Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Forrest Richardson on May 14, 2022, 01:04:01 PM
-
It's no surprise I pay attention to movie ratings because I have a family member in the "business". Recently I read an interesting piece on the "biggest divides" between AUDIENCE reviews (ratings) and CRITICS' reviews of modern movies. In some cases the divide was 60% with critics often loathing certain films, while the public rated them terrific. The reverse was true also. Only rarely do the critics "agree" with the public. There's almost always a healthy divide.
Why is this? Likely because the lens of the critic is much different than that of the "people".
What about golf design? Do the course raters and writers make up that "Rotten Tomatoes Critic" pool? Besides the data of annual rounds or "box office success" of a given golf course, it's very unlikely any of the public course ratings are nearly as accurate as Rotten Tomatoes. BTW, Rotten Tomatoes has 30 million hits per month, although I could not find the average number of public ratings per film. It ranks among America's top 300 websites in terms of traffic.
I could not find Golf Digest or Golflink's traffic numbers. When I look at some golf websites, courses often have only 10-20 ratings, so my presumption is that the pubic's ratings of golf courses is not being accurately measured with our current "system".
What would a similar system look like in golf design? Would it change any of the trends we see today?
-
I feel certain that if a web site existed for public ratings of golf courses, some courses would stuff the online ballot box as part of their promotional efforts*. In that sense, golf is much different than a movie ratings site, because the ratings might affect repeat business to drive revenue, whereas that's not much of a thing in the movie business after the initial release.
In the end, what really matters is neither the critics' reviews [which BTW are very few and far between], but whether golfers want to come back again, and give good word-of-mouth reviews to other golfers. If those last two factors are positive, then the golf course will generally be a success, regardless of what you see online.
* GOLFWEEK's 1980 rankings of courses in the state of Florida were an example of this . . . unless you really believed it was a valid result that the Bloomingdale Golfers' Club in Valrico consistently finished ahead of Seminole by their system.
-
Good points Tom D. I suspect we also have the "no access" issue. Seminole is a good example. .0005% of the public could even rate it!
On the scale of design, however, films represent a certain "time" on the scale and landscapes (golf courses) wayyyy out on the longevity extreme. At the very end, with fashion design representing "real time, same scale". Golf courses are polar opposite.
I do know that Rotten Tomatoes has all sorts of guards against ballot stuffing. They explain it only partially as it would defeat the effort if people knew how they manage that.
-
Forrest -
I think that, in a way, Hollywood is more honest and open about its products than the golf industry is. No one in Hollywood -- not even the hands-on creative talents themselves, i.e., the writers and directors and actors -- pretends that Nightmare on Elm Street serves the same function or is intended for and will satisfy/entertain the same audience as The Last Temptation of Christ, or that Mission Impossible 2 aims to express and celebrate the art-craft of movie making in the same way that The Seventh Seal does; and I think that, in turn, some movie critics (but not all) can make the same distinction, and judge a film not in terms of some fixed-objective set of film-making standards or their own personal movie-going tastes, but in the context of that particular film's specific genre and goals/objectives, i.e. good critics can give relatively high marks to action adventure films like Speed or Die Hard simply because they are *better action-adventure films* than, say, Fast and Furious 6, i.e. more thrilling and suspenseful and coherent and entertaining; and conversely, those same critics won't attack Speed or Die Hard for *not being* Annie Hall or The Irishman, as if three such distinct kinds of film should or can be judged in the same way. The golf industry, on the other hand, and it sometimes seems to me many of its raters/panelists, apparently wants to assume that every golf course should be able to serve all and every possible function, and make all and every possible golfer completely happy -- such that a golf course, any golf course, is deemed either 'great' or 'good' or 'average' or 'poor' independent of its primary function or intended audience. (Except if its Oakmont or Pine Valley or some other very challenging and hard to access private club with a long and storied championship history.) That doesn't make all that much sense to me -- though I know that someone might say in response: but a great golf course *can* serve every function and every golfer, and indeed that's precisely *why* it is great. I'm not so sure about that -- or at least, I simply don't know if that's true or not. (On the other hand: I suppose that, as with every question about gca that's ever been asked, the Old Course is the 'answer'.)
-
This thread is tailor made for me.
Where to start? OK, which courses do you think might get a high critic's rating but a much lower audience rating? How about the other way around?
Rotten Tomatoes is right down my alley. I have a friend who is a well known classical music critic, but he also likes movies and popular music. He'd likely say that some critics are much better than others, and therefore Rotten Tomatoes is kind of a watered down tool. However, add the two ratings together with a general synopsis of the movie and a few selected review comments, and my hit to miss ratio on selecting movies is pretty good.
Generally my tastes correlate well with the critical opinions. Pro tip: Never see a movie with a critic opinion of ~10% and audience opinion over 50%.
