[CHrisB]

Nothing ensures the long life of a thread quite like a good old-fashioned charge of bias.  Sandpines is the latest thread to be energized by a bias charge, and is for me one of the more interesting threads to come along in a while.  A couple of quotes from Patrick Mucci stand out to me:

(a) "Be objective, honest, fair and apply your standards uniformly, not selectively.  Gather all of the material facts and then draw your conclusion based on that information."

(b) "I've only asked that all the material facts be obtained before reaching an objective conclusion, not one based on misleading, false or missing information."

Unless Patrick corrects me, these two statements seem to be at the core of his bias arguments, and they raise several important observations/questions in my mind:

1. These two statements really remind me of how a judge would instruct a jury.
2. Objectivity is a particularly key word here, because it implies removing personal prejudices and going by the strictly observable--this is a cornerstone of science.  This leads to my first question:
3. Is GCA an art or a science? or both?
4. As I look at my own life, I am astounded by how little I actually apply (b); that is, obtaining all the material facts before reaching a conclusion.
5. Actually, I wonder how often any of us follow (b) faithfully in our lives.  And the word "all" is key here.  We vote for political candidates, accept or reject political or religious arguments, choose our friends (and sometimes significant others), make judgments about people we don't know, and certainly make decisions on the golf course!, without obtaining "ALL the material facts" pertinent to such decisions.  I'd bet that most often we gather just enough information to go on for us, and then make our judgments and form our opinions.  Which brings me to my second question:
6. Why should GCA be different?  If we seem so unwilling or unable to gather ALL material facts prior to forming an opinion or making a decision in life, why should we do it or expect to do it with respect to (w.r.t.) GCA?
7. One aspect of the bias argument that I have yet to see discussed, but want to, is what Patrick and others believe to be the consequences of unchecked bias w.r.t. GCA.  Thus far, I've only heard "You are biased" or "Bias is wrong", but I've never heard the why behind it.  So my next question is:
8. Why should we be unbiased?  What are the consequences of bias as it pertains to GCA?  What is the concern: the credibility of those who are biased, the spreading of "false information", the "victim" of the bias?

Say what you want about Patrick Mucci, but he seems to be the one guy who above all others whose posts really make me think.  When I see his name on the "Last Post" column, I almost always go read what he has written.

I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.  I hope this thread will inspire some real thought, so that the next time bias enters a thread, we won't immediately see it as an annoyance or a meaningless sidetrack, but as a real issue for discussion.

[Tim Weiman]

ChrisB:

As I "consumer" of golf course architecture, I have no interest in being treated like a judge might treat a jury.

I don't want any lectures about "bias". There is absolutely no point.

My only interest is to hear or see information about a golf course that would help me sort out whether it is worth my limited time and money to visit and/or play.

Take, for instance, Don Mahaffey's post about the Red Raider project. Don expresses passion. His enthusiam makes me think about my schedule and when I might fit in a visit. By contrast, a lecture about bias only serves to turn me off.

I'm also very skeptical about the idea of people - presumably architects - being the "victim" of bias. Where did this idea come from? How real is it? Aren't some of the least popular architects at this website (e.g., Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Rees Jones, etc) quite successfully commerically?

There is plenty of "science" related to building golf courses, I'm sure. But, for most people the artistic side is far more important. And why not? We want architects to create a field of pleasure. We are not interested in a point vs counterpoint debate.

Not to be snobby, but I didn't learn much from the Sandpines thread. We spent so much time on "bias" that we never got down to discussing any interesting aspects of the project. We heard about "oblique dunes" and reference to the challenge of building on them. Wouldn't it have been far more interesting to discuss design and construction techniques to make the most of such features?

The consequences of bias? In this case it meant trading accusations about bias, fraud, deceit and denial. We didn't advance our discussion of golf course architecture one bit.

[ForkaB]

Great post, Chris.  Let me try to give my answer to your questions.

“Is GCA an art or a science?”

I personally think that the process of designing, building and maintaining a golf course benefits from some "science" particularly in the areas of biology and chemistry.  It also benefits (in each of those three phases) from the "artistic" abilities and sensitivities of the main players--designers, engineers, operators, superintendents, and owners.  Most of all, however, I think it benefits from good old common sense and trial and error.  The building and ongoing operation of a golf course is far to complex an activity to allow scientific or artistic analysis to be anything but referential, in most instances.  We should also recognise that what is going on in our arguments on this site usually has nothing to do with "golf course architecture" (GCA) per se, but with our analyses/opinions of the pros and cons of various golf courses and their architects.  It is a subtle difference, but a very important one, nevertheless.

