Should you rank a course almost nobody can play?

[Mike_Clayton]

I am currently doing the Australian rankings for a golf magazine down here.
There is a course - a very good one - that is privately owned and all but impossible to play. It makes Pine Valley look like a public course
Maybe there are ten rounds played a week and there is no chance of the average golfer ever seeing anything but pictures.

Should it be included in the rankings?

[Chris Kane]

My initial thought would be no, but its a slippery slope - where do you draw the line?  

[igrowgrass]

Its still a golf course.  I don't think it matters if people can play it or not.

[Chris Kane]

Clayts if a locked gate is the line, then you're wiping out Swinley Forest, which would be a real shame!

[Mike_Clayton]

Chris,

You are quick!!

Swinley is not locked.
I drove up to the gate a couple of months ago.It swung open,I knocked on the secretary's door and asked if I it would be a problem if I had a look.
'Why would that be a problem?' was the more than friendly reply.
'I will let them know you are out there so they don't annoy you'

Pretty amazing.
I'm not sure you would get the same reception up north.

[Roger Tufts]

Its still a golf course.  I don't think it matters if people can play it or not.

I'm going to have to agree with Sean here. If Pine Valley was unattainable to play, we'd all still drool over it as being the #1 golf course in the world. The same rings true for many, many others.

If it's there, it's there. It should be ranked. And if it's there, so is the dream to play it. Nothing is impossible

[Matt_Cohn]

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

[James Bennett]

Mike

Some of us have had the privilege to play some great courses that very few have played, but not yet played great courses that many have played.  A very small number of us have had the very rare privilege to play some of the most exclusive of courses.  However, as far as 'rankings' go, they are all just courses.  

I don't think it matters how 'private' or 'exclusive' the club is, they should all be considered, unless of course the club elects to not be involved in such a ranking (which applied in this particular situation last year IIRC).

There is a public access ranking as well, which eliminates so many great courses, but still leaves a great number of good courses.

James B

[Andrew Summerell]

Many of the exclusive courses that have been spoken of here have membership. I believe the one Mike is speaking of does not have a membership & he has been generous in stating that it has 10 rounds per week.

I believe this course in question should not be ranked.

[Justin Ryan]

Andrew, Wikipedia suggests this course which dare not be mentioned by name gets three rounds per week.

It gets a big run in Darius Olivers' Australia's Finest Golf Courses.

[Rich Goodale]

Just because Ellerston only gets 3-10 games per week doesn't mean it shouldn't be ranked.  In global terms, the amount of outside play relative to the golfing population at, say, Pine Valley is statistically very similar (if you believe the the Tom Paul Big World theory).  Also, I'd bet that some of the most important rankers, such as Doak, Morrisett, Nicklaus, Kavanaugh and Clayton wouldn't have much trouble getting a game there.

[Anthony Butler]

A fellow member at NSW who cracked the line-up at Ellerston claims he was one of 10 that day. James Packer had called up to say he would be there with 3 friends that afternoon. Kerry rang back 1/2 later to say that the course was closed and the James would be better off at work.

Considering the many humiliations Kerry suffered at the hands of his father Frank with tennis (infamous story of the raquet left at Geelong Grammar at the end of term) + sailing, it was not hard to understand Kerry's failure to invest in those sports. Therefore, I wonder how long James Packer is going to keep this course up... Unless things have changes over the last few years, he is definitely not as keen on the game as Kerry. Perhaps he will start to use it as a incentive for the high rollers in his Sydney gambling enterprises (like the Capital Club in Melbourne).

[Padraig Dooley]

golf course  

noun
 ground for golf: an area of land designed for playing the game of golf  


If it fits the description it should be rated.

[Mark_F]

Just because Ellerston only gets 3-10 games per week doesn't mean it shouldn't be ranked.  

Say Ellerston had no rounds played upon it, and was merely maintained as a golf course for weeks on end.

Should it still be ranked?

A lot of people thought Royal Melbourne's Composite Course shouldn't be ranked, because it didn't really exist except as a contrivance.

But RMs composite course was available at least once per year, and probably received more rounds on it that one occasion as Ellerston receives in a year.

So why shouldn't it, and every other once per year composite course, be ranked?

Ellerston, or The Capitol, should not be ranked.

[Rich Goodale]

Mark

From the little that I know, Ellerston is an integral golf course and any composite course (Royal Melbourne, The Country Club, etc.) is just a contrivance.

Rich

[Mark_F]

Rich,

But those contrivances have club competitions held over them, for which members can presumably put in cards for official handicap purposes.

[Rich Goodale]

Pretty much irrelevant, IMO, Mark.  You might as well classify the various "composite" layouts that could be derived from Royal Aberdeen and Murcar, or the Old and the New (and others) at St. Andrews, or Prestwick and Troon, or Dornoch and the Struie or the two MPCC tracks as "courses," just because somebody plays them cross-country, as it were, occasionally.

As Gertrude Stein once famously said, "A course is a course is a course."

[Craig Sweet]

Most people don't know, and don't care what a course is ranked...they only want to know how much to play, and can I get on?  Personally, I think ranking is a waste of time and serves no useful purpose for the people buying the magazines that do the ranking.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I've always thought the rankings were really about which courses set a fine architectural example for others to follow.  They certainly aren't about access, as many American clubs (starting with Augusta) are inaccessible to any of the readers.

So, if Ellerston is good enough, I'd put it on there.

[James Bennett]

I wouldn't suggest The Old Course 'Reverse' for ranking, would you?  It gets played more often than the Royal Melbourne Composite Course,

James B

[Kirk Gill]

Is there any parallel whatsoever between exclusivity and course quality? For you magazine panelists out there, do you think the fact that you might be one of the "utterly-exclusive-lucky-10" to play the course in question on a given day makes it such a special experience that your ratings might just be pumped up a bit by the posh-ness of it all? Or have you already accessed enough famous, exclusive clubs that it wouldn't make much of an impression? Or is it just a matter of professionalism?

[Mark Manuel]

Maybe I am missing something.  But isn't the reason we have the "Top 100 You Can Play" rankings?  

[Andrew Summerell]

The difference is, in Australia you can get on any course private or public if you really want to, except Ellerston & Capital. Even if you live in the same city as the course you can still get on. I’ve done it with the most exclusive courses in Sydney (my home town) & I have Melbourne friends who have done the same down there.

Australia doesn’t have fully private course/clubs like America does, which makes Ellerston stand out even more.

BTW, equating Pine Valley or Cypress Point to Ellerston does really stand up. I know many Australian who have played PV & CP (even AN), because those clubs have members who invite them. Ellerston has no members.

A question to the Australians: Has Frankston GC ever been considered for any list, as it is better than many Australian courses that make the back end of the top 100 list.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark.

We don't have a top 100 'you can play' list in Australia.

Kirk,

In this case Elleston is a pretty amazing place.Like Sand Hills you can see nothing but the surrounding country spreading out for miles.Unlike Sand Hills its not particularly walkable and the brief was to make it the hardest course in the country.
Its impressive and I assume people find it hard just to mark the quality of the architecture without being swayed by the quality of the experience.

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

Good point about Frankston.
Given Golf Australia only ranks 50 courses it's 9 holes at 3000 yards won't quite get it in the best 50.
Its a long way from either nine at Swinley Forest - but it is great fun especially for short hitters.

And anybody can sneak on and take a look