Popular music has a similar service called Metacritic that gathers critic and audience opinions. Same sort of thing. If I'm interested in the general description of the music and it gets good ratings, that's enough to simplify the search for new music.
The types of courses that would have high critic ratings and low audience ratings? How about seaside courses with windy conditions, and maybe courses with fine architecture but less than ideal conditioning.
-
good critics can give relatively high marks to action adventure films like Speed or Die Hard simply because they are *better action-adventure films* than, say, Fast and Furious 6, i.e. more thrilling and suspenseful and coherent and entertaining; and conversely, those same critics won't attack Speed or Die Hard for *not being* Annie Hall or The Irishman, as if three such distinct kinds of film should or can be judged in the same way. The golf industry, on the other hand, and it sometimes seems to me many of its raters/panelists, apparently wants to assume that every golf course should be able to serve all and every possible function, and make all and every possible golfer completely happy -- such that a golf course, any golf course, is deemed either 'great' or 'good' or 'average' or 'poor' independent of its primary function or intended audience.
It's interesting that the most noted movie critics of my era had only a simple binary scale for judging a movie [on top of whatever they wanted to say about it, which I'm sure they believed was the more important part of the review]. Likewise, Rotten Tomatoes is only a score of what % of the total audience gave the movie a thumbs-up.
Raters, though, are not critics. They produce some set of numerical scores that are fed into an algorithm for the ranking to which they contribute. The algorithm does not consider the intended audience for the golf course at all.
I do think a golf course could be judged that way -- is it worth playing?
But, another difference with golf courses is that they aren't all priced the same or anywhere close to that, which would skew many people's evaluations. And you'd get an even worse skew in favor of private courses where no reviewer wanted to offend his host. So, the "popular vote" is likely to suck.
FWIW, while The Old Course is supposedly the greatest example of a course that every golfer can enjoy, I don't think it would get anywhere close to 100% thumbs-up. Indeed, possibly the highest-rated course would be some banal design that flatters everyone. I had one on the tip of my tongue, but I don't do that here, anymore. :-X ;)
-
good critics can give relatively high marks to action adventure films like Speed or Die Hard simply because they are *better action-adventure films* than, say, Fast and Furious 6, i.e. more thrilling and suspenseful and coherent and entertaining; and conversely, those same critics won't attack Speed or Die Hard for *not being* Annie Hall or The Irishman, as if three such distinct kinds of film should or can be judged in the same way. The golf industry, on the other hand, and it sometimes seems to me many of its raters/panelists, apparently wants to assume that every golf course should be able to serve all and every possible function, and make all and every possible golfer completely happy -- such that a golf course, any golf course, is deemed either 'great' or 'good' or 'average' or 'poor' independent of its primary function or intended audience.
I had one on the tip of my tongue, but I don't do that here, anymore. :-X ;)
That’s ok, Tom. I have one on top the tip of my tongue too. I bet they match. ;D
-
A well-known critic once opined that commercial success has no bearing on the quality of the architecture and critical acclaim. I happened to have known this man, an indifferent golfer with a very high regard for his intellectual prowess and a correspondingly low appreciation for the opinions of others which might differ than his own.
Personally, I am in agreement with the Good Doctor that a golf course should provide the most pleasure for the most players. So, if a course is highly regarded by its customers and members, say any number of Fazio designs, it is likely a good course. I have seldom been disappointed playing courses with strong popular support, though I can think of two or three "top of the list" courses according to the critics which left me scratching my head.
Some critics have to differentiate themselves from the common folk and their few competitors. After all, they have more refined, sophisticated tastes. They might not be able to break 90 from the back tees, but they "get it". I've wasted my time more by following the recommendations of these good folks than from buddies who might recommend a "good track" they've enjoyed.
I understand that Golf Digest is reviving its "best places to play" list which includes recommendations from its everyday readers as well as its panelists. I don't know if this is analogous to "Rotten Tomatoes", but I look forward to seeing what it offers.
-
* 1980 rankings of courses in the state of Florida were an example of this . . . unless you really believed it was a valid result that the Bloomingdale Golfers' Club in Valrico consistently finished ahead of Seminole by their system.
Wow. They’re so humble over there I never knew this.
Um. You’ve all heard of GolfAdvisor, right?
-
I think this is a two-part issue.
The first asks the question, is there any real criticism of golf course architecture?
The second asks. if the masses should have a voice in this criticism?
I for one think that there is a large lacking of real criticism of golf courses in general. Which has led to the point of the entire golf course architecture and review side being nothing but puff pieces and pay for ads. Look at any of the big 3 golf publications and you will not find a single sentence. Wherein any of these publications or authors offer any form of criticism beyond faint prase or cursing a course by omission. This leaves an industry that requires feedback to fly blind and allows for a handful of practitioners to get away with what in any other field with strong criticism would be shouted down as banal and poor work. But in golf, if you get even one hole that photographs well you might be able to make a career out of it.
