[Jud_T]

Tom,

Are there any on the list that you haven't seen and are keen to get to given the chance?

[Adam_Messix]

Michael--

Franklin Hills is REALLY good!!!  The way the course works its way around the property through the hilly sections, onto the plateau, back into the hilliness, and finishing on the plateau is outstanding.  The lack of length in the par 5 holes keeps it off the really short list of greatest courses, however, the par 3 holes are absolute killers, particularly the two on the back nine.  Outstanding set of par 4 holes too, highlighted by the short, uphill 13th.  The greens are excellent stuff too.  I appreciate the membership of FHCC wanting to keep a low profile, but their course is awesome. 

[Cristian]

Christian:

I'll see as many as half the courses you listed in the next week or ten days.  But I would be surprised if I think many of them should qualify for the top 100.  Of course, I'm just a biased American -- though a pretty well-traveled one.  I was one of the four guys voting in favor of Hirono, Kawana and Morfontaine, after all.

I know you will, as we met very briefly on the 8th Tee of a Benelux course yesterday (monday). I actually live in the city where you are actually staying if I am not mistaken!

I am not saying all the courses I mentioned (with the exception of Haagsche and Morfontaine) should be top 100. I really have not played enough of the courses on the ballot to make a real educated judgement; I can only compare to the top 100 courses (11 or 12 of them) which I have played.

I do find it striking that St Germain is regarded in higher esteem than some of the courses I mentioned; I think it may have to do with the excellent profile on this website, which is a good thing because it just shows that unknown often equals unloved, as with many continental european courses, whether good enough for top 100 honours or not, but I guess you could probably tell me in 10 days or so!

PS I also voted for Morfontaine, that makes us two out of 4; I am guessing Mike Clayton is no. 3, so I wonder who number 4 is?

[Paul_Turner]

One more interesting point:
I believe at the beginning of this project Tom D suggested that a vote of 8 or higher is essentially a vote for a Top 100 course.  He appeared concerned that voters without experience would vote too many courses too high.  Interestingly, the 100th course on both lists is rated at only 7.4, and there are only 49 courses that received an 8.0 or higher rating in the "raw" rankings.  Any thoughts on this?

Ian:

That is the way it's supposed to work.  If giving a course an '8' means you think it's a top 100 course and giving it a '7' means you don't think it is, quite, than an average of 7.5 means half the panelists thought it should make the list and half didn't, and that's what it should take to just barely make the top 100.

The list of courses that had good votes but less than ten of them looks about right, too.  Too bad so few have played Hirono and Kawana and Morfontaine.  The only course I was surprised to see there was St. Germain, which had hardly any support for the GOLF Magazine list back when I ran it.

St Germain is a really nice course, but there are several better courses in continental europe; apart from Morfontaine Fontainebleau in France, Royal Zoute, Ravenstein (Belgium), Haagsche, Kennemer, De Pan (Netherlands) to name a few. Maintenance standards in Continental Europe usually are not on a par with those of courses in the UK or US, which I think hurts the ratings of these designs as well.

St Germain is every bit as good as those other Euro courses.  The land is flat but the design and how the holes play make up for it.  A course for the connaisseur and in great shape too.

[Cristian]

One more interesting point:
I believe at the beginning of this project Tom D suggested that a vote of 8 or higher is essentially a vote for a Top 100 course.  He appeared concerned that voters without experience would vote too many courses too high.  Interestingly, the 100th course on both lists is rated at only 7.4, and there are only 49 courses that received an 8.0 or higher rating in the "raw" rankings.  Any thoughts on this?

Ian:

That is the way it's supposed to work.  If giving a course an '8' means you think it's a top 100 course and giving it a '7' means you don't think it is, quite, than an average of 7.5 means half the panelists thought it should make the list and half didn't, and that's what it should take to just barely make the top 100.

The list of courses that had good votes but less than ten of them looks about right, too.  Too bad so few have played Hirono and Kawana and Morfontaine.  The only course I was surprised to see there was St. Germain, which had hardly any support for the GOLF Magazine list back when I ran it.

St Germain is a really nice course, but there are several better courses in continental europe; apart from Morfontaine Fontainebleau in France, Royal Zoute, Ravenstein (Belgium), Haagsche, Kennemer, De Pan (Netherlands) to name a few. Maintenance standards in Continental Europe usually are not on a par with those of courses in the UK or US, which I think hurts the ratings of these designs as well.

St Germain is every bit as good as those other Euro courses.  The land is flat but the design and how the holes play make up for it.  A course for the connaisseur and in great shape too.

