with the fact that folks who didn't love the course probably won't go though the effort to get back. Whereas someone who doesn't like Pebble might be able to swing by if they're in Monterey, because why not? Here, we've got and system that creates lopsided outcomes when access is restricted. Add in the fact that most rating orgs either "toss" or "investigate" statistical outliers, and you've got a system designed to create outcomes that look like group think.

Here, nothing nefarious need be happening, it's just that a chilling effect on criticism can show up as much in selection bias as it can in folks genuinely holding their tongue to maintain good relationships. Folks who make the effort to return to an exclusive course probably already love it, and few will make that same effort to return to an exclusive course just to shit on it.

Matt:


I agree with everything you've said here.  Indeed, many newer courses try to manage this and sort out which panelists they will invite to see their course to gain a more favorable rating.  That was happening on the GOLF Magazine panel for a while between my involvement and Ran's . . . one of the panelists was apparently getting paid $$$$ by courses to help them manage the results, which they did by limiting access to a few panelists whose votes were reliably favorable.  [No idea if some of those other panelists were cut in on the $$$ or totally oblivious to the situation.] 


That's why the GOLF DIGEST Best New results are under the microscope for some of us:  because it would be a very easy process to manipulate, and many clients are willing to try.


And, no, Pine Valley doesn't make sure that every GOLF DIGEST panelist gets to go there.  They are not worried at all about being supplanted as #1 anytime soon, and they handle it as all clubs should -- by insisting that all players are guests of a member, with no consideration for whether they are a rating panelist or not.


Quite different than the newish course I visited last year that wanted me to sign a non-disclosure agreement that I wouldn't talk about it . . . but had allowed a certain number of GOLF DIGEST panelists to play so it could be considered for the Best New Courses award.

[Tom_Doak]

As noted, I am not a rater, but I do think I am more likely to criticize a course where playing it added only on the margin to the travel and cost—for example when visiting a multi course resort or when on a trip playing multiple courses.

Yes, this is a big one.  Places with multiple courses inevitably have to deal with raters putting one above another and not agreeing about them.  It hasn't been a big factor in Bandon because no one wants to offend Mike Keiser . . . but at Streamsong, with a corporate client that no one cared about, the process was cannibalistic, and I don't think any of those courses are rated where they would be if there was only one of them.

[Ira Fishman]

I guess it is a good thing then that Mr. Keiser could care less what I think. Interesting point about SS—I have posted on more than one occasion that Blue and Red are way underrated.

[MCirba]

Another one that annoys me is the refrain that if someone plays poorly (or particularly well), or receives over-the-top service, or is met with challenging weather conditions that those non-golf-course variables affect rater scoring.

If you're so focused on your scorecard that it skews your view of the golf course you're playing, don't become a rater.

If you're so focused on how a club treats you and perhaps your ego needs massaging, don't become a rater.

If you're a fair-weather golfer who expects perfect conditions all the time, don't become a rater.

You know who you are and that's fine.   You have different priorities, and we all play this game for widely differing reasons.


To my point earlier about raters voting in secret, in private, with no wish to offend ANY host or staff of any course, public or private, I would suggest that where Groupthink or at least self-censorship takes place is on social media, and here on GolfClubAtlas, where few would dare say that NGLA doesn't permit the running approach, even though it's modeled after holes in Great Britain where such shots are often accommodated, even preferred, or that Friar's Head's par fives are mostly scaled down versions of the same holes you'll find at Sand Hills, or that Cypress Point is not the greatest course in the United States even if it's the prettiest, or that Pine Valley's latest bunkering on 5 and 12 is atrocious looking and totally out of context with what Crump built.

Yet most are not afraid to publicly offer criticism of Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes (all courses), Whistling Straits, and so on because those are still public, and your criticism doesn't come with the risk of losing access.   It's human nature and understandable, but I'd argue the rankings are still the only place where individual subjective scores largely lead to objective consensus.