This is shameful to its core as the architects we all admire had strong critical voices themselves and around them willing to provide feedback thus giving them feedback instantly from their peers and the media. This does not happen today for a number of reasons but it's a real issue. I myself right now am committing this same sin as I don't want to offend anyone in the future that might offer me work or I am currently engaged by. This is very very very frustrating to me as a shaper and someone that deeply loves the game of golf. As I personally thrive off criticism and challenges set forth by others. As, how else am I supposed to improve if all I get is a pat on the back and a good paycheque? This is also a huge issue from a more macro lens as to how much bad work could have been avoided over the past 100 years. If instead of shunning criticism we as the golf architectural profession engaged with it and actively participated in it, much like building architecture, landscape architecture, industrial design, and production design spaces have. Some of the best things I have read and learned about the design process and how to build for the future have come from these places of real criticism by working professionals and knowledgeable critics.
It is very frustrating that even on this board when the subject of a real critique of a golf course comes up all that seems to happen is a pat on the back and a thumbs up even if the work is middling at best. There is an example of a thread that I won't bring up because of how much controversy it caused when one architect decided to discuss his view of another architect's work with a critical lens and that thread instead of creating an insightful dialogue about the choices made on the ground and the reasoning behind them devolved into name-calling and tribalism. I get that we all have different preferences and go about the work of building golf in different ways but it's very very hard for me to have an honest conversation about golf without feelings overriding the conversation. This is entirely against the point of good criticism as a good critique is based on past knowledge, ideas and principles. If you disagree with one of the core assumptions the critic uses feel free to discuss why you have that disagreement and that discussion opens up a lot of interesting avenues of thought and creates a more open space for future discussion. When someone shuts down criticism by discussing feelings we have entered a very basic realm where there is no need for more discussion as there is only offence or lack of it. This is very problematic and where we currently sit and binary positions can only oscillate and can never be nuanced enough to be very interesting to discuss.
This brings me to my second question is there a need for the masses to be involved in the criticism of golf. I personally say yes with the caveat that they take their role seriously. This is due to the issues I pointed out earlier with the industry in its current stunted state due to everyone being afraid to anger a future client or acquaintance. As golf is a very small industry, everyone kind of knows each other or has at least spent an evening in the same bar as someone. This leads to an interesting problem of access and closeness to the subject which can limit even the best critic to be truly critical as no one likes to be dressed down in public for something that true that they wrote.
This means that we need to bring more blood into the game and I think it's happening with the creation of websites like Openlinks, top100golfcourses.com, Beyond the Contour and The Fried Egg(earlier work). All of which are owned and operated by traditionally outsiders in the space. They all seem to be doing very well although all the sites do not promote the type of criticism that I would like to see favouring trying to cater to the preferences of the user. More than to actually digging deep into what makes a good course good and what defines poor design in the golf space (Andy Johnson's earlier work tried this and was very good although as he grew into a larger role this has become less and less common in his work). I think that's truthfully the next step is for someone outside the golf space to start a newsletter, blog, website or board that would host this type of work and heavily moderate it to make sure that it all stays in the realm of good criticism instead of devolving into gutter sniping and tribal warfare.
I don't think any of the traditional golf media outlets have much interest or care to be actively critical as when I have pressed a few of the key figures at these places to share their true thoughts publicly. I get the answer of, "well I don't want to lose my job."
Back to the point of this thread, I don't think the rotten tomatoes model works for golf criticism as trying to set up numerical categories and throwing them into an anonymizing algorithm is not very valuable to anyone. If you want to see the results of what that looks like Golf Advisor has tried this and the results were not the best. So they even stopped publishing their best-of lists.
Golf can be accurately categorized by numbers but they need to be formed into a tier list (Doak Score) with an explanation of why that course received that number for you. It's how I talk in short hand amongst my friends and have had a lot of success with sharing it with even my non-super golf nerd friends with me regularly now. Waking up to or receiving a message from a friend saying "Just played a new course in Brockville, Ont. I think it's about a 5 or 6, a couple of really fun holes, a good walk and the conditioning was great. They still need to mow it a bit wider and cut a couple of trees for you to like it though". This is a great armchair criticism and something that I think could easily be applied to a large model. Where your score on a course doesn't count unless you answer 3 or 4 questions that will be posted alongside your scores. Answers less than 4-5 words would disqualify a score. Just an idea as I never like to leave a problem without posing a solution. Something I picked up from those design critique articles.
-
Seems to me if you are going to critique a golf course you have to play it. So many great course are not available for the average golfer, unlike a movie.
-
...poorly thought out post removed. Sorry to all concerned.
