[Bill Gayne]

I'm ok with the list I would move courses around such as Ballybunion into the the top ten with #s 8,9, 10. and 12 being lower. Move Enniscrone higher while backing up Carne and/or Sligo.

With all of these list it's courses of very high caliber and you are splitting hairs. It's nothing more than a compilation of opinions.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I'm curious as to why some of you guys find the rankings depressing and disappointing. Surprising; maybe, but depressing and disappointing; surely not. Why should it matter?

Donal maybe it’s so depressing because they are a further indication of how the market is going?  Developers will look at trends and hope to get their new product in.

For the life of me I can’t see TEC as top 40 or Waterville as top 75.  They just don’t appeal and yet they are trumpeted as 'modern links'.

As I point out here

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46001.0/

Pennard is apparently not good enough for their top 200, yet in another man’s eyes its Top 20 in the world.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Given the volume of Championship or Tournament courses up around the Top20 or so would lead me to believe that many there prefer difficulty over quality ?

It appeared that way to me also... Although I'd say difficulty and fairness... By the voting (and at a wild guess), it looks like the list may be a little top-heavy with pros, ex-pros and administrators who listen to pros...

That said, generally speaking I think it's a good list but a very conservative one...

[Pete_Pittock]

Wentworth (West) dropped three spots despite or because of the massive facelift? 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think you have to understand this list is compiled by 100 people very involved in golf, pro's, archiects, photographers, top amateurs and regional hirearcy, these people know a lot of courses and their opinions are collated. This is the defiinitive list and the one to count. If you dont agree with it and it depresses you, that is sad because its a the GCA minority opinion striking again.  These ratings are scoring points for different things like. The best courses are not quirky. The best courses are long. The best courses are tough. The best courses are in good condition. The best courses dont have cows on them. If you did a readers poll it would favour the newer resorty stuff even more. Courses are marked down if they have too many drive and pitch holes, tournaments dont go to those courses because they are not tough enough, the 6500 yarders are the ones that will probably fall further in time.
The mass public like green stripey grass, waterfalls, carts. I dont what % of Americans fly in to play British Golf and go to Painswick or even Pennard but its not big.....just accept that GCA is often the minority opinion.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think you have to understand this list is compiled by 100 people very involved in golf, pro's, archiects, photographers, top amateurs and regional hirearcy, these people know a lot of courses and their opinions are collated. This is the defiinitive list and the one to count. If you dont agree with it and it depresses you, that is sad because its a the GCA minority opinion striking again.  These ratings are scoring points for different things like. The best courses are not quirky. The best courses are long. The best courses are tough. The best courses are in good condition. The best courses dont have cows on them. If you did a readers poll it would favour the newer resorty stuff even more. Courses are marked down if they have too many drive and pitch holes, tournaments dont go to those courses because they are not tough enough, the 6500 yarders are the ones that will probably fall further in time.
The mass public like green stripey grass, waterfalls, carts. I dont what % of Americans fly in to play British Golf and go to Painswick or even Pennard but its not big.....just accept that GCA is often the minority opinion.

This post is entirely accurate. There is not a word that I don't agree with.

However, I will add that a body of people (no matter how small) can be the beginning of culture change or change in mass thinking. And once those wheels of change are in motion, they can gain momentum relatively quickly, no matter how unlikely the outcome appeared to be at the start.

If those that believe that there is more to a good golf course than how fast the greens play on any particular day don't shout about it, then who will?

Still, I think the list is pretty good - It's not like there are any outrageous placements based on service or perceived wealth (e.g. The K-Club in the Top-20)

[Sean_A]

I think you have to understand this list is compiled by 100 people very involved in golf, pro's, archiects, photographers, top amateurs and regional hirearcy, these people know a lot of courses and their opinions are collated. This is the defiinitive list and the one to count. If you dont agree with it and it depresses you, that is sad because its a the GCA minority opinion striking again.  These ratings are scoring points for different things like. The best courses are not quirky. The best courses are long. The best courses are tough. The best courses are in good condition. The best courses dont have cows on them. If you did a readers poll it would favour the newer resorty stuff even more. Courses are marked down if they have too many drive and pitch holes, tournaments dont go to those courses because they are not tough enough, the 6500 yarders are the ones that will probably fall further in time.
The mass public like green stripey grass, waterfalls, carts. I dont what % of Americans fly in to play British Golf and go to Painswick or even Pennard but its not big.....just accept that GCA is often the minority opinion.

Adrian

This list can't be all about popular opinion. I see Nefyn rightfully dropped out!  Additionally, your outline can't be what it is ALL about or surely we would see Wallasey on that list.  If there are 60 better courses in GB&I I might as well....