Don't get me wrong, I really love St Germain, after I just played it, I was surprised by it's quality and I still think it is one of the courses with the most interesting bunkering and green sites I have ever seen. A course which I have recommended to many, on and off this website. I just feel the other courses I mentioned are also great designs on slightly more interesting land and therefore perhaps a notch above PSG; certainly not lesser courses in my view. Also I feel that these courses are no less than some of the courses in the bottom half of the GCA (or GM ) top 100. But I get the feeling that apart from the top 50-70 in the world there are some 200 courses (maybe more, maybe less) which are close together in quality that are candidates for the remaining 30-50 spots. Some continental European courses I feel do fit in this group of 200. Perhaps these are the courses which some would reward with a 7 and some with an 8 on the Doak scale.

[Tom_Doak]

Christian:

As of this morning I've walked all of the courses you named (plus Eindhoven), except for the French courses and Ravenstein, in the past 2 1/2 days.  I guess I saved the best for last -- de Pan.

I agree with you generally that most of those courses would be in the running for a list of the top 250 courses in the world.  But, except for Monfontaine, they are only likely to make the top 100 if you are trying to include a few courses from the Continent.  I loved de Pan -- I was tempted to ask if they had overseas memberships -- but I don't think I would rate it ahead of St. George's Hill and Swinley Forest and several others around London.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Are there any on the list that you haven't seen and are keen to get to given the chance?

Jud:

I just looked back at the list and the only two courses on it I haven't seen are Banff and Jasper.  They have been #1 and #3 on my list of courses to see for the past 15 years.  El Saler in Spain is #2, but I will cross it off the list next week.

I've only played 87 of the 100, and walked the rest.  I am not a belt-notcher and don't really care if I play them all.  But I would like to get back to places like St. George's and Myopia, which I've only visited once.  Nearly all of the top 50 I've seen or played multiple times:  in fact, I just looked back at the list again and the highest-ranked course I haven't seen multiple times is my own, Barnbougle Dunes!  Of course, I'm only counting seeing the finished product there ... I have not been back to play it since the Grand Opening five years ago yesterday.

[Jud_T]

Sounds like it's time for a swing down under after the next trip to China! (and you can check out that dogtrack they're building next door   ).  I don't envy you all the travel, but your frequent flyer mileage total must be something!

[Ian Andrew]

.

[Leo Barber]

Paraparaumu Beach?  Is it on the same level as Birkdale or Sebonack?

After several years in the ratings wilderness isn't it wonderful for Paraparaumu to actually be asked this question?

[Ian_L]

Hi all,

Following Kalen's suggestion, I have posted an excel file containing all (eligible) courses, with both adjusted and unadjusted rankings.  Exactly 300 courses received 10 or more votes in the "raw" rankings.
IMPORTANT: THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A "TOP 300" LIST AS WE DID NOT NOMINATE COURSES FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.  THERE MAY BE COURSES, ESPECIALLY THOSE RANKED BELOW #200, THAT WERE NOT NOMINATED BUT WOULD HAVE BEATEN OUT SOME OF THE "AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS" ON THE LIST.


The file:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ojoy0mn1yzj

Looking at the max/min, you'll notice even more people voting specific courses down.  The Castle Course at St. Andrews received a 3, and Old Head received a 2. (From the Doak Scale: “Play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer.”   Seems a bit dangerous at Old Head...)

The "most controversial" course, going by raw standard deviation, was the Castle Course, receiving votes from 3 to 9. The Castle Course received an average of 6.14 and a ranking of #267.

Sorry for the delay.

[Ian_L]

If you don't want to download, here are snapshots of the rankings, with all eligible courses included. 

Raw:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/ian8389/GCA/Raw_All.jpg

Adjusted:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/ian8389/GCA/Raw_All.jpg

Enjoy.

[Ian_L]

"Just Missed" (raw):

101   Pennard
102   Pete Dye Golf Club
103   Royal Troon
104   Old Sandwich Golf Club
105   Muirfield Village
106   Kittansett Club
107   Royal Cinque Ports
108   Chambers Bay
109   Peachtree Golf Club
110   California Golf Club


"Just Missed" (adjusted):

101   Old Town Club
102   Chambers Bay
103   Kapalua Golf Club (Plantation)
104   Oakland Hills Country Club (South)
105   Wild Horse Golf Club
106   Lawsonia Golf Club (Links)
107   Jasper Park
108   Pennard
109   Old Sandwich Golf Club
110   Gleneagles King's

[Sean_A]

Thanks Ian.  As I suspected, the list in total makes for very interesting reading.  After this perusal, the course which stands out the most is Wannamoisett.  It has a short spread of scores with the lowest rating a 7.  Other courses with such a high low rating are listed at least 30 spots ahead - what gives?.  This makes me think Wannamoisett is very, very good - punching well above its weight.  