-
On a larger, mass population scale I don't think golf criticism matters much. It doesn't matter what people say about the famous courses, if accessible, people will travel and pay big money to have a go. If lesser known courses are praised or lambasted, few people in the US will care if the topic is a little known Welsh course. Real criticism in golf has a very limited appeal or viability first simply due to the global nature of the game. Second, most critics with good experience are trying to make money from golf and negative reviews don't tend to help the bottom line. Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
Critics just have to accept their limited value and appeal and everything is fine.
Ciao
-
On a larger, mass population scale I don't think golf criticism matters much. It doesn't matter what people say about the famous courses, if accessible, people will travel and pay big money to have a go. If lesser known courses are praised or lambasted, few people in the US will care if the topic is a little known Welsh course. Real criticism in golf has a very limited appeal or viability first simply due to the global nature of the game. Second, most critics with good experience are trying to make money from golf and negative reviews don't tend to help the bottom line. Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
Critics just have to accept their limited value and appeal and everything is fine.
Ciao
Sean,
It's the other way around. Everybody else has to accept the role of the critic, and understand their limited value and appeal, and everything will be fine.
-
Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
But that's the #1 reason why there should be a market for good criticism of golf courses. Who wants to waste their $$$$ to go play a course they won't like ?
-
I've always thought that Metacritic was superior to Rotten Tomatoes for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes is binary- fresh or splat depending on the critic's review. Metacritic translates each review into a score from 0-100. So something can theoretically score as 100% fresh on rotten tomatoes and get a score of 51% on Metacritic with the same batch of reviews (if they were all slightly favorable). That would rank such a movie at the top of the list on RT and in the middle of the pack on Metacritic. i.e. the less polarizing a mediocre movie is, the better it will do on RT.
One other note is the Metacritic weights the reviews- gives more weighting to established critics than some random new reviewer for example.
-
Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
But that's the #1 reason why there should be a market for good criticism of golf courses. Who wants to waste their $$$$ to go play a course they won't like ?
Play golf with people you enjoy and you’ll never waste another dollar on a golf course.
-
On a larger, mass population scale I don't think golf criticism matters much. It doesn't matter what people say about the famous courses, if accessible, people will travel and pay big money to have a go. If lesser known courses are praised or lambasted, few people in the US will care if the topic is a little known Welsh course. Real criticism in golf has a very limited appeal or viability first simply due to the global nature of the game. Second, most critics with good experience are trying to make money from golf and negative reviews don't tend to help the bottom line. Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
Critics just have to accept their limited value and appeal and everything is fine.
Ciao
Sean,
It's the other way around. Everybody else has to accept the role of the critic, and understand their limited value and appeal, and everything will be fine.
The vast majority of golfers do this. Critics effect the decision making of a very small percentage of golfers.
Tom
Fame, cost and distance of travel are far more influential than critics. I read about courses from a few well travelled golf industry people, but cost, accessibility and course location are far more important for my decision makng.
What percentage of golfers do folks think critics serve?
Joe, I rarely play with folks who I wouldn't drink with. Still, I ain't gonna willy nilly drop $300-400 playing a course with a mate because a critic said the course good.
Ciao
-
Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
But that's the #1 reason why there should be a market for good criticism of golf courses. Who wants to waste their $$$$ to go play a course they won't like ?
It doesn't even have to be good criticism (i.e. literate, engaging, insightful) -- just honest. Less a heady Pauline Kael review from the 70s than a practical and plain spoken Variety approach: "Course X sacrifices edgy thrills and lurking dangers for friendly playability and birdie looks aplenty, its roominess off the tee and gentle greens offering a soothing balm for the hacker's fragile ego -- and with its resort-like sensibilities and stylish amenities appealing to both the aspirational retail golfer and to the well-heeled mid-to-high-handicapper whose aging game is on ever shakier ground. Our one line synopsis: you'll spend less strokes getting through your round than you will dollars buying dinner afterwards."
-
On a larger, mass population scale I don't think golf criticism matters much. It doesn't matter what people say about the famous courses, if accessible, people will travel and pay big money to have a go. If lesser known courses are praised or lambasted, few people in the US will care if the topic is a little known Welsh course. Real criticism in golf has a very limited appeal or viability first simply due to the global nature of the game. Second, most critics with good experience are trying to make money from golf and negative reviews don't tend to help the bottom line. Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
Critics just have to accept their limited value and appeal and everything is fine.
Ciao
Sean,
It's the other way around. Everybody else has to accept the role of the critic, and understand their limited value and appeal, and everything will be fine.
The vast majority of golfers do this. Critics effect the decision making of a very small percentage of golfers.
Tom
Fame, cost and distance of travel are far more influential than critics. I read about courses from a few well travelled golf industry people, but cost, accessibility and course location are far more important for my decision makng.
