[Tom Birkert]

The list is here

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/courses/tophundredandtwenty/279009/golf-monthly-top-100-course-rankings-1-100.html

Some rather, er, interesting rankings, although I think they should be taken with a pinch of salt given the criteria they use and the lack of experience of their panel - it's basically just the magazine editors and a few readers.

A personal favourite of mine is the K Club being 16 spots above Prestwick!! Astonishing...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yeah, this one is to be taken with a large pinch of salt... As discussed on a couple of previous threads, the only rankings even worth a look are the Golf World ones...

[Chris Kane]

A personal favourite of mine is the K Club being 16 spots above Prestwick!! Astonishing...

It must be seriously good if its better than Prestwick. 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Suppose those GCAers who live in GB and I were to try to devise our own top 100. How would we go about it? How would we deal with the fact that probably none of us has played every course in contention? What would our criteria for judgement be? How would we weight our criteria? As golf course architecture is what interests us how do we prevent its dominating our judgement? Or are we basically dead against ratings?

[Sean_A]

Suppose those GCAers who live in GB and I were to try to devise our own top 100. How would we go about it? How would we deal with the fact that probably none of us has played every course in contention? What would our criteria for judgement be? How would we weight our criteria? As golf course architecture is what interests us how do we prevent its dominating our judgement? Or are we basically dead against ratings?

Mark

All good questions.  I don't mind ratings at all.  We all have preferences so the only way to get a reasonable representation is to either have a trustworthy benign dictator (otherwise known as the Wardian Method) or a large panel of a cross section of those involved with the game.  The cross section of panel members is where most systems go astray.  The cross sections don't cross enough!  In other words, the punter is left out of the conversation and these are the people who actually pay to play.  We are left with too much "expert opinion" or free loaders telling us what is best.  I am sorry, but I have always believed that a freeloader is too easily (or at the very least left open to the charge) taken in by the extras.  I would rather a healthy mix of experts and punters and if this were done, I think the ranking would look quite different. 

What I find funny is the attempt to place a ranking number with a course.  It just can't be done with any sense of scientific method or whatever method a panel chooses to use.  It is far more sensible to have clusters in which it would seem reasonable that any of the courses in that group could be the best so why try to assign a number?

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

A personal favourite of mine is the K Club being 16 spots above Prestwick!! Astonishing...

It must be seriously good if its better than Prestwick. 

  Prestwick for visitors on the weekend is now 160 pounds $320 american.

[Dean Stokes]

A personal favourite of mine is the K Club being 16 spots above Prestwick!! Astonishing...

It must be seriously good if its better than Prestwick. 

  Prestwick for visitors on the weekend is now 160 pounds $320 american.

264 pounds please

[Andrew Mitchell]

As mentioned on the Golf World thread the GM rankings have generally been considered more unreliable being a readers poll rather than a golf industry poll.

This year's listings seem to have toned down some of the anomalies, Dornoch has moved from 51 to 17 (but still too high IMO), but there are still some left.  The K Club can surely only be ranked so high on the basis of the exposure given by the Ryder Cup, likewise the Belfry.  Whilst I agree with Sean that you can't scientifically give each course an exact number how can Cruden Bay be ranked as low as 86, and is Moortown really better than Alwoodley?

Mark Pearce will however be delighted to see Muirfield ranked number 1 ahead of Turnberry

[Mark Pearce]

As mentioned on the Golf World thread the GM rankings have generally been considered more unreliable being a readers poll rather than a golf industry poll.

This year's listings seem to have toned down some of the anomalies, Dornoch has moved from 51 to 17 (but still too high IMO), but there are still some left.  The K Club can surely only be ranked so high on the basis of the exposure given by the Ryder Cup, likewise the Belfry.  Whilst I agree with Sean that you can't scientifically give each course an exact number how can Cruden Bay be ranked as low as 86, and is Moortown really better than Alwoodley?

Mark Pearce will however be delighted to see Muirfield ranked number 1 ahead of Turnberry

Some sanity at last!

Like you, however, I really can't see how Moortown can be ahead of Alwoodley.

I suspect that, rather like wine critics, the best thing with golf courses is to find a critic or commentator whose views you can calibrate and rely on their opinions.  Panels don't work with scoring wines and I don't think they work with golf courses either.  A recommendation from Sean or Philip is more of a recommendation than  a high placing in one of these publications.  I hope one day to play enough golf in the States to see if Matt Ward is the Robert Parker of the golf world!

[Mark Chaplin]

Anthony Gray - I am happy to buy as many parcels of US$ at $320 to £160 as I can. The cost of a day at Prestwick is around $256 now.

I'm planning a club tour to Chicago, Toledo and Boston next year and the cost has been going up by 1% or more each day of late.

As for the GM ratings they always appear to favour the clubs with good PR and hospitality.

[Marty Bonnar]

Some great comments/thoughts, Gents.
I find myself agreeing somewhat with Arbs (and that's always pretty scary! ).
I generally avoid ratings as they are to me too confining and somewhat irrelevant. I'm just not that interested in other golfers opinions. Let's face it - most of them are eedjits (I know I am!)
I do however have to comment on Kingsbarns at #8. #8!!! Woweekazowee. Maybe these guys do know what they're talking about.
Then again...

FBD.

[Bill_McBride]

Where does Painswick rank? 

With regard to rankings, I would always prefer to follow the John Conley model (Orlando area rankings) and rank courses by the decile rather than 1-2-3.  Top 10, second 10, etc, is a lot easier to figure out.  How can one decide between Muirfield and the Old Course, but it's pretty easy to say they are both top 10.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Where does Painswick rank? 

Was not top 1000 in Golf World.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Where does Painswick rank? 

With regard to rankings, I would always prefer to follow the John Conley model (Orlando area rankings) and rank courses by the decile rather than 1-2-3.  Top 10, second 10, etc, is a lot easier to figure out.  How can one decide between Muirfield and the Old Course, but it's pretty easy to say they are both top 10.

Bill
Many years ago that was how Golf World used to do their rankings by grouping courses as top 10, second 10 etc.  As part of the recent GW UK ratings issue there was a table which gave all the ratings for every featured course each year since they started.  I haven't got it to hand at the moment but I think they started the rankings in the 1980s and the first three or four were just groupings rather than allocating a specific rank to each course.

Presumably they think they sell more copies when courses are individually ranked.

[Bill_McBride]

Where does Painswick rank? 

Was not top 1000 in Golf World.

But Top 10 in quirk and appeal to fans of quirk!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Where does Painswick rank? 

Was not top 1000 in Golf World.

But Top 10 in quirk and appeal to fans of quirk!

Bill - Even higher!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()