“Why should GCA be different?  (NB--this relates to the "all material facts" part of Pat's arguments)

It should.  For one thing, golf is far more important than religion, politics and friends (insert smiley face in here for the humor-impaired).  For another, we are mostly not talking about GCA, but about our opinions of GCA (see above).  We are like the people in Plato’s cave trying to make sense of what is happening in the outside world by interpreting the flickering of the shadows on the wall of the cave.  In such circumstances, the more facts we can get and the fewer uninformed opinions which are posted the better.  In this regard, I think you have focused on the wrong modifier of "facts."  To me the operative word in that phrase is "material."  In the instance at hand--Sandpines--we have very few material facts to talk about (the few 1st hand observations of TommyN, SlagB, MikeE, etc), so we spend 350+ posts talking about the shadows we see (2-dimensional pictures, routing maps, pictures of land 2-50 miles away) and what we think about other people’s opinions of these shadows.  In this way, GCA (the Golf Club Atlas “GCA”) very much imitates real life, alas.

“Why should we be unbiased?  What are the consequences of bias as it pertains to GCA?”

We needn’t be.  It’s a free country(ies).  But, it clogs up the bandwidth and demeans the high standards of this suite when people don’t use their brains, or use them for invective or ridicule.  The consequences are that we lose out on the incredible learning opportunities which GCA (the site and the practice) can be.  Someone on the Cigar thread posted the dictionary definition of bias.  I’ll repeat it, in full, from my dictionary:

“A particular tendency or inclination, esp. one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.”

Well, to me this site is all about questions.  None of us have the answers, except for the most trivial of facts, to anything which we discuss of importance.  Given that, any post which reflects an attitude which “prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question” should be anathema to us.  These attitudes do exist on this site, however, in both the negative and positive senses (we blindly adulate as well as we blindly condemn), and it is to our detriment that so many of us seem to condone that activity.

I commend PatM for fighting the good fight, even though I have never met him and do not always agree with his opinions of golf and on GCA.  If you want my humble opinion, Pat is the lightning rod for more bias on this site than is Rees Jones, or even Fazio.  Such uncharitable behavior is a pity.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

ChrisB
Are you familar with 'Jordan Rules'? You just recited - Rees Rules. Let me translate:

a) If Rees Jones produced a disapointing or mediocre design there is a damn good reason for it and its not a lack of talent/skill

b) There are always excuses why a Rees project turns out poorly and it has nothing to do with ablitiy

c) Why do we apply/discuss these standards only in the case of Rees, because his the object of a conspiracy (bias)  

1. This ain't courtroom and I'm not interested in guilt or inocence, only interesting golf architecture
2. Objectivity is a great goal, but it can never be totally achieved, some are more objective than others (see the great opologist has only ever played two Rees course)
3. Art, craft and science
4. Human nature
5. This site is devoted to golf architecture, your getting a little deep for me
6. Either a golf course is interesting or its not.  
7. Bias is only brought out by a very small minority (Pat) and he only brings out with Rees. People disagree, people have different tastes, differences of opinion are not biases.
8. See #7

[TEPaul]

I'd say, sort of playing off what Rich Goodale said very well above, and basically concerning all the constant discussion of bias on this website (most generate by Pat Mucci), that all that discussion is just not worth it and not needed on here. It serves no real constructive purpose.

Why? Because golf architecture, including anyone's reaction to it, probably including their reaction to the architect, is ultimately a visceral thing and always will be, not necessarily an intellectual thing that needs all kinds of applications of scientific processes, constant material evaluation etc to justify or even explain totally.

Golf architecture, even from the mouths of thoughtful architects, is supposed to affect different people differently. That they say is one of its beauties--and maybe even it's truth!

As such it really doesn't need to be looked at in simply a set clinical "fact based" analyses as someone might look at the understandable numbers on a balance sheet.

Golf architecture is more visceral than intellectual and as such a definition of "visceral" should be included here;

"Characterized and proceeding from instinctive rather than intellectual motivation."

In this sense no one really needs to justify whether their opinions on golf architecture are right or wrong in the eyes and minds of someone else, only why they feel the things they do and have the opinions they have.