What percentage of golfers do folks think critics serve?
Joe, I rarely play with folks who I wouldn't drink with. Still, I ain't gonna willy nilly drop $300-400 playing a course with a mate because a critic said the course good.
Ciao
Good point, Sean, even if unintentional; Movies generally cost the same no matter the film, but golf can cost $30 or $300….I’m researching more before spending $300. I’ll stand beside my initial point, however.
-
On a larger, mass population scale I don't think golf criticism matters much. It doesn't matter what people say about the famous courses, if accessible, people will travel and pay big money to have a go. If lesser known courses are praised or lambasted, few people in the US will care if the topic is a little known Welsh course. Real criticism in golf has a very limited appeal or viability first simply due to the global nature of the game. Second, most critics with good experience are trying to make money from golf and negative reviews don't tend to help the bottom line. Third, golf is stinking expensive and travel costs a bomb. The golf audience is naturally quite limited from the start. Movies and music don't require anything lke the financial and time investments as does golf...so the analogies are seriously flawed from the start.
Critics just have to accept their limited value and appeal and everything is fine.
Ciao
Sean,
It's the other way around. Everybody else has to accept the role of the critic, and understand their limited value and appeal, and everything will be fine.
The vast majority of golfers do this. Critics effect the decision making of a very small percentage of golfers.
Tom
Fame, cost and distance of travel are far more influential than critics. I read about courses from a few well travelled golf industry people, but cost, accessibility and course location are far more important for my decision makng.
What percentage of golfers do folks think critics serve?
Joe, I rarely play with folks who I wouldn't drink with. Still, I ain't gonna willy nilly drop $300-400 playing a course with a mate because a critic said the course good.
Ciao
Good point, Sean, even if unintentional; Movies generally cost the same no matter the film, but golf can cost $30 or $300….I’m researching more before spending $300. I’ll stand beside my initial point, however.
I hear talk of $300 and I know I ain't interested what a critic says in terms of influencing my decision to play the course. Those high end courses which interest me were on my list long before a critic got to me. I think some folks think critics have far more influence as to directing where to play than is the case. I would say ranking lists are more influential.
Ciao
-
I feel certain that if a web site existed for public ratings of golf courses, some courses would stuff the online ballot box as part of their promotional efforts*. In that sense, golf is much different than a movie ratings site, because the ratings might affect repeat business to drive revenue, whereas that's not much of a thing in the movie business after the initial release.
In the end, what really matters is neither the critics' reviews [which BTW are very few and far between], but whether golfers want to come back again, and give good word-of-mouth reviews to other golfers. If those last two factors are positive, then the golf course will generally be a success, regardless of what you see online.
* GOLFWEEK's 1980 rankings of courses in the state of Florida were an example of this . . . unless you really believed it was a valid result that the Bloomingdale Golfers' Club in Valrico consistently finished ahead of Seminole by their system.
Tom - the GW rating panel wasn't founded until 1996. I don't know your 1980 reference but suspect it was an internal, not-very-serious endeavor. I highly doubt it had any "system" - probably something the Golf and Travel advertisers put together (just guessing).
-
I hear talk of $300 and I know I ain't interested what a critic says in terms of influencing my decision to play the course. Those high end courses which interest me were on my list long before a critic got to me.
Sean, I agree for the most part, but what about expensive new courses? Don't you want to consider reviews of courses like Dumbarnie before deciding to drop the cash? At least reviews from critics whose opinions you respect.
-
Once a movie is completed and released, later 'Directors Cut' versions excepted, they are complete, "in the can", Rotten Tomato' or not. Golf courses change and can become more or less rotten over time and can change back as well.
atb
-
I would welcome a Rotten Tomatoes style rating, with the critics score and the audience score comparison.
In 2019 I checked out Orville on Rotten Tomatoes. The score was 17% Critics and 100% Audience - a vast disconnect or is Seth M's late night taste too threatening for the critics? Or do the common denominater of audiences find bad taste the best taste.
Now in 2022 the critics are 65% and the Audience is 93%. What does that tell us?
Marmite taste polarises and provokes discussion. Applied to golf courses the quality of the critics review can be helpful in providing a description of the pros and cons of a golf course.
The Audience/Players rating could be indicative of the overall experience.
-
I hear talk of $300 and I know I ain't interested what a critic says in terms of influencing my decision to play the course. Those high end courses which interest me were on my list long before a critic got to me.
Sean, I agree for the most part, but what about expensive new courses? Don't you want to consider reviews of courses like Dumbarnie before deciding to drop the cash? At least reviews from critics whose opinions you respect.
Where do you actually read constructive criticism of courses like Dumbarnie apart from websites like this ? Certainly not in the press, any review you read there is just promotional puff. Personally I tend to put far more weight on what I'm told by someone I know who has played a course, even if they aren't a GCA type and don't articulate it the same way we tend to do on here.