I wouldn't be surprised if the only Yanks to have ever flown over, sought out and played Painswick are or were members of this board.  I can't say the same for Pennard; a significant number Yanks pay green fees.  There is no question Pennard's profile is on the rise.  Its another question if many of the Yanks replay Pennard - tee hee. 

What I want to know is, how does Pennard rank 55 on this site http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/topcourses.asp?Move=Next&id=1 if all they do is use various published rankings and them come up with some formula for their top 100?  I have never seen Pennard ranked in the top 100 (even on the unofficial/non-sanctioned GCA.com ranking) anywhere except that site - very strange.   

Scott - did Wallsey make the top 200?

Ally is right though, with a few glaring exceptions (incuding Beau Desert) this list is okay.  Still, imo, the best list for the GB&I is without question the above linked site.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Adrian:

I think you have to understand this list is compiled by 100 people very involved in golf, pro's, archiects, photographers, top amateurs and regional hirearcy,

Wouldn't they be better off focusing on choosing people with knowledge and interest concerning golf courses and golf architecture?

Looking at the list, the presence of pros and photographers is obvious. It seems length/difficulty, views and tournament history are the major factors than win votes... only one of those things has any impact on how much fun a course is to play and it has nought to do with the architecture.

Golf World can do what they like, but I think a preamble to the list explaining what was evaluated would help to explain why the list looks the way it does.

If this is meant to be "The Top 100 well conditioned, long, tough courses in GB&I" they have excelled themselves.

Any list that purports to consider and rank golf architecture from the viewpoint of all golfers (not just pros) and then goes and lists The European ahead of Royal St George's, leaves Silloth out of the top 50 and insults Woking by placing it 80th makes me laugh out loud.

Sean: Not sure if Wallasey was in 101-200. Beau Desert was. As was Prince's Shore/Dunes.

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott their people include regional golf union types so the country gets full coverage and the big resorts do less well as it is not a comp'ing exercise. Courses are marked on a number of categories which include quality of design. Conditioning only carries limited weight.

Sean - www.top100..... also includes reader ratings.

New courses tend to arrive with a bang and fizzle out in time.

GW has been around for years and is the only list worth it's weight in ink.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Yet again these lists prove to be a total waste of time and effort.
Examples The Castle Course (56) vs. Machrie (65);  Where is Moray,  Prestwick St Nicholas and of course Askernish.

I cannot believe why so much is make, by so many on so little. It’s more what these list don’t say that I suspect is the more important topic, yet like lemmings many seem to pray at this alter, or perhaps more appropriate it is more like stunned animals caught in the light of a car headlights just before they are crushed under the tyres of the indifferent motorist or in this case Golfers.

They are and will I suspect remain the product of PR based upon that worst of all levellers the less than humble (when in the hands of a Liberal) lowest common denominator. Nevertheless we have to remember the modern golfer must be regarded as next to useless (some may even say simpletons) due to their constant need of all these aids to help play a simple round of golf. I must go and put on my CD of the pipes and drums (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6H1AjTRU3A&feature=fvw )

Gentlemen, enjoy your list

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Firstly I need to say that I like the same sort of courses that 'We/GCA' do. I have not actually played Pennard though I have been there. I dont know all the holes but I have seen enough to be pretty sure I would like it. When I ask our Pro, who had a great day there and his round included a hole in one, he says "its ok, its got some great holes, its a bit messy with the cows, few silly holes" now that concurrs pretty much with Ben Stephens take. For some on here.... you would not want this course to go under the knife. I love Prestwick but I think it could be better minus 14 and 15 with two holes up and back north of 10... ofcourse I am a traitor for suggesting such... but great courses still evolve and they need a bit of modern surgery sometimes.

Wallasey is not in this top 200.

The www.top100 will be the one you will like Sean, its far more quirky. They count all the ratings that punters put up so you can give 5 stars for a crap course or 1 star for a good un. My C+ might be your A-...if you get my drift. If you collate 100 opinions from 18 handicappers or 100 from scratch golfers you will have different wants. A golf course should be rated for the scratch player in my opinion, equally a golf course should be playable for as many as possible. When we assess a golf course and its good or bad we walk to the back of tees to look at the merits, we dont go to where Uncle Charlie plays from.


Scott theses people are considered the most knowledgable. I dont think you have understood the majority opinion.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Actually an inclusion in the GolfWorld 100 is worth about £1,000,000 so it is very important.

The Castle course is a big hit with some. One of our former captains would prefer a replay on the CC than the old lady. Another of our members (who has played in two ryder cups) thought it looked fantastic. From what ive seen it looks fantastic, equally I can see some of the green contouring looks borderline.