It is also clear that there are several courses from the Low Sample list which some think very highly of and have a tight spread of scores.  Hamilton and Royal Zoute stand out as the two which surprise me and make me much more interested in them - especially Hamilton.  

Finally, I am amazed Pennard did so well, but I am cognizant of the high standard deviation of 1.35 - this probably tells the true story of the course being a polarizer.  Still, the lowest score being 5 ain't bad and it suggests people think the course is good.  It would be interesting to know who gave it a 10 and perhaps a 9.  Is Finegan a secret member of the board?  

Ian, as an aside, which are the highest rated courses which went through the nomination process? 

Thanks again Ian.  

Ciao

[Cristian]

"Just Missed" (raw):

101   Pennard
102   Pete Dye Golf Club
103   Royal Troon
104   Old Sandwich Golf Club
105   Muirfield Village
106   Kittansett Club
107   Royal Cinque Ports
108   Chambers Bay
109   Peachtree Golf Club
110   California Golf Club


"Just Missed" (adjusted):

101   Old Town Club
102   Chambers Bay
103   Kapalua Golf Club (Plantation)
104   Oakland Hills Country Club (South)
105   Wild Horse Golf Club
106   Lawsonia Golf Club (Links)
107   Jasper Park
108   Pennard
109   Old Sandwich Golf Club
110   Gleneagles King's

Ian,

Could you post the grades of courses which had less than 10 ratings?

Potential hidden gem bracket I think.

Thanks again for organising all this! (and replying to all the additional requests) ;-)

[George Freeman]

Seems like a pretty darn good list to me!  I can't really find anything way out of whack (IMO)...

Thanks for putting this together Ian (and others).  We should duplicate this exercise every 2-3 years.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,

Thanks for posting that up, I've downloaded it and will take some time to peruse it.

Once again, thanks for all the work on this, I know it was no small effort.

Kalen

[Sean_A]

Ian, as an aside, which are the highest rated courses which went through the nomination process? 

Ian

Nevermind, it looks like Rock Creek C Co was the only course to make the top 100 which came from the nominations process - unless I missed a course or two.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Intersesting to see the difference in placings for Woking and Worplesdon, given they sit side-by-side in the current Golf Monthly UK list.

We have Woking at 86 and Worplesdon at 218.

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott - Woking seems to be a GCA must see and Worplesdon isn't, now Worplesdon have opened up the course and removed 1000s of trees it will be interesting to see how people see the course.

It's a shame the research was done before Buda I'm sure a few people will have raised their mark or been able to mark Deal for the first time.

[Tony Weiler]

I've played so few of these I feel quite inadequate.  How many of the top 100 are "public" courses?  It does not appear to be many. 

[George Freeman]

Ian,

Can you post the GCA Unofficial Top 100 US list?

Thanks!

[Ian_L]

George, unfortunately I don't have the time to sort through all the courses to make a list of US courses, but  feel free to do so yourself with the full Excel file, found at:

http://www.mediafire.com/?ojoy0mn1yzj
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful there.

Christian, here is the list of courses with fewer than 10 votes.  You can check out the details in the full file (link above).  

St. Louis Country Club
Pronghorn Club (Nicklaus)
Boston Golf Club
Titirangi
Country Club of Fairfield
Karsten Creek Golf Club
Southern Highlands Golf Club
Lindrick
Little Aston
Crown Colony Golf Club
Quintero Golf and Country Club
Adare Manor
Hamilton
Pronghorn (Fazio)
Royal Zoute
Brookside Country Club
White Bear Yacht Club
Devil's Paintbrush
Harvester Golf Club
Concession
Briggs Ranch Golf Club
Machrie
Wairakei, N.Z.
Haagsche
Noordwijk
Forest Highlands Golf Club (Canyon)
Links of North Dakota at Red Mike Resort
West Hill
Broadstone
Flint Hills National Golf Club
Whippoorwill Country Club
Shaughnessy
Woburn Dukes
Morfontaine
Durban CC
El Saler
De Pan
The Rim
Hawktree Golf Club
St. Mellion (NIcklaus)
Beacon Hall
Chart Hills
White Witch, Jamaica
Alotian Club
Fontainebleau
Falsterbo
Woburn Marquess
Chantilly, France
Madison Club
Northland Country Club
Eindhoven
Pinnacle Point, S Africa
Royal Dar-es-Salaam (Red)
Sunnehanna Country Club
Abaco Club, Bahamas
Ferndown (Old)
Kinloch GC, New Zealand
Hirono
Kawana (Fuji)
St. Germain
Hankley Common
Tetherow
Hamburger GC
Pevero
Fancourt (Links), S Africa
The Stone Canyon Club
The Club at Black Rock
Olde Farm Golf Club
Praia d'El Rey
Lyford Cay, Bahamas
Leopard Creek, S Africa
Naruo
Punta Espada at Cap Cana
The Jockey Club (Red)
Tokyo Golf Club
Olivos GC
Mountaintop GC
Lahontan Golf Club
Carton House (Montgomerie)
Gulf Harbour
Ellerston
Nanea
Castletown Links
Halmstad
Les Bordes
Kasumigaseki (East)
Biella, Italy
Club Zur Vahr, Bremen
Gary Player CC, Sun City
Aldeburgh
Club de Campo Madrid
Goodwood
Seven Canyons Golf Course
Remedy Oak
Lagos de Caujaral, Colombia
The Powder Horn
Emirates GC (Wadi)
Peninsula Papagayo, Costa Rica
Sandy Lane (Green Monkey)
Troia
Blue Canyon, Thailand
S.C. Berlin (Faldo)
Spring City (Lake), China

