next »

[Andrew Mitchell]

I received a flyer from Amazon this morning regarding this new book, due to be published next week.

The authors are Gaetan Mourgue D'Algue, Bruce Critchley (Sky TV Golf commentator), Peter Pugh (involved in the recent Colt book which has had it critics here) and Kristel Mourgue D'Algue.

Anyone know anything this book or seen an advance copy?

Is it a completely new product or just a updated edition?

Just wondering if it's worth buying.

[astavrides]

It depends--how much does it cost?

Can you jot down the top 1000 here, so we can comment on it?  

Has anyone played all of them?

[Donal OCeallaigh]

I guess alarm bells should ring when the title begins with a sponsor/company name. I would steer clear of it IMO.

Dónal.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Andrew

I too would be interested, not so much for course updates but for the travel and hospitality related stuff.

As we've discussed, I've found the Peugeot edition (and now I see there have been editions published after mine) greatly helpful.

I also think their approach to reviewing courses is vastly preferable to the American magazines' sham ratings, not just for process but for using a cardinal system for output.

As for that output, they do a decent job sorting courses, best of all leaving the "20" category empty, perhaps the wisest comment ever found in any of these mythical ratings efforts.

Mark

[Tony_Muldoon]

Andrew

I too would be interested, not so much for course updates but for the travel and hospitality related stuff.Mark

Interesting that I feel the opposite. That sort of info gets so quickly out dated that the need for it in a book is superflous now we've moved past the times of WW1 and 11 into WWW! 

The Peugeot branding works in a nod to Michelin, but Rolex and the names of the authors do not fill me with confidence that the book might offer us anything new. We shall see.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tony

I feel just the opposite re Rolex.  Namely I'm more confident in an effort sponsored by a company that wants to sell a nongolf product than one sponsored by a company that is selling a golf-related product.

Think about how compromised the magazines are in this.  Rolex doesn't need golf course ad revenues, doesn't care which course goes where in a stupid list.  They just want to sell watches to rich people.

Regarding the WWW, to paraphrase an American sporting term, on paper it always wins; however, in the real world I've discovered:
1) You can't believe everything you read on the Internet, including GCA.com -> some sources are better than others, and a priori it can be very difficult to discern which sources are crap.
2) Going on the Internet can be a hugely inefficient, time-sucking exercise.

As a side note, I see this is a *world* list.  My Peugeot covers Europe.  Andrew or Tony, do you know if the Rolex effort is separate?

Hope both of you are well
Mark

[Steve Okula]

The Mourgue D'Algues, Gaeton the father and Kristel the daughter, are also mainly responsible for publishing the Peugeot Guide these past ten years.

[John_Conley]

It's going to be real interesting when the list comes out.  You think there are complaints when such-and-such course doesn't make a Top 100...

[Richard Choi]

I guess alarm bells should ring when the title begins with a sponsor/company name. I would steer clear of it IMO.

Why? "Michelin" star system is the gold standard in rating restaurants.

[Matt_Ward]

The issue for me with any such listing -- is have all the top 1,000 been personally played -- were they played by the same person or are the assessments some form of consensus? Also, under what sort of time frame were the assessments done. For example, if a course was rated from 4 to 5 years ago -- has anyone played it in a much more timely fashion.

The title sounds marvelous but the methodology makes me curious to the actual process followed.

[Stuart Hallett]

I find the Peugeot guide a very honest effort in doing a nearly impossible job. It is a very helpful guide and the Mourgue d'Algue's have an excellent golfing culture, worldwide ! That surely helps.

[Chuck Brown]

All I know is that I want to make restaurant reservations as "Gaetan Mourgue D'Algue."

[Sean Arble]

The idea isn't bad, but like the Peugeot Guide, its far too ambitious.  The Peugeot Guide should have ignored GB&I because its out of its depth in this area as some of the ratings suggest.  That said, like Mark states, I like their approach much better than the usual nonsense.  However, there is nothing worth while this book can tell me about a course I don't know of because it can't properly focus on 1000 courses - its way too many to give me any real insight.  Bottom line, I shall not purchase the book.  To be honest, the entire theme of golf books in any genre are for the most part middling to poor.  Its time we had proper writers with something to say writing golf books. Its much better to have Patric Dickinson's proper take on 18 courses than to have Joe Blogg's take on 1000 courses. 

Ciao  

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Rest assured, there is no way that set of authors have played all 1000 of the courses they will list.  I'd bet a hundred euro that they have not even played half of them.

But, if there really was a consensus list of the top 1000 courses in the world, I would be willing to wager I only know one person who has PLAYED more than half of them (I might have seen more than half, but I certainly haven't played that many).  Can you think of anybody who would have?  I guess if fully half of them are in America, then there are a few people who would have played 400 out of those 500, and maybe 100 others abroad.