As for the Wokings, Worplesdons etc, some like them lots but to the modern golfer they are redundant because of length. I think the middle ground is they lose 'points' for being short, but that won't be a GCA agree..... Step outside the box and look in.

[Scott Warren]

I understand well enough, Adrian, I just disagree with many of the results. But I have only seen 24 of the Top 100 and another 15-20 of the 101-200 courses. From a lowish base like that I am sure I miss some things, but course A vs course B head-to-heads are irrespective of what else you have and haven't seen.

What is your opinion of TEC placing ahead of RSG? Is it a better golf course?

RCP 15 spots behind Co. Louth?

How about Silloth 13 spots behind St Enodoc and 20 behind North Berwick?

Woking 15 spots behind The Berkshire Blue?

There are always some outliers in a list compiled by anyone, especially a committee of 100. But IMO this list has a tremendous amount, based on my experiences of what I have seen.

As for the Wokings, Worplesdons etc, some like them lots but to the modern golfer they are redundant because of length.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm not sure which "modern" golfers you play with but those I see are still playing largely off 11+ handicaps and 6500y is plenty for them.

Woking is north of 6500 yards at a par of 70. Worpy from memory is 6400-6500/par 71. Who is that redundant to? Maybe 1% of golfers? Both happen to have a heap of brilliant golf holes. New Zealand is under 6000 yards and yet 12-18 is one of the best finishes I have seen in the UK.

The attempt by some to link length and quality is a cancer on the game. This obsession with length, catering to a tiny percentage of players and trying to replicate tour golf is what is wrong with so many modern courses - cost, sustainability, enjoyment, round times... you name it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Scott - RSG is not well loved by the pro's so perhaps they dont give it high points, they dont like the blindness. I have not seen The European Club and not played many of the ones you mention, I cant say one is 10 places higher or lower, but I respect the collation of 100 opinions such as these (they are not dumbo's). Overall it seems a decent list to me, it might not be my 200 but its pretty good.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I'm curious as to why some of you guys find the rankings depressing and disappointing. Surprising; maybe, but depressing and disappointing; surely not. Why should it matter?

Donal maybe it’s so depressing because they are a further indication of how the market is going?  Developers will look at trends and hope to get their new product in.

For the life of me I can’t see TEC as top 40 or Waterville as top 75.  They just don’t appeal and yet they are trumpeted as 'modern links'.

As I point out here

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46001.0/

Pennard is apparently not good enough for their top 200, yet in another man’s eyes its Top 20 in the world.

Tony,

I see your point, but when you look at those that dropped out of the top 100 and compare them to those that came in, doesn't it look evens Stevens from YOUR point of view.

I won't comment on the merits of any of these demoted/promoted courses, as I haven't played them.

I guess it doesn't bother me because those that flock to this glitzy new courses with ponds and waterfalls, will never be seen on the undervalued hidden gems. That's a win, win situation to me. It means lower green fees and less congestion. What would happen to the green fee rates of the Pennards of this world if they were catapulted into the top 100?

[Sean_A]

Wallasey is not in this top 200.

The www.top100 will be the one you will like Sean, its far more quirky. They count all the ratings that punters put up so you can give 5 stars for a crap course or 1 star for a good un. My C+ might be your A-...if you get my drift. If you collate 100 opinions from 18 handicappers or 100 from scratch golfers you will have different wants. A golf course should be rated for the scratch player in my opinion, equally a golf course should be playable for as many as possible. When we assess a golf course and its good or bad we walk to the back of tees to look at the merits, we dont go to where Uncle Charlie plays from.

Its hard to explain the exclusion of Wallasey.  

Yes, this is where I most certainly disagree with you.  There is no way I buy that courses should be rated from the scatch PoV.  I think they should be rated by those who pay to play regardless of handicap.  I am not personally interested in many opinions of guys who play for free or only see the game through the eyes of the best players.

Donal

Pennard already has too high a green fee at £50 weekday except for in the winter when most courses in the area are wet. 

Ciao  

[Paul_Turner]

It's an utterly predictable list...I used to quite like this GB&I ranking, but now I find them meaningless, particularly since Golfclubatlas got started.

Adrian

Really a 1,000,000 pounds for entry into top 100?  just from extra green fees?  That's amazing.

I write for all purists...horrible idea re Prestwick   14 is a bit bland but 15th is great with that unique green.