No votes:
Club de Golf Mexico
El Rincon, Colombia
Los Leones, Chile
Mission Hills (Norman), China
Nine Bridges, Korea
Nirwana Bali, Indonesia
Phoenix CC, Miyazaki
Pine Valley, Beijing
Tiger Beach, China



I think the best ranking would be a website where members can continuously update their ratings with the courses they play (or replay).  Something like those lame course rating websites, but with more control over who enters.  However, it would definitely need to be its own entity so as not to be associated with gca.com .  And it would certainly be a huge project well beyond my capabilities.

[Richard Hetzel]

I am sad; I have only played 1 of these courses: Camargo CC.........great list BTW!

[Jim Nugent]

The raw list is unusable for this ranking exercise.  It is statistically unstable.  A course ranking with low samples could potentially shift wildly with just one more added vote.  Hard to compare just such a course against a stable high sampled course.

Ian’s first list with 10 or more votes presented is marginally useable.  

Statisticians like 30 or more votes for a normally distributed set of numbers (think Bell Curve) before they are generally comfortable calling the numbers converged (stable).  Statisticians are so uncomfortable with sample populations sets of less than 30 that they invented little tricks to "adjust" for small populations (called small population corrections).  

Our votes for any given course are excellent examples of a normally distributed set of numbers - plot a histogram for any course with more than 30 or so votes and damn near every one of them resembles an expected Bell Curve.  

Ian had 177 raters participate generating 8404 votes over 412 courses.  One quarter of the courses were thrown out because they had less than 10 votes.  If you applied the stricter 30-vote minimum criteria – 3/4s of the courses would have been tossed.

For a course database of this size (412) Ian would need something in the neighborhood of 20,000-30,000 more votes, or a couple three hundred more raters, to generate a statistically converged list of 30 or more samples for all 412 courses.

Ian's exercise falls way short of this.  But his results are surprisingly good (no real Oh-my-Gods).

The second list is scientifically far more defendable than the first, especially in light of the low number of samples.

JC

I agree we should omit courses with few votes.  The cutoff number is a bit arbitrary, though Jonathan explained the issues well. 

I do not agree we should throw out votes considered too far from the average.  By doing that we are manufacturing consensus.  We are saying that those who disagree too much with the mean don't count.  "Too much" in this case is two SDs.  For some courses that means we don't count scores that deviate more than one Doak point from the average. 

Take Pine Valley.  Almost all its votes are 10s.  But at least one person gave it a 7.  While I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the 7, I don't see why that vote should count less than those who gave it a 9 or 10.  I also don't see why we should not count any 8s for PV.  But that's what Jonathan's model does. 

Have a different opinion than the masses.  Your opinion doesn't count?  Especially when that is the exact thing we are trying to do: calculate opinions? 

Many courses on the list do not show Bell Curve (normal) distributions in their voting.  For each of the top 8 ranked courses, more than half the votes are 10s.  The rest of the votes are all clustered around the highest scores.  This is not a normal distribution.  Is it really statistically valid to erase scores that are more than 2 SDs from the mean, given this kind of distribution?   

Finally, the sample is so small, dropping votes could make a big difference.  Say a course gets 13 votes.  We throw out 3, because they are more than 2 SD's from the mean.  We are not counting 23% of the vote.  We also are dramatically changing the final score.  Not surpising, considering we just tossed out nearly a quarter of all scores. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()