Niall
-
8) Too many golf critics, reviewers, and uncertainty out there on the internet already with bias and vested interests, hard enough to find frank discussion, easy to find freak discussion. So someone compiling the noise into something coherent and presentable would probably work for many retail golfers... of course they might only want to know if it has a good beat and/or was easy to dance to, ala' American Bandstand.
I imagine there'd be a "shank" instead of splat rating, and an overwhelming majority approval be needed to be a Certified Draw or Power Fade... ::)
I'm with Joe Hancock, play golf with friends!
https://youtu.be/tJyHktPxKXo (https://youtu.be/tJyHktPxKXo)
-
I hear talk of $300 and I know I ain't interested what a critic says in terms of influencing my decision to play the course. Those high end courses which interest me were on my list long before a critic got to me.
Sean, I agree for the most part, but what about expensive new courses? Don't you want to consider reviews of courses like Dumbarnie before deciding to drop the cash? At least reviews from critics whose opinions you respect.
I haven't really read anything about Dunbarnie. It was priced out of my range of interest from day one. There were probably a few times I could have played it for maybe £100, but didn't bother trying to get up there. If it's convenient and I can play it for a good price I'll give Dunbarnie a go sometime. I am in no rush...there are plenty of cheaper Scottish courses which interest me more.
Ciao
-
OK, great comments (most, anyway).
I do appreciate that "golf" is unique from "Hollywood", but if we keep telling ourselves (as I do many times) that "Golf architecture is an art form..." then we need to be prepared to accept that not all "art forms" are the same. In fact, they vary widely from fashion....to industrial design....to architecture...to graphic design....to filmmaking....to painting...to interior design. Each an applied "art" that impacts the built environment in its own way.
Also, I take exception to the comment that "Golf is a small industry..." Golf in the U.S., represents a $70B industry. Hollywood – Movies in specific – represent about $90B...that makes golf, as a whole, just a large (or nearly so). BTW, that $90B for Hollywood is not just production costs, it's the popcorn and everything around the world of movies. No different in golf...the shoes, clubs and food and beverage is fair game.
Yes, in the "course-specific" world we think of ourselves as "small and close-knit", but that can also be said of, let's say, cinematographers, screenwriters or directors. Each is a "small" world.
I am fascinated by math and what can be done in our modern world to extract "opinions". While not as seasoned as Tom D in math, I do have the belief that our method of "rating" courses could be much better, deeper and meaningful. We're just not using all the tools available — which may be by design :)
-
The ultimate problem with reviewing golf courses is that essentially you are reviewing private property.
I do think that this discussion group, say 15-20 years ago, had the potential to bring a real point of view and voice to to the critical evaluation of golf course architecture but ultimately the term "frank commentary" turned out to be somewhat of a misnomer. The DG still functions as a place to appreciate and talk about golf architecture with like-minded people but critical analysis is for the most part absent.
-
The ultimate problem with reviewing golf courses is that essentially you are reviewing private property.
I do think that this discussion group, say 15-20 years ago, had the potential to bring a real point of view and voice to to the critical evaluation of golf course architecture but ultimately the term "frank commentary" turned out to be somewhat of a misnomer. The DG still functions as a place to appreciate and talk about golf architecture with like-minded people but critical analysis is for the most part absent.
There have been many instances on this when frank commentary was shouted down. Plus, the number one voice rarely drags down a course....and for good reasons...some of which are the same for others.
The problem is people associated with courses are overly protective and territorial when it comes to frank commentary. It's as if they are insulted by the commentary unless it is overwhelmingly positive.
Ciao
-
I think the larger issue is the vast majority of golf courses will never be played...aka reviewed...by the same people. As opposed to movies where millions can watch the same one from anywhere.
And without the same people playing and reviewing the same golf courses, the vast vast majority of reviews will be apples to oranges at best. I looked at the reviews on Golf Advisor for Spokane and the Salt Lake City area, which I know pretty well. Most courses have less than 10 reviews, and the negative reviews are often from a User ID with only 1 or 2 course reviews. For example, Indian Canyon which is hands down the best course in the area had 8 reviews and was near the bottom of the list, while a crappy trailer park "resort" course north of the area had dozens of reviews and was allegedly the best in the area. A complete and utter joke....
Forrest, as much as I appreciate the idea, in the absence of any practical way to get meaningful data, I don't see how on God's green earth that this is doable or adds even a scrap of value. As flawed as the ratings system is, its the best we got!
-
The ultimate problem with reviewing golf courses is that essentially you are reviewing private property.