So since golf architecture is more instinctive than intellectual constant discussions of bias or anti-bias aren't necessary.

[George Pazin]

Good points made by all.

Here is quite simply what I don't like about bias as it relates to discussions on this board:

It stiffles posts that actually are trying to discuss architecture & design.

Have any of these 300+ post threads proven anything with regard to "bias"? NO.

Have any of these 300+ post threads done anything to lessen "bias"? NO.

All they do is heighten tension & cause bitter acrimonious slurs to be thrown around.

Additionally, if we all wasted all our time gathering "all the facts" we wouldn't have time to actually discuss anything on this board.

We are all adult enough to be able to evaluate the credibility of the poster - please please please stop obsessing about bias "everyone".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

With respect to # 5 on your list,

If you had all the material facts, would it cause you to change your opinion, your vote, your decisions ?
I think in some cases it will.

Does having all of the material facts help or hurt you in making prudent decisions ?

Why would someone be reluctant or afraid to obtain the material facts ?

Some like to be cavalier and toss irresponsible remarks around indescriminately, what's wrong with asking them to supply the facts that formed the basis of their conclusion.

It's called substantiation and accountability.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

P.S. Thanks

[BCrosby]

These debates are ugly and destructive not because one side has the facts and the other side is biased.

These debates are ugly and destructive because one side has only some facts and the other side says those facts are not enough and, therefore, you are not entitled to your opinion.

These kinds of exchanges are painful to read. I avoid them if at all possible. I think most participants here feel the same way. It's like watching a car wreck again and again.

They should stop. If you can't help youself, take it off line.

If they keep up, I worry they will kill off GCA.

Bob  

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Pazin has it exactly right - there is no such thing as "all the material facts".

I was extremely interested in what Mr. Mucci had to say about a round he played with Rees Jones and some questions that came up regarding a pond and where the green was. Those are the kind of facts for which I'm willing to wade through the somewhat entertaining, somewhat disturbing prospect of grown men becoming hysterical over golf courses.

[Michael Dugger]

I couldn't agree more with everything that has been written here.  Fantastic stuff everyone.

As a contributor to the Rees/Bias thread that has brought about this new topic, I feel compelled to comment here.

All I wanted to discuss was the claim that Rees Jones 'discovers golf holes' and 'works with the land'.  IMHO, there is evidence to the contrary EVERYWHERE.  

Unless, I guess, we need to go back and review what it REALLY is to work with the land.  

To me, this notion of 'working with the land' is immensely interesting and profound, when it comes to GCA.  Maybe I'll start a new topic on it.

I apologize to everyone if my contributions have 'dragged things down'.  It is definately not my intention.  

[guest]

Mdugger

Please for the record tell us which Rees Jones courses you have actually played and among those which you have seen the site before and after the course was built?

Thank you for finally answering this question

[guest2]

guest, you are on the wrong thread with that question. You want the one with "Cigar" in the title.

[Michael Dugger]

Guest,

Get over it man!  I've played Sandpines.  I walked Poopy Ridge.  I didn't see either before construction.

What's it matter?  I'm still entitled to my opinion that Rees Jones imprints his style on his golf courses.  Based on EVERY SINGLE COTTON PICKING PICTURE I've ever seen.  Based on my own two eyes viewing two of his courses.

What's you point, now?  

Dr. Mackenzie wrote that no man is a greater architect then mother nature.  Thus, make artificial features that look like they aren't.  Rees' doesn't, BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN.

Great, cool, whatever.

Way to drag down this thread  

  

[Tim Weiman]

Guest:

I agree with "Guest2". Your question might fit better on the "cigar" thread.

Also, if you decide to join in the Cigar thread, please share your thoughts on the original issue mdugger raised. Give us your assessment of whether Sandpines is a good example of "working with the land".

If you do that, everyone will be convinced you really want to discuss golf architecture. If not, we will think you just want to personally attack mdugger.

[guest]

Mdugger

I simply and politely asked the question to ascertain whether your opinion would be one that I should value.  Your answer and your tone obviously tell me that it is not.

[Tim Weiman]

Guest:

I'm not sure you are being polite. Rather than badgering mdugger about his credentials, it might be far better to directly address the issue he raised.

How much detail can you provide on how well Rees Jones did "working with the land" at Sandpines?

Are we to assume you have no qualifications to address this issue?