Yes, I know I'm an outlier, because I've made all of the above public criticisms of private shrines I listed above and have taken some private grief for those positions.   But I still believe them all to be true.

I've also encouraged others to "show us your Doak Scale score" for new courses played each year and a few years recently spent a lot of time typing my own annual played-course list resplendent with my DS score and an attempted explanation, following the example of the "Confidential Guide", public or private.   I believe those have more value to readers here than a lot of what we discuss.

So, I get the whole Groupthink vs Consensus argument, but I'd simply argue that Groupthink is much more prevalent in publicly viewable social media than anonymous print publication ratings.

[Charlie Goerges]

I had to laugh as I just read an article listing the 29 most beautiful lakes in the U.S.

That is funny. I wouldn't even want to try to name the 29 most beautiful lakes in the county where I grew up in MN; I'd be taking my life in my hands for leaving out someone's favorite. Not to mention how on earth you make the determination. This actually brings home more than most any other argument (for me) the difficulty of rating golf courses.


(BTW, the county I grew up in, Crow Wing has about 400 lakes)

[John Kavanaugh]

Another one that annoys me is the refrain that if someone plays poorly (or particularly well), or receives over-the-top service, or is met with challenging weather conditions that those non-golf-course variables affect rater scoring.

If you're so focused on your scorecard that it skews your view of the golf course you're playing, don't become a rater.

If you're so focused on how a club treats you and perhaps your ego needs massaging, don't become a rater.

If you're a fair-weather golfer who expects perfect conditions all the time, don't become a rater.

You know who you are and that's fine.   You have different priorities, and we all play this game for widely differing reasons.


To my point earlier about raters voting in secret, in private, with no wish to offend ANY host or staff of any course, public or private, I would suggest that where Groupthink or at least self-censorship takes place is on social media, and here on GolfClubAtlas, where few would dare say that NGLA doesn't permit the running approach, even though it's modeled after holes in Great Britain where such shots are often accommodated, even preferred, or that Friar's Head's par fives are mostly scaled down versions of the same holes you'll find at Sand Hills, or that Cypress Point is not the greatest course in the United States even if it's the prettiest, or that Pine Valley's latest bunkering on 5 and 12 is atrocious looking and totally out of context with what Crump built.

Yet most are not afraid to publicly offer criticism of Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes (all courses), Whistling Straits, and so on because those are still public, and your criticism doesn't come with the risk of losing access.   It's human nature and understandable, but I'd argue the rankings are still the only place where individual subjective scores largely lead to objective consensus.

Yes, I know I'm an outlier, because I've made all of the above public criticisms of private shrines I listed above and have taken some private grief for those positions.   But I still believe them all to be true.

I've also encouraged others to "show us your Doak Scale score" for new courses played each year and a few years recently spent a lot of time typing my own annual played-course list resplendent with my DS score and an attempted explanation, following the example of the "Confidential Guide", public or private.   I believe those have more value to readers here than a lot of what we discuss.

So, I get the whole Groupthink vs Consensus argument, but I'd simply argue that Groupthink is much more prevalent in publicly viewable social media than anonymous print publication ratings.

If only the pure of heart get access who will represent the other 99% of us?

[MCirba]

Me, pure of heart?   That's funny, John. 


Only I do try on things I'm passionate about.   Thank God there's only a few of those or it would be exhausting.

[John Kavanaugh]

To my best recollection the only time I observed you in the wild was at Swope Memorial. Outside of a groupthink bubble I don’t see how Swope isn’t the equal of Lawsonia. How do they compare in your book?

[Tom_Doak]

To my point earlier about raters voting in secret, in private, with no wish to offend ANY host or staff of any course, public or private, I would suggest that where Groupthink or at least self-censorship takes place is on social media, and here on GolfClubAtlas, where few would dare say that NGLA doesn't permit the running approach, even though it's modeled after holes in Great Britain where such shots are often accommodated, even preferred, or that Friar's Head's par fives are mostly scaled down versions of the same holes you'll find at Sand Hills,

Go get 'em Mike!  But did you really share either of the first two points I excerpted here, on GCA at some point?  I don't remember seeing either thread, though it may have been long ago, and possibly I duck commenting on threads about Friar's Head.