[Jud_T]

Adrian,

The average club player is a 15 hdcp, and that's only guys who belong to clubs and others who post.  These are the guys who are paying greens fees and therefore should be represented in the ratings panel and/or ratings criteria.  Attached are the Golfweek GB&I Classic and Modern lists.  While a nascent effort, I think it holds promise.  How do the locals think it compares to the Golf World list? (Aside from the fact that they refuse to rank Classic and Modern together):

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2010/jan/04/2010-golfweeks-best-classic-courses-great-britain-/

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2010/jan/04/2010-golfweeks-best-modern-courses-great-britain-a/

[Adrian_Stiff]

Thinking a 15 capper should be the prime man to rate is bizzarre. I will say one thing if 15 cappers rated gof courses, 70% of those in the hundred would be gone, and the top 10 woud consist of Wentworth, The Belfry, Celtic Manor, K Club. What you meant to say is you think the rating panel should be 15 cappers that like old fashioned courses.

You have to have a mix of old and new, some new courses are good, they may lack certain things but by and large a lot of you dont't like them 'just because'.

Sean I know thats the way you feel. Your top 200 in some eyes would be as bizzarre as the ones you see. Your not right and your not wrong, arguing with opinions is a bit like a dog chasing his tail.

Yes if you say the ranking is worth another £8 on a green fee price then at 8,000 visitor rounds on a 15 price earning ratio its a £1M. You can juggle figures but top 100 in GW is a big accolade in the same way as people want to play those sort of courses,or courses where tournaments are staged or have TV exposure.

[Sean_A]

Thinking a 15 capper should be the prime man to rate is bizzarre. I will say one thing if 15 cappers rated gof courses, 70% of those in the hundred would be gone, and the top 10 woud consist of Wentworth, The Belfry, Celtic Manor, K Club. What you meant to say is you think the rating panel should be 15 cappers that like old fashioned courses.

You have to have a mix of old and new, some new courses are good, they may lack certain things but by and large a lot of you dont't like them 'just because'.

Sean I know thats the way you feel. Your top 200 in some yes woud be as bizzarre as the ones you see. Your not right and your not wrong, arguing with opinions is a bit like a dog chasing his tail.

Yes if you say the ranking is worth another £8 on a green fee price then at 8,000 visitor rounds on a 15 price earning ratio its a £1M. You can juggle figures but top 100 in GW is a big accolade in the same way as people want to play those sort of courses,or courses where tournaments are staged or have TV exposure.

Adrian

I am not sure you are correct about which courses I would rate.  To me there is a huge difference between talking about the best courses oppossed to the courses one would recommend and to which groups of people and even favourites.  I nearly always talk in terms of recommendations and favourites rather than best.  Plus, I work from the PoV that nearly all the usual suspects are an auto recommendation and don't really need any further push by me. 

8,000 extra rounds, I assume this is not over only one year.   

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean- No I mean 8000 visitor rounds as being the annual amount of rounds by non members; ie The green fees.

I agree that Pennard and Wallasey shoud be in the 200 btw. Dont agree Huntercoombe is 200 though and neither should be Kington, but I think what happens is we all have different bias to the importance of the governing factors that dictate how we rate. Time after time you see players reports that say "the course was crap, there was sand all over the greens and the holes were not even filled in" A.Misinformed April 2010.  I think the GW panel basically mark 5 blocks and have 20 points for each category and you assign points.
When we rate golf courses, should the clubhouse have any impact, the practice ground, the history even the condition.

I looked at the Golf week ratings, I think Golf World are better, but the Golf Weeko nes are not bad,they are just skewed slighlty more to the older fashioned quirky ones.

[Jud_T]

Adrian,

Do you think resistance to scoring is a valid criteria?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

Do you think resistance to scoring is a valid criteria?

I think that it is strong in the eyes of the raters, in my personal evaluation its not so important.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jud,

I think it is... We have to draw the line somewhere or we'll be including the local pitch 'n' putt... The best shorter courses do have resistance to scoring in many forms and that's the point we need to be selling - It doesn't have to be long to be difficult for the good player... If a course is very easy for the better player (thus taking away challenge and fun in the process), then I think it deserves to be marked down for that...

Adrian has made a lot of good points on this thread. Not always fashionable ones but very valid.

[Scott Warren]

Ally,

I and I am sure many others would counter to Adrian by saying exactly what you just have.

Woking's green contours for a start are a fantastic feature that adds difficulty over and above the length of "only" 6500 yards.

Worplesdon's bunkering and other hazards add ferocity and oodles of strategy to some "short for their par" holes.

Deal's green complexes and fairway undulation make it bloody tough even from the 6400y members' tees.

There are plenty of examples of this that ensure these 6400-6500 courses aren't "redundant" as Adrian suggested.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()