I do think that this discussion group, say 15-20 years ago, had the potential to bring a real point of view and voice to to the critical evaluation of golf course architecture but ultimately the term "frank commentary" turned out to be somewhat of a misnomer. The DG still functions as a place to appreciate and talk about golf architecture with like-minded people but critical analysis is for the most part absent.
There have been many instances on this when frank commentary was shouted down. Plus, the number one voice rarely drags down a course....and for good reasons...some of which are the same for others.
The problem is people associated with courses are overly protective and territorial when it comes to frank commentary. It's as if they are insulated by the commentary unless it is overwhelmingly positive.
Ciao
I think that when this site started, everyone was learning together. That promotes open conversation and commentary.
Now the site is made up of newer people at the beginning of their journey and old hands who either think they know better or are less patient with those just setting out. Even those good hearted souls who like to help (and there are many) have seen all the conversations before so are less likely to be engaged….
It’s probably just the natural lifespan of any group. Always much more fun with fewer agendas at the beginning.
-
I read a lot of Book Reviews. The primary reason is not to decide what books to purchase, but rather to learn about a topic. Good reviews generally give both the reviewer's perspective on the subject in addition to the author's take, and they often praise/criticize the author's research and logic. In contrast, golf architecture reviews tend inevitably to end up being about whether a course is good or not and/or where it should place in the rankings. It would be much more informative and interesting if the reviews delved more into the architecture itself and the choices that the architect made. A notable exception are some of the long postings on top100courses. Yes, they help me do travel planning, but more importantly they provide perspective on the architect's philosophy and decision making. Another example is Ian Andrew's blog/site. We need more of that kind of criticism.
Ira
-
Most folks simply don't bother with critics, nor are they troubled by them -- whether in music or books or films or golf courses. They have more fun/important matters to attend to, and are content just to like what they like without needing guidance or a stamp of approval from those purporting to be experts. The only people who care about critics are those with a professional-financial agenda and/or stake in the game, or those who believe they're insightful critics in their own right, and thus have their egos invested in proving themselves right and others wrong.
-
Peter,
I do not care about critics, but I do care about criticism, especially on a topic in which I have a real interest and some modicum of knowledge. I often learn as much from a good book review of say the US Constitutional Convention as I do from some entire books on the subject. I know far less about golf course architecture, but I know I would benefit from some high quality criticism.
Ira
-
PS
I should add: exceptionally well written criticism is an art and craft in itself, and (as Ira notes above) a source of both pleasure and edification -- and in those cases I think others can care about critics too. But those cases, IMO, are quite rare.
PSS
Ira, yes, I just saw your response and I agree re high quality criticism
-
Most folks simply don't bother with critics, nor are they troubled by them -- whether in music or books or films or golf courses. They have more fun/important matters to attend to, and are content just to like what they like without needing guidance or a stamp of approval from those purporting to be experts. The only people who care about critics are those with a professional-financial agenda and/or stake in the game, or those who believe they're insightful critics in their own right, and thus have their egos invested in proving themselves right and others wrong.
Peter,
I think there's another use case in there for a lot of people. I use reviews as a short-cut of sorts to wade thru the massive ocean of movies to focus in on a few that I might like.
As a general rule for movies with terrific critic and audience scores, I'm very rarely let down as a movie worth watching. When its a case of one score or another being really good, it can be a bit more hit and miss, but the movie is still generally interesting, even if nothing special.
As for movies where both scores are not at least 50%, well I can't recall the last time I ever watched one of those. But its not an ego thing, I just can't be bothered with the massive deluge of mediocre, predictable, cliche-ridden movies
-
Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.
I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.
-
Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.
I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.
Numbers?
Ciao
-
Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.
I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.
It isn't that difficult to create a ranking system that enables a wide range of voters (as wide as you like) but that assigns a weighting to each voter depending on criteria the creator of the system sets, for example, the number of reviews or votes you have cast, so the voters who are more experienced get a bigger say. This is the model used by Opinionated About Dining, the restaurant review site created by former music and TV entrepreneur Steve Plotnicki. I've often thought about contacting Steve (who I used to know very vaguely) and suggesting he does a golf course rating using the same methodology.
-
Adam — it’s a great project for you!!
I fully respect golf courses are unique, but many similar issues persist when comparing films. Using my Rotten Tomatoes analogy, even if critics and film festival screeners “hate” a particular film, if it can outlive the early bad mouthing — because the public appreciation (or hate) at least gets a rating. Comparing the “elite” critic’s rating to the public’s rating becomes interesting — and, as I noted, many times a very wide gap in opinion.
That is perhaps the big question here: Is our current system of rating (primarily critics and writers with special access and perks) giving the golf consumer an accurate snapshot? And, then, does any good come from the golf designer who — in desperation — tries to get better reviews through imitation of courses that are either designed by favorite designers of (or have been liked by) this elite critic group?
-
It isn't that difficult to create a ranking system that enables a wide range of voters (as wide as you like) but that assigns a weighting to each voter depending on criteria the creator of the system sets, for example, the number of reviews or votes you have cast, so the voters who are more experienced get a bigger say.
I agree, except I don't think the number of reviews or votes cast are good criteria. I think the number and variety of courses played would be better vis a vis golf course voters.
-
Here’s a thought: In the Hollywood film business, early reviews often decide whether a movie even gets to be shown in theaters. Film festivals — all critics…not everyday moviegoers — get to decide on a film’s future. Golf courses are obviously different, but the outcome can be similar.
I remain convinced there is a mathematical solution to better course review and ranking. Just that no one has attacked it.
It isn't that difficult to create a ranking system that enables a wide range of voters (as wide as you like) but that assigns a weighting to each voter depending on criteria the creator of the system sets, for example, the number of reviews or votes you have cast, so the voters who are more experienced get a bigger say. This is the model used by Opinionated About Dining, the restaurant review site created by former music and TV entrepreneur Steve Plotnicki. I've often thought about contacting Steve (who I used to know very vaguely) and suggesting he does a golf course rating using the same methodology.
I like this Plotnicki guy. Apparently the coolest restaurant in Britain is in my home town! :)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/best-restaurants-sheffield-mancheter-nottingham-plotnicki-review/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/best-restaurants-sheffield-mancheter-nottingham-plotnicki-review/)
-
Forrest, have you ever heard the acronym, GIGO? It was big back in the days when I was in college. Today some guys feel like data is everything, but when the data is all opinions rather than results, GIGO.
-
Tom D — My father used that a lot to describe his work building optics for NASA and, later on, the US Air Force. Richardson Camera would get lots of "data" of which not much was useful.
Timely discussion as Elon Musk take Twitter to task on their "bot" accounts. Twitter claims they "adjust" for this, while Musk disagrees. To me this is the likely difference in my original question — Rotten Tomatoes seems to have built a bunch of controls and software that enables them to weed out the cheating and stacking of "votes" and "ratings" — or, so they claim. I am not sure that sophistication is at all inherent in golf's ratings, including the consumer-only platforms.
-
Forrest, have you ever heard the acronym, GIGO? It was big back in the days when I was in college. Today some guys feel like data is everything, but when the data is all opinions rather than results, GIGO.
Garbage In Garbage Out etc. Lol
As one who deals with Q ratings and Hotlists for music and film on a daily basis professionally, the media arts and GCA rooms are not that dissimilar. Both have consumers and have to appeal to a wide variety of consumer tastes and both can fueled by lobbying which is not in any way untoward. Many of these are consumer business.
Both Are driven by expensive branding and ads as well as word of mouth and buzz.
There are artists, shows, and golf courses that don't care about ratings. Others are annoyed if they don't appear on a list.
I have expertise to produce music, film and tv that some will enjoy, and others detest.
There are also genres I would never touch and really shouldn't because I neither enjoy nor respect them.
Same goes for the gca world at large.
I'm going to pose that all of this is ok as this is an indication of an appetite for golf.
In theory, this room can help folks expand their appetite for better golf architecture and conditioning.
The challenge is keeping the new folks engaged without pissing of the old heads.
Interestingly, the past decade or so of GCA is not unlike the advent of downloadable music.
I was at the very meeting when the shooting war started:
The old guard of music insisted "The Labels will never let music be free or downloaded."
The room full of hackers started laughing out loud,"We already have your shit sampled."
From there, labels made a ridiculous number of errors as they alienated their very audience.
One of the creatively moronic moves was they tried to "make an example of a scofflaw" by suing the grandmother of a kid who downloaded some music on to her computer. We all know how that whole thing ended up.
If the music download wars were match play, Consumers Vs. Music Business
Consumers: 10 and 8
Search the threads and there are arguments in here about everything from trees to drones. It's all good.
Golf and gca/GCA in general seem to be in good places, post pandemic.
That said, change is hard, but evolution is inevitable.
In TV, Film, and music we have the Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Rotten Tomatoes, Billboard etc but, the viewership numbers, stream counts, subscribers and downloads cut through the shit.
-
It would be interesting to "rate" golf courses on their volume of play, yet I think this would have all sorts of issues. For one, many highly acclaimed courses simply do not desire the volume and, second, pricing (especially low point pricing) would skew the results. You would also have the variables of capacity relative to PACE RATING (one could use the USGA's pace rating) and such variables as seasonal "no play" periods, rain days, etc. Add bookings such as outings, events, etc.
This is the interesting aspect of a "Rotten Tomatoes" approach — It does not consider whether a movie has grossed $200 million or been seen by 15 million people ....... to that small, indie film that only appeared in a few markets and grossed $100k.