But you are absolutely right that Groupthink is alive and well on Golf Club Atlas, too, as this thread has tended to demonstrate.


I think it is also true that people refrain from posting strong opinions until the thread gets fairly long and heated.  [Even you waited until Page Six to post the above.]  There is some school of thought here that long arguments are bad and should be avoided, but they're often the only threads that produce anything meaningful, unless someone starts a thread with a real kernel of truth [and I am not talking about Why Is Pine Valley?].  But it helps if you have both at once.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

This has been a terrific and thought-provoking thread.

I've always thought of this group as a collection of like-minded people vs a groupthink incubator.  So I asked AI what's the difference between the two, and I still like to think this group isn't entirely subject to group think even if there is certainly evidence of both.

"like-mindedness" simply refers to people sharing similar opinions or perspectives, "groupthink" describes a psychological phenomenon where individuals within a group prioritize group harmony over critical thinking, often leading to poor decision-making by suppressing dissenting opinions and conforming to the majority view, even if they personally disagree

[MCirba]

Go get 'em Mike!  But did you really share either of the first two points I excerpted here, on GCA at some point?  I don't remember seeing either thread, though it may have been long ago, and possibly I duck commenting on threads about Friar's Head.


But you are absolutely right that Groupthink is alive and well on Golf Club Atlas, too, as this thread has tended to demonstrate.


I think it is also true that people refrain from posting strong opinions until the thread gets fairly long and heated.  [Even you waited until Page Six to post the above.]  There is some school of thought here that long arguments are bad and should be avoided, but they're often the only threads that produce anything meaningful, unless someone starts a thread with a real kernel of truth [and I am not talking about Why Is Pine Valley?].  But it helps if you have both at once.

Tom,


Yes, back when I was young, idealistic, and naive I even started a thread titled something like "Why doesn't National Golf Links accept the running approach?"   Perhaps someone can find it.   


And yes, the others I've also stated here and, in some cases, regretted it.   


I've been trying to limit my social media presence (GCA is the only one left) and spend any time writing more productively (and hopefully profitably) so I was a bit tardy but in reading this thought it needed a few alternative views, lest I be accused of Groupthink!   

[MCirba]

To my best recollection the only time I observed you in the wild was at Swope Memorial. Outside of a groupthink bubble I don’t see how Swope isn’t the equal of Lawsonia. How do they compare in your book?

John,


I'm hoping to play Lawsonia this September and I'll let you know my thoughts.   That day at Swope was a blast.

[John Kavanaugh]

To my best recollection the only time I observed you in the wild was at Swope Memorial. Outside of a groupthink bubble I don’t see how Swope isn’t the equal of Lawsonia. How do they compare in your book?

John,


I'm hoping to play Lawsonia this September and I'll let you know my thoughts.   That day at Swope was a blast.

Everyone on this board knows exactly what you will think of Lawsonia. Unless you are using it as a stopover for something else interesting it will be a complete waste of your time.

[Tim Martin]

As noted, I am not a rater, but I do think I am more likely to criticize a course where playing it added only on the margin to the travel and cost—for example when visiting a multi course resort or when on a trip playing multiple courses.

Yes, this is a big one.  Places with multiple courses inevitably have to deal with raters putting one above another and not agreeing about them.  It hasn't been a big factor in Bandon because no one wants to offend Mike Keiser . . . but at Streamsong, with a corporate client that no one cared about, the process was cannibalistic, and I don't think any of those courses are rated where they would be if there was only one of them.

I think it plays out a little differently at a place like Kiawah where the sister courses are clearly a notch(es) below the Ocean Course. I’ve never had anyone tell me that the Ocean wasn’t their clear favorite whereas at Bandon and Streamsong you are going to get a divergence of opinions on the ordering.

[Tags:]

Tags: