Voting in a vacuum

[Curious_George]

This post is brought on by Gib's Oakmont post.You are on the panel for one of the golf magazines. You go to a name course for the first time (say Oakmont for example). It has a huge reputation and the place is awesome but the course itself leaves you cold. Plenty of voters give it 10 out of 10,or at least 9 out 10 and you know that going in. You end up giving it an 8, but you really think 7 in your heart of hearts.Does a colossal reputation affect your vote? If so, does that just perpetuate the same pecking order? Would we all be better if we voted in a vacuuum with no preconceived notions?

[JohnV]

The same is true of any voting like this.  Look at the American League's Gold Glove vote last week.  The managers and coaches know that Rafael Palmerio has been a great fielding first baseman over the years, so they voted him the gold glove even though he only played 28 games there all year due to an injury.I would bet that if someone didn't like Rees Jones' work, he would be more likely to rate a course poorly if he knew Rees was the architect than if he didn't.  And, of course, the opposite applies to a lover of Donald Ross.  Some people know Rees' work well enough to recognize it without even being told so they might have the same rating either way.We are all influenced by the outside "stimuli" we get in voting for things like this.  That is one reason the votes are inherently flawed.There was once a member of the OGA Course Rating team who felt that if a course was private, it would naturally have a higher Course Rating and Slope than a public one.  So he tended to run up the numbers on private courses.  Fortunately, that is why a team of 4 does the rating.

[Scott Kraus]

That is where a site like this can help. Since I started following this DG, I have seen unheralded courses praised and big-time courses bagged. A forum like this encourages people to "come out of the closet" and challenge the traditional, accepted status quo. I hope everyone keeps it going!

[T_MacWood]

Because I have never been involved in any rating process, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer the questions, but I'll try anyway.In regards to trying to eliminate any preconceived ideas and not allowing reputation to effect your vote. I believe that is what the voter should strive for, but in some cases it might be easier said than done. Presumably raters are chosen because of their qualifications. They are well traveled, well read and many times well connected to other knowledgable golfers. Through there readings and conversations from well respected sources, they are naturally inluenced both positively and negatively about a particular course.But if the panel is made up of knowlegable individuals, that interaction is positive. There may be some subconscious influence, but I'm sure the truely qualified voter goes in with an open mind.If the course with a great reputation is a 7 in their eyes, they give it a 7, that's why they have been selected to vote. They have been around and are not easily influenced by the newest mega-hyped course or overexposed US Open venue. They are more likely to praise an unkown work that is worthy, than a unworthy known work.With all that said, I have a question. When you are asked to evaluate a course, do you look only at the merits of the golf course or do you look at it as a complete golfing experience?  Do you take into account some other factors that effect the total experience like ambiance and history?  And finally what role does Feng Shui play?

[Tom Naccarato]

Great post!While many will doubt this..........As a rater, I feel it is neccessary to look at a golf course and give it's due no matter how much I dislike the architect.  I feel that is the honor I have for being a rater-my unbiased opinion. So if the work is special it will be clearly seen in my rating.Sherwood CC is an excellent example.  While I simply loathe Jack as a designer and I'm especially not bashful to say to all that he is not the designer, (It's really some "Cubby Bear" back in West Palm Beach who hasn't left his cubicle for months.) Sherwood is a special place.  Very pristine atmosphere. Most opulent treatment I have ever received, but this does not sway my ideals one bit.Sherwood is a very poor design and so much more could have been done with the routing. If conditioning made a difference to me fully, I would go out on a limb and say there is no course better.  The planters filled with rose bushes are elegantly done to contribute to the club as a whole and do not interfere with the golf course or it's playability. The driving range and practice facilities are some of the best I have ever been on. While I'm sure there are many members of any magazine's rating team that will score the course highly, it is such a poor design that the marks I give it are based off of design alone and not architect or his past acheivements.One of my fellow raters who played the course with me thought the place was worthy of a great rating. I steadfastly disagreed, it is worthy of a good rating, but not great.  While he is a much better golfer then I could ever be, I rely on my instinct of what I have seen or read to help me decide what can be determined as great, good, average or just plain bad archtiecture. The vaccuum only works when the intake isn't plugged.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom MacWood,It is a joke that you aren't on one of the panels (if you wanted to be, that is) - sometimes I think you have seen/played more than all of us combined!You ask THE question: is it the course or the whole experience that gets rated?Exhibit A: How would you rate Bethpage Black? As awesome as the layout is, the playing experience can be equally awesomely bad.For instance, I can strongly argue that from tee to green the Black Course is far superior to Winged Foot West. In the West's corner, you have superb green contouring, immaculate conditioning, and a "great" overall experience that is associated with a first class club. But for variety from tee to green, Bethpage wins by a mile.Though some raters say they purely rank layouts, I know of no single rater who puts Bethpage ahead of Winged Foot West. Exhibit B: Brancaster. It certainly has several mongrel holes and strictly on a hole for hole basis, it may not be in the world's top hundred. However, there aren't 50-60 places where I would rather have a hit and that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.Your Honor, I do believe the overall experience seems to win out!

[John Sessions]

Does voting in a vacuum also mean ignoring history? If so, Golf Digest's rankings would be a real dozi without the tradition points being award to fix up their expert panelists' mistakes.

[T_MacWood]

RanThanks for your kind words. There are large gaps in my golfing experience, but thanks to this site and a desire to play/see as many courses as possible the gap gets a little smaller as time goes on.I have to agree with you in regards to looking at the entire experience. Not that your main focus is not the merits of the course, but that you cann't possibly seperate other important factors that goes toward the entire experience.As great a strategic materpiece as the Old Course is, how can anyone possibly ignore the sight of the R & A looming over the links. Or when making the drive to Sand Hills for the first time, it has to add to the almost surrealistic experience. Or the great ambiance that you feel when you spend a day at the NGLA. You cann't, nor should you ignore factors like these.

[Gib_Papazian]

Personally, I try to separate my feelings on the ambiance of the clubhouse and its course because we are there to rate the course and the course only. That said, nobody can possibly be so completely objective as to not be swayed a bit by the clubhouse at NGLA for example. The larger issue seems to be rankings attempting to reconcile the incredible differences in individual tastes. I have always said that the world can be divided into people who like Shinnecock best and those who like National GL (between the two). A golfer's preference speaks volumes about not only how they view architecture, but how they view the game itself - and perhaps ultimatley life itself too. Maybe we need to have a list for people who look at golf as a whimsical adventure, and those who look at it as an examination of skill.

[T_MacWood]

GibWhen you say you are there to rate the course and the course only, does that mean that your top 10 courses for the ranking differs from the top 10 you would give a good friend, if he asked for the 10 greatest golfing experiences in the US? How would you classify yourself 'adventurer' or'examiner' or a little of both.

[Bill Vostinak]

Voting in that vacuum really doesn't exist.  The hope is that personal preferences and biases don't afffest the outcome too much.The case of Shadow Creek was the one that got everyone to thinking about it.  How much does the experience count and how much does the golf count?I lived in the SF, California area for five yars and was a member of the CalClub in South City.  I had fairly free access to the Olympic Club courses from reciprocity and an Old Friend who was a member and gave me lessons there.  SFGC and Merced I had played less, but got to play.  So being very familiar with Pebble and not too wowed by the scenery, ambiance and hoopla, I was underwhelmed when I played there.  The weaker holes overlooked by many were more glaring to me. Cypress is a special place, I have walked it a few times, never played.  More architecture there for sure, cypress/fog effect not withstanding.Heresy you say! (Tommy Naccartao will post soon and chastise me for "Hating" California).  A bit of the same PB thing with SFGC for me too.  A very good Tillinghast course, but what about those 3 par 4's on the back 2-iron wedge in a space of 4 holes due to the freeway addition? (Remember Bryant Gumbel lists SFGC as one of his top 10)Still a wonerful course, how much do we overlook that?  CalClub had 3 of its best holes cannabilized for a highway, too.The California GOlf Club for those that don't know it is generally regarded as the #3 course in SF.  Is it ever mentioned even in the GD top courses in the state?  No.  Am I biased because it was my old club?  Not at all.  I had real issues with the place.So what is my point?There are more and subtle forces here at work that reviewers in particular and all golfers are unaware of. We never can vote in a vacuum, but just losting after a numerical tally is specious and absurd.Groupings of similar courses is better for discussion and may avoid the finger pointing of biases.  NGLA and Shinnecock fall into the same top notch, none better group for me, but many of you know I prefer NGLA.  I also put PVGC, Dornoch, Old Course and Merion in the same group.Now we draught a beer or pour a malt, light a stogie and have at it.  No one ever convinces anyone else. Is it right to rank one ahead of the other or even necessary?Yes.  To sell magazines.Those of you that do vote, vote your heart, it evens out some.  Most of the time the same courses fall into the same groups.

[Tom Naccarato]

Yes, I will tell all how one of my dearest friends loathes my beloved Golden State!And I will say this also, I don't think there is a single person in our discussions that isn't more concise in his appraisels of any golf courses then The Good Doctor Bill.I have played the Cal Club with him, and he is correct in that aspect of rating. The course is excellent.  Why then is not more written on this course?  As a rater, I see some of the holes RTJ added to accomdate the freeway and have to say that they fit the course beautifully.  I don't think there is a person in here that doesn't know of my dislike of RTJ.BUT.........Clearly where my dearest friend is mistaken is his views of Pebble Beach. Gone and lost are the views of how the course itself which does exist on property that is not less then spectacular with a design that H. Chandler Egan's redesign clearly made it the hearalded course it is today.  I feel it is the packaged process that loses him and makes him hate the course with such a religious verve.Notice how I have yet to play my Cypress Point trump card! (and while he knows I have that, he forgets about the Valley Club one I have up my sleeve!)

[T_MacWood]

I think there is agreement, that the merits of the golf course are the most important consideration.  And it seems that everyone acknowleges that other factors may have some effect on your vote, it's just human nature, but that you try to be as objective as possible. That makes perfect sence to me. Some might factor it more than others, but that's why there is a panel and the final result is consences of many slightly differing opinions.If you were responsible for a 100 greatest list, how would you choose the panel?Has the fact that you are rater changed the way in which look at a course?Does it effect the courses that you choose to play and how do you make that decision?

[Ran Morrissett]

As to Tom's first question, suppose you knew someone who loved the classics, cross bunkering, wild greens, was very well travelled, was a student of golf design, and.......yet he also happened to really like a modern architect whose work you detest. Would you still select him for your panel given that different view points are crucial? Or would you adopt the position that his thinking must be permanently flawed since he is unable to detect what you see as hopelessly bad design features?

[Tom_Egan]

To Ran --Tom McWood posed a couple of very good questions, questions I was going to ask you before he pre-empted me.  I knew you for quite some time before you were chosen for a magazine rating panel.  Your excitement and passion for course design and seeing new courses has been a part of you for much longer than the period you've been serving on a panel.  How, if at all, has your perspective on design evaluation changed -- not due to natural maturation, but because you were now also responsible to some "higher power"?  Along these lines, I can remember a few years ago trying to draft a set of evaluation guidelines that you and I could agree on.  I do remember that we did not reach any agreement.  I do not remember whether this was because you disagreed with my specific proposed guidelines, or whether you just rejected the concept of firm guidelines per se.  How do you feel about guidelines now?  What are your own guidelines, whether mandated by your panel or self developed?I feel your experience and understanding in this area is exceptional, even though I don't agree with every single point you make.  I'm quite serious about these questions.  You may be an influential "rater" for another 40 years.  I would like to better understand "what rules you play by."        

[T_MacWood]

RanWhen I first read your question, my first thought was he would add ballance, someone who loved the classics, but also appreciated good modern work. But then I reread the question saw that he loved Rees Jones...errr...a modern architect whose work you detest. If it was someone whose work you didn't understand, his input could be enlightening.Is it possible to hold the classics in such high esteem, that modern works are looked upon unfairly or with some kind of prejudice?  Or is it a case of wanting modern designers to elevate their work to the greater standard that the classics achieved? After viewing the stunning pictures of Easthampton, it seems obvious to me that Coore & Crenshaw are among a very few modern designers reaching the standards of the past.

[Yancey_Beamer]

I agree with Gib on types of golfers.I've never played on Long Island but have played the Cascades at the Homestead and the Old White at the Greenbrier.Same architects.With my love of history and Architecture I'd rather play the Old White again more than the Cascades.Both are wonderful but the OW was the course that helped get it started historically.Prominent citizens who went to that place went home determined to attempt the same in their city. If this be whimsy then make the most of it.

[Ran Morrissett]

history of Tom Egan and me:After college, I joined the USGA, where Tom Egan was working as a consultant on a one-off  project. At the time I joined, I had been to Scotland once and been lucky to play Augusta National and a few others to have wetted my appetite on course architecture. However, basically, I knew less than nothing (no jokes, please).Tom had played every name US course from LA North to The Country Club that I had ever heard of and was a fountain of information. That and the fact that our job took us to Seminole, Oak Hill, etc.and we ended up having numerous discussions on golf architecture.Fourteen years later the debate over the merit of individual courses continues.to Tom Egan:Tom, the only thing that still matters to me is where would I rather play. If I would rather play course A than course B, then every time I will rank couse A higher. End of story -  evaluation guidelines have no importance/place if you adopt that attitude. An example is Yale. After I played it for the first time in the fall of 1986, I returned to Far Hills, NJ thinking it was "better" than Baltusrol Lower (Tom's home club) - why? Because I would rather play there. Nothing has changed my mind in the subsequent years except for...... an unusual personal experience. If I have a really bad (or really good on those VERY rare occasions) round or horrific weather, etc., I very much try to re-visit the course as first impressions may have been unusually tinted.Return visits to SFGC and Muirfield have confirmed my orginial impressions while a return visit to Portmarnock showed I had missed the mark.Tom, you were there when I had a shocking round at Merion. Is it better than 15-ish or so in the world? A lot of people at this site say yes and it is at the top of the list for a return visit.So that is my guideline and it has a great benefit: it keeps things simple. When I submit my top 100 list, I can say I would rather play course 76 than 77 and that is the way it has to be.

[Tom_Egan]

Good answer. Now I understand.

[GeoffreyC]

Ran   Very informative and realistic answers to the difficult task of fairly comparing golf courses that due to their inherently different environments represents a nearly impossible prospect.   I especially agree with your Bethpage Black views.  It was my comment in Golf Digest's "places to play" supplement a few years back that said "The black is Tillinghast's best course tee to green.  If only everyone else would go away" It's an awsome piece of land for a golf course and I think it would be really difficult for any parkland style site to beat it's routing.    I also appreciate the experience of playing at Yale more each time I play it.  It has its quirks but isn't that part of the charm that makes you want to go back time after time?       Keep up the good work at this site.  I'm learning all the time!

[Ted_Sturges]

Very interesting discussion.  I agree Ran, that the "which would you rather play" acid test is hard to argue against.  This is why I am in the minority of those that rate Baltusrol Upper higher than Baltusrol Lower.  Simply put, I would rather play the Upper if given the choice because of the wonderful green complexes and the variety of holes.  Tom Egan, you have more rounds on these 2 courses than anyone I know.  How would you answer this question?  How would you rate these 2 by your own standards?  How would you rate these 2 if your standard was the one Ran uses?TS

[Gib_Papazian]

Your Baltusrol comparison says it all. I am in the admittedly tiny minority who would rather play Winged Foot East. I have stated before that the pseudo-science of quantifying individual elements hoping they will somehow defintively split hairs amongst rating great courses continues to baffle me. This conundrum is solved perfectly above.  Just respond to the sdimple question: "Which would you rather play?" Period. End of conversation. Nothing more need be said unless the criteria is for evaluating a course as a championship site. Maybe we also ought to have an "ambiance" rating to identify exceptional "golf experiances." In reality my favorite places to play depend entirely on the course itself. Exhibit A: North Berwick

[Bill Vostinak]

I think that it is an easy choice to pick one or another course as the preferred course on a given day.  To absolutely pick the same courses in an exact order day in and day out is not the same.  Do we often have the dilemma of picking one over the other?  Do groups on the list have a definite order all the time?If I were to have unlimited time and unlimited access, I could refine to that level of 1-100 without a waffle here or there.  Can I make an orderly list of a short list all the time, yes.  Can I make a 1-100 list all the time, no.  Do I need to?Am I that compulsive?  How badly do I want to make that list?  Do multiple raters make a useful list?Somewhere in there is a line where it is just time to go and play instead! So I never get to the full 100.  When I make a list I usually stop around 30-50.

[TEPaul]

I've never really been a big fan of the lists, although I guess if they didn't exist at all I'd probably miss them.It seems like the downside is the politicing which may occasionally hurt a particular course etc. and the constant arguing about does one belong above or below another. Then there's the confusion about the criteria and who the raters are and their integrity and knowledge and familiarity or lack of it with various courses etc. The recent post on Oakmont is interesting though in the respect that the concensus is its a course that is hard to love but that it sure does test one's game. On that basis it deserves to be where it is, in my opinion. I might enjoy playing Misquamicut or Merion West more day in and day out but I don't think that will rank them above Oakmont in my mind.I think I see what Bill V is saying and in my mind I might do the first five or ten (Pine Valley should stay where its been) and do the rest of the 100 in alphabetical order.

[Ran Morrissett]

Gib,Getting back to Curious George's original question here and one of your earlier posts, Oakmont enjoys an all powerful reputation and North Berwick is dismissed as being a holiday course.Would I rather play North Berwick than Oakmont? Yes.Would I say North Berwick is a better course? Yes, by the definition as established above.Would I "rank" North Berwick ahead of Oakmont? Yes, I do now. Five years ago I would not have had the conviction to do that (I would have given Oakmont the benefit of the doubt given its heavyweight status).Obviously, I believe/hope I am right in how I look at such matters but I also think if others did the same, these lists/rankings would actually end up being quite useful in  encouraging people to get to some fantastic courses/places. Also too, rather than to continue to glorify such bland "heavyweights" as Medinah, let's send the signal to architects to take chances and build distinctive courses like North Berwick where quirkiness lends itself to an enjoyment rarely matched.