The Rolex World's Top 1000 Golf Courses

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

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

[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_A]

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_A]

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.

[PThomas]

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

i hereby volunteer to do so....of course i will need financial support so anyone interested please contact me directly....

[Ulrich Mayring]

I use the term "world class" in a broader way, for me it is about the top 2% of all courses. And I did not pull that number ouf of thin air, it is what you need to get into elite organisations such as Mensa (being among the top 2% performers). So "world class" is pretty far removed from a Top 100 list.

A Top 100 list would be the 0.3% best courses in the world. That is such an absurd level that I believe no one could ever play enough courses to make up a credible Top 100 list by himself.

About the dominance of older courses over newer ones: it does not seem surprising to me. Go into any museum of art that is not specialized, but has a broad collection from anything mankind has ever produced. You will find that at least 90% of the exhibits were made by old, dead guys. That is simply a function of time and mathematical probability.

Now, I do realise that the history of golf architecture is a tad shorter than that of art in general. So statistically we should expect more modern courses in the Top 100 than we routinely get in the various rankings. But a dominance of older layouts is absolutely to be expected.

In addition to that I wouldn't rank courses younger than 10 years in any Top 100 list, because a certain amount of longevity is an important part of the vetting process. No chef gets three Michelin stars right out of the gate, he has to work his way up from 1 and 2 stars, even though his cooking may have been 3 star level to begin with. Hype is always a factor and it takes a few years to die down.

Ulrich