I agree with Mark B. that the magazines are all compromised in the lists they put out, but at least they have some incentive to try and get out a better list than their competitors.  Rolex has no real incentive to get their list right, and it's highly unlikely they would spend the time or money to double-check themselves.  Most likely they will just list every golf course that's ever made a top 100 list, plus all of the GOLF DIGEST international listings, and then round out the list with their own favorites and those in which their friends have a financial interest.

[JC Jones]

Matt:

Rest assured, there is no way that set of authors have played all 1000 of the courses they will list.  I'd bet a hundred euro that they have not even played half of them.

But, if there really was a consensus list of the top 1000 courses in the world, I would be willing to wager I only know one person who has PLAYED more than half of them (I might have seen more than half, but I certainly haven't played that many).  Can you think of anybody who would have?  I guess if fully half of them are in America, then there are a few people who would have played 400 out of those 500, and maybe 100 others abroad.

I agree with Mark B. that the magazines are all compromised in the lists they put out, but at least they have some incentive to try and get out a better list than their competitors.  Rolex has no real incentive to get their list right, and it's highly unlikely they would spend the time or money to double-check themselves.  Most likely they will just list every golf course that's ever made a top 100 list, plus all of the GOLF DIGEST international listings, and then round out the list with their own favorites and those in which their friends have a financial interest.

Who is this man of mystery?  My guess is John Mayhugh.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The Man of Mystery is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2SSZA0CjdQ

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  I don't think I've ever met John Mayhugh.

The guy I was referring to is my friend Masa Nishijima from Tokyo, who was interviewed on this site a few years ago.  He used to take tour groups from Japan to all of the best courses in Britain and Europe and America and Australia.  When we listed 400-500 contenders for the top 100 courses in the world, Masa would vote on 350 of them ... 50 more than anybody else.

[Carl Rogers]

It seems to me that with the proliferation of world golf, it is getting more and more problematic to determine the top beyond the top 25.

How would any of you like to approach the problem of rankings?  Should there be any rankings?  Can there be a number 1?

As stated by many, how can anyone play enough courses!!??

[Adam Lawrence]

Assuming they are using the same methodology as the Peugeot guide, then they have a team of anonymous inspectors, as the Michelin guide does for restaurants, and every course is visited by one of those inspectors. See www.peugeotgolfguide.com and click on Our Commitment for the details.

I don't always agree with the Peugeot ratings, but the modus operandi is very sound.

[Robert Thompson]

For what is is worth, I did the Canadian course reviews for the book.... done through a web form. My understanding is the writers are using the information of the reviewers. They certainly studied all the ratings lists for Canada to come up with a group for me to offer my perspective. I'll be intrigued at seeing how the book comes out -- but I think it is still a few months away.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Allow me to respond to what you forwarded to me ...

Playing the courses from a singular point of view is more helpful for me than having some sort of vague Zagat's approach to putting something together and then proclaiming it as being the definitive guide to stellar golf.

The problem Tom is that too many of the old time courses are presumed to be great and a good many in the modern more recent time frame are held on the sideline. You're right -- likely the folks involved here would go the buffet route -- being sure to lump courses that have ever been rated and then ipso facto are now a part of their grand 1,000 total. What baloney.

Tom, let me say this - the reason I value "Confidential Guide" is that it applies a consistent approach (yours) to what constitures quality golf design. You articulated your floor on what makes for great, not so great, so-so and below grade assessments. I don't have to agree with it 100% --- likely no one would -- but I learn more from the singular take you provide then to go through some mindless exericse where numbers are crunched from people who have played / seen some of the courses but likely nowhere near anything of real consequence.

Tom, if there's no "real incentive" then what's the point in buying it. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where lists -- of any type and produced by whatever means -- are thrown forward for the buyers (suckers) to absorb as being something of consequence -- when in actuallity little is really produced.

I'm not saying that a cumulative listing can't be done -- no doubt it's all opinion -- but I'd rather have an opinion that is consistent in their application of their rationale and who has demonstrated a zeal to get to the key players firsthand.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I agree with you entirely.  But, that means a really good ranking of 1,000 courses just can't be done.  Nobody has seen them all, or even close.

[Mark Bourgeois]

All that may be true but the value to me of the Peugeot guide is as a travel planner:
http://peugeotgolfguide.com/gb/int.htm

Additionally, there's a section listing nearest airport by club.

Mark

[Ulrich Mayring]

Actually I also find ratings valuable for travel planning. That is why I have organised my ratings on a map (see link in my signature). This way people can just zoom in on the part of the world they are interested in and see if any courses are rated there.