If you insist on anonymity, the "polite" thing to do is stick to the subject. Tell us what you know about the desgin and construction process at Sandpines. Tells us how often you were on site before and during construction. Tell us specifically which holes were effected by the challenging conditions found on site. Tell us specifically what holes represent the best examples of nature dictating strategy.

There are all sorts of things students of golf architecture might llike to hear. mdugger's record on visiting Rees Jones golf courses isn't one of them. All that does is divert attention from the real discussion.

[guest]

Mr. Weiman I respectfully disagree with you.  Some contributors to this site have knowledge and opinions that can educate readers and deserve respect and attention.  In trying to sort out differing opinions I would get the most out of these discussions if I could decide whose opinions I could trust. I tried to learn what credibility I should take from Mduggers posts.  Mdugger's certainly does not seem to be credible based on his personal experience and furthermore his tone of writing reflects an anger rather then a well thought out response.

I will depart.

[Michael Dugger]

Guest,

Way to go, keep up the good work!

Might I add to what Mr. Weiman pointed out by adding that your thinking is fundamentally flawed.  If I had seen every course Rees had built would it make me a GCA expert?  No Would it make me a Rees Jones expert? No  

It wouldn't make me either.

You shouldn't care what, or what not, I am.  You should care about the case I presented.  

Now let me ask YOU a question, and see how long it takes YOU to reply.  

Do you think Sandpines blends harmoniously with the land?
If so, why, and please give examples of what it is about Sandpines, in detail, that is in harmony with nature?

No less than 500 words, due by one o'clock    

[Michael Dugger]

Additionally....Mr. Mucci has admitted to having only played two Rees Jones golf courses.  Does this invalidate what he knows?

Is he who knows most the one who has seen the most?
If that's the case Matt Ward knows all

[Tim Weiman]

Guest:

Honestly, I think you are personalizing the issue way too much. Mdugger apparently doesn't think much of Sandpines. Nor does Tommy Naccarato, Slag Bandoon or Mike Erdman.

mdugger apparently also believes Sandpines was a "wasted opportunity". His opinion appears to be based on both his evaluation of the golf course and on land in the vicinity.

Thus, far nobody has convincingly offered an alternative perspective. All we have heard is that the land wasn't as good as the best of mdugger's pictures and there may have been financial constraints on the project team.

The central question remains: how well did the project team work with the land? For me, at least, hearing about how many Rees Jones courses mdugger has seen won't help. If he has seen one or ten or twenty, it will still come back to how much detail he - or anyone else - can provide about Sandpines.

This whole idea that people are "biased" needs to be put to bed. We need to get to the point where if someone disagrees with any course assessment presented here, they simply share all they can about an alternative perspective. Speculating that somebody is "biased" doesn't help. I need to hear far more before I'm willing to jump on a plane.

[CHrisB]

Thanks for all the great answers so far (but I'd prefer that we leave the Sandpines discussion to its own thread and not let it spill over here).

For a forum like this to be the best it can be (that is, maximum information/opinion exchange and increased knowledge/understanding/...), everyone must feel free to express his or her opinion.  It is when we get to the stage of telling people their opinions are wrong or stupid, or that they are not "qualified" to give an opinion that everything breaks down, words are wasted, misinformation is spread, and free exchange of ideas stops.

Personally, I have no real problem with someone being "biased" toward this or away from that.  It is perfectly fine for someone to have a strong opinion based on very little material fact, or to be inconsistent with their standards, if that's how they want to go about things.  I just have to identify them as such and take whatever they say with a grain of salt.  The burden is on me, not them, to evaluate their credibility, and in the end, when forming a conclusion about anything about golf courses, designers, methods, etc., I am going to draw from many sources, with the most weight going to the credible ones.  I will waste no time trying to change someone's opinion.

When it comes to the subjective side of golf courses, architects, styles, etc., I am interested in two things: (1) What is your opinion of it?  and (2) Why is that your opinion?  I don't demand any consistency of opinion across subjects, and I don't demand accumulating more facts (although I may suggest looking at it from a different angle to see what that might spark).  I just place whatever value I can on the opinion and file it away.

I don't think you can demand that consistent standards be applied to opinions, anyway.  My opinions, likes, and dislikes are terribly inconsistent.  I don't care for artificial mounds so much but love playing Tobacco Road.  I dislike double greens but love the double greens at St. Andrews.  I generally don't care for roads bordering golf holes creating a long line of OB, but love the 2nd and 15th at Merion.  Heck, I don't like roads bordering golf holes, but I like it when they cross golf holes like #1/18 TOC, #1 Yeamans Hall, and #18 Tobacco Road.  I love holes like #15 at Cruden Bay, #18 at Kingwood Island, and most of the holes at Tot Hill Farm because they're so terrible.  And sometimes, I can't even begin to tell you why I like or don't like something; sometimes it's just "I just (don't) like it".