Obviously, my 100 courses do not amount to much and even 1000 would not nearly be enough. But I hope to one day be able to combine my map with others in a collaborative fashion. The key points for me are that

a) any attempt at objectivity is bound to fail
b) raters must not be anonymous
c) raters must be independent

Ulrich

[Matt_Ward]

Ulrich:

Who said that objectivity is going to happen in an exercise in which opinion is the primary element ?

The issue is whether you get a real consistency to what is listed. When you throw into the picture a ton of people to provide "consensus" findings you get watered down results.

When I see a listing of 1,000 courses all of that is likely no more than the inclusion of courses through various assumptions gleaned from other already printed results. As Tom D mentioned -- people simply include various courses from previous findings and then bundle that into some larger entity and pronounce it to whatever end result they wish. It's really low brow info because there's been no firsthand accounts from the people doing the reviewing. Just simply throw info together -- slap a brand name on to it for the purposes of commercial gain and people will simply buy it. Not a bad formula for those who don't want something deeper and more comprehensive.

[Donal OCeallaigh]

I think the whole exercise is futile. Most publications cannot even rate the top 100 courses properly. I'm not questioning the end result, it's the dubious methods they use. Take for example Golf Digest (Ireland). They produced a top 100 list in 2008. So what did they do for 2009? Here a snippet from the Irish Independent:

"After the publication of last year's list, the magazine contacted all of the courses on this island, requesting information on any work that was being undertaken.

Correspondence was received from 83 of these clubs (96 courses), an increase of over 30pc from last year, outlining the great work that had been undertaken in their club. In total 37 clubs moved up the list, 45 moved down, 10 remained the same and there were eight new entries."

Why would you need to conatct the clubs? It's clear that they wanted to avoid playing the courses again (or did they even play them all for the 2008 rankings?)

A number of years ago, another Irish publication was exposed after it was discovered that many of the panelists had'd even seen some of the courses they rated. Many established courses were included on account of their reputation and history.

Dónal.

[Ulrich Mayring]

The issue is whether you get a real consistency to what is listed. When you throw into the picture a ton of people to provide "consensus" findings you get watered down results.

Absolutely, too many cooks spoil the food in this case. But, as Tom Doak said, you're not going to find someone, who played a sensible number of courses. To come up with a list of the 100 best courses I'd say you'd have to play at least 1000, probably more. There is no way to do that. But I have another idea:

I think it would be possible for one person to come up with a decent regional list, such as in my case for Germany (not reasonable yet, but realistic to achieve one day). If you have one person for each region you could get good coverage and some consistency. Then, in order to calibrate that person against the others, you look at some of their out-of-regions reviews. In my case you could look at how I rated Saunton, St Enodoc and Royal North Devon and compare these reviews with the ones from the regional guy in Cornwall/Devon. That will tell you what to make of my ratings and of his.

I don't know of any ratings system that provides consistency or even just accountability, but here's one that at least has good coverage:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/

Ulrich

[Dschmidt]

If Itasca CC is ranked anything less than #783, this whole system is rigged and biased.  That's at least the #658 course in the world.

[Matt_Ward]

Ulrich:

You missed my point -- the top 1000 idea is a smoke screen to simply hype the brand name of the sponsoring company. Why not rate the top 10,000 for all that matters.

"Sensible" numbers can be had -- on a regional or simply a national basis as you mentioned.

However ...

Your noble, but misguided idea that one can "calibrate" ratings based on what a person rates from another country is equally flawed. Once you head down the road of consensus you have watered-down results. The problem with consensus is that it provides for a maintenance of the usual suspects. Frankly, I personally believe -- from the various trips I have made over 30 plus years that the modern layouts of today have to battle far harder for overall visibility than the automatic stature that is bestowed upon a number of old time so-called "classic" courses that have benefited solely because of their age and perceived greatness -- often tied to the fact that they are likely in the general neighborhood of more well-deserved other classic courses.

Doak's CG book for me is the quintessential analysis of golf courses from a set perspective -- no doubt it's dated now but it is the model by which future other attempts should use a guide for doing such projects, in my opinion.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, calibration does not mean consensus. It provides a mapping from one reviewer's style and opinions to another. By reading a number of reviews from the same person you are getting to know that person's likes and dislikes. That will tell you whether to take him up on his reviews or not. That is exactly what Tom Doak's book did for you, so now you trust his opinion, when he talks about a golf course you are not familiar with. You go play that course, if Doak recommends it.

Now, suppose a new reviewer comes onto the scene and reviews some of the same courses Doak did. When you compare the reviews and find they resonate, you may be inclined to trust the new reviewer's opinion as well. Call it a chain of trust

Well, at least that is the general concept. No idea if it flies though

One thing seems clear though: you cannot calibrate against consensus (or computed) rankings.