So I'd call for the charging of bias to stop; while it is true that we should try to keep learning and considering all of the information we can find about something (and to keep misinformation out of it), we should be entitled to our imperfect opinions and let the credibility shake out as it may.

That's my opinion!

[Everybiasedman]

Everyone is biased and there is NO way around it. It is simple. It is one and the same with being a human being. There is nature and there is nurture. From the moment you are born, nurture kicks in and colors and influences the way you look at the world. You see a piece of land with a golf hole; another man sees the same piece of land as a hunting ground. Everyone's opinions are instructed by the various biases that have been instilled through the lifelong nurturing process.

Science is itself one of the most biased endeavors that man undertakes. "Scientific evolution" (a biased term, like all words) happens often when scientists think outside their biases (the box). That a scientist thinks there can be an "objective" result in a given study is itself a biased thought. There are scientists in other cultures that do not concern themselves with "objective studies"; they simply produce herbal remedies or describe the universe in terms that are relevant to their culture. In the philosophy of science, at the end of the day, all scientific "conclusions" are still deemed leaps of faith. (While I believe that statement, that statement is itself an example of biased thought.) Consider if you will the various "schools" of psychology. Behaviorists explain the behavior of an individual one way. Neuropsychologists explain the exact same behavior in a very different way. Same behavior, different biases in terms of explanation.

We no longer have what is called "pure language" in our culture. We have adopted words that have been imbued with meaning over time. When we choose any specific word, we exhibit a bias toward that word over others (not a bad thing!) When we then use those words, we express the bias that is entailed in them.

Everyone has inclinations and tendencies and you cannot escape them. Instead of trying to claim that bias does not matter, or that there is no bias, just own up to it (since everyone has it as sure as they are breathing) and move on. For example, "My bias is toward rugged, natural golf features and it is based on my love of untouched nature." "My bias is toward graceful curves and it is based on my sense of order." "My bias is toward hitting golf shots on whatever shaped land. Period." Whether we are expressing strong or weak opinions, we are still expressing our biased tendencies. (The issue regarding whether or not those inclinations or biases are coupled with any kind of "Truth" is a different philosophical discussion altogether. And it is one that will not be settled on GCA. That is what the world of philosophy is for.)

If you are really insecure about admitting you have "biases", then just use the word "perspective". It amounts to the same thing without the negative connotation.

We are being taught through the use of such terms as ‘media bias’ and ‘cultural bias’ that bias is a bad thing. BIAS is not a bad thing if everyone recognizes it is always there and takes it into account. My dictionary defines it as “an inclination, a propensity, a predisposition.” (Rich, in the world of philosophy that I am in, there is no such thing as an unprejudiced consideration of a question. Our very thought processes, our line of reasoning, our very dependence on REASON, is a prejudiced state of being. Not one of us is a blank slate capable of making truly objective judgements. Even scientists work off of probabilities and not absolutes, unless they are working wholly in the theoretical. Also, it is by definition impossible to know "all" the facts for those that insist upon such a concept.)

Pretending we are not always biased is naive. Owning up to it from the start allows everyone to move on from there. Own up to it, factor it into the equation along with everything else, get over any problems you have with it if possible, and move on. Bias is one of the MANY things that impact any discussion of any subject in any culture of any world we currently know of.

But that is just my bias.

[Michael Dugger]

EVERYBIASEDMAN...
PLEASE SEND ME A PERSONAL EMAIL.  
VERY WELL SAID

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tim,

     Put me down on the list of those who have actually played Sandpines and was disappointed, I just didn't want to get involved in the cigar thread from hell. I came away with the impression that it could have been a much better course. I played on a Saturday in middle of summer and it was empty which should tell you something about the course. I never saw it before it was built though.

[Tim Weiman]

Craig,

Actually, I got more than a few laughs from "Fact Patrol".

He made reference to the financial issues associated with Sandpines, specifically asking whether the financial problems came before or after the course opened.

If you found the course empty, I guess we know at least part of the story.

P.S. I hope we get to play together again before too long.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()