Ulrich

[Sean Arble]

Ulrich

While I don't think its possible rate 1000 courses accurately in a book (I am not even sure its desirable because nothing much can be said about each course in a book that size) I absolutely agree with the concept of "chain of trust".  It works well once a golfer has played enough very good courses and gets a feel of what he is looking for and how to spot quality.  Eventually, because our tastes differ, we all start to build up a personal hierarchy of what is worth seeing again and what isn't.  In part, this is why I sort of liked Mayday's idea of distinctiveness in architecture.  If not taken too far (because there are bound to be countless exceptions), the idea is a cool blend of personal likes and hard nose evaluation.  I think Doak essentially does the same sort of thing in a bonus sort of way with "originality".     

The bottom line is when I find a reviewer which blends well with my take on things (say give or take 10-15%), then I learn to trust him.  So far as I know, but with a few glaring differences, Doak is the only guy I have come across who has published a critical evaluation of courses that I trust.  Of course it helps Doak's cause in that most reviewers don't write with a critical eye - they write to please as if protecting some sacred turf.  I would love to see more books like Doak's come out but much more focused on a region so as a more in depth analysis could be included.  For example, I long believed that the World Atlas of Golf could have written a separate volume from an evaluation PoV rather than a celebratory PoV.  The fan loyalty and quality contribution from authors is in place.  The graphics, format and pot histories are in place.  A bit of tweaking and Bob's yer uncle.

BTW - I have looked at your (not sure what you call it) blog about courses.  Its a good take and separates you from the crowd.  My only problem is that I think you must be rating courses too highly if 10 is the tops.  You have a load of 7s and higher so far and that is basically the minimum sort of area to be considered world class imo.  But who knows, perhaps you will pull a Spinal Tap and go to 11!

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

My ratings are not the Doak scale, so a 7 is not world class. The rationale is explained here. World class would start at, perhaps 8+ or 9-.

I do not rank the "greatest" courses, but all courses that I played.

Ulrich

[Sean Arble]

My ratings are not the Doak scale, so a 7 is not world class. The rationale is explained here. World class would start at, perhaps 8+ or 9-.

I do not rank the "greatest" courses, but all courses that I played.

Ulrich

Ulrich

You are probably right.  I don't see a marked difference between your scale and Doak's, but Doak would probably agree that an 8 and above on his scale belongs in a top 100 world discussion with the odd 7 perhaps able to push up to make up the numbers (I don't really know how many 8s, 9s & 10s Doak has). 

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

The Peugeot guide is good example of why not to assign number ratings to golf courses.  It does however provide a decent list of courses worth playing in a country and includes some hidden gems.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

The fanciful idea that a "chain of trust" can be developed is quite interesting but a stretch nonetheless. Once you lump people together you inevitably get a consensus outcome produced. Too many eyes will cerainly split into different priorities and preferences -- as a result you get some sort of merged final outcome.

Is that helpful?

Possibly.

But I much prefer the solitary approach taken by Doak in CG. I learn more from one perspective -- provided I truly believe that the foundation by which such a person is judging a course(s) has some compelling reasoning attached to it. I don't agree with all of what Doak said in CG -- but the strength of the book comes from his desire to state his viewpoint without being contaminated by all the others who would be lumped together in some sort of hodge-podge. Chain of trust is nothing more than a hodge podge of different people.

I do agree that far too often courses that are eventually rated develop their own standing to stay in place -- sometimes forever. Courses and the architecture they possess will evolve over time and those who wish to step into the breach and provide their own comments -- should relfect these changes. Two solid cases in point -- ANGC and Oakmont. Doak's book came out before ANGC went on the Hootie mission of narrowing the course and adding second cut and more trees. Oakmont, on the other hand, went the other way, it eliminated scores of trees and the layout returned to the grandeur of its original premise.

Digest tried to take the viewpoints of a range of people --- now they use 800+ people. The result is that certain courses have been included for so long that they automatically maintain their position no matter what happens. On the flip side -- the new and relatively modern layouts have a much more daunting time in getting evaluated to start with. Places like The Kingsley Club and Black Mesa, for me at least, are as solid a layouts as one can imagine but for reasons unknown to me -- are not listed so highly if at all.

This attempt at 1,000 courses is a wonderful way for Rolex to get noticed. The company has a clear interest in the golf industry and I salute the attempt by the authors to provide something of interest. I don't see it being meaningful because as Doak correctly surmised it's likely that few of the courses were actually played by the authors themselves and were simply added because of reputation and other third hand accounts.

Final point -- reviews should always be done with a critical perspective -- and not a "celebratory" one. No doubt the idea of one versus the other will inevitably rest with the person reading the account and whether they agree with it or not.

At the end of the day -- the outcomes are always decided by opinions -- the issue is whether such opinions have merit because of the research and desire to probe beyond the surface of past accounts. Courses do not remain static and the folks involved with critical analysis of their standing should not either in my mind.