[Mark Chaplin]

Top 100 worth a million...not in our accounts!

It is quite funny to see how clubs deal with the top 100 award certificates, some of the newer clubs have massive framed presentations of their top 100 awards, complete with photos and the like.

Several places pin them on the noticeboard until the edges curl up and the certificate falls off........and these are usually top 50 rather than 90 something or other.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Scott - When I said Woking and Worplesdon I was more refering to those sort of golf courses (the 50 gems in the 100) that are not championship length. I was not really meaning those as individual courses.

The point I am making (and I dont buy it 100% myself) the 'world' or 'majority' see this 7000 yards as this barrier you must be and anything short of that loses points on the ratings.

Our club has just qualified for the National Club Challenge, the final is two days at The Belfry.... they are so excited about playing the course, if the final was at Prestwick the excitment woud be so much less....perhaps sadly with the majority that is the facts.

I looked at compiling (in fact I did it) a set of ratings based on as many objective facts as I could and awarded points for each fact. I allotted points for the green fee charge, ie a course that charged £100 for a green fee got more points than one that charged £50. I scored points for courses 7000 yards plus. I scored points for having the Open championship, Amateur, right down to county and regional stuff...... You know what happened The top 100 was hardly different to Golf Worlds.

Mark, if your course was outside the top 100 you would be charging at least £8 per round less. I am sure you do 8000 visitor rounds.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Top 100 worth a million...not in our accounts!

It is quite funny to see how clubs deal with the top 100 award certificates, some of the newer clubs have massive framed presentations of their top 100 awards, complete with photos and the like.

Several places pin them on the noticeboard until the edges curl up and the certificate falls off........and these are usually top 50 rather than 90 something or other.

Mark,

Whilst a million may be an exaggeration, it's certainly an accolade worth money - some of it substantial to the less heralded or newer clubs...

In my travels, I usually find that the clubs who think that they are rated lower than they should be are the ones with the certs pinned to the noticeboards curling up...

[Sean_A]

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.

Adrian

I would like to see some sort of numbers which back up the idea of 8,000 rounds extra a year - especially for the several dozen famous courses which will get vistors through the gates regardless of any ranking.  

I don't honestly know where Huntercombe should fall on a ranking list.  What I can say is that I would recommend Huntercombe to anybody with an interest in gca history or just good design that can be had at a reasonable price.  Kington I would be less optimistic to recommending to the masses, but certainly to this crowd I think it is a must see.  I would also say that on the top 100 site Kington does very well - so the punters like the course.  As a guy who treats days out golfing just as I would any other activity, that counts for a lot more than a guy comping his way round £100 courses then exclaiming how good they are - who cares what he thinks and would he change his mind if he had fork over £100?  That sort of system is morally broken and will never produce the best sort of list that I would be interested in.  Besides, the lists don't change anywhere near enough to be truly informative.  

Ally

Going back to Adrian's point of rating from a scratch perspective, how many of the courses up for top 100 discussion (so probably go as deep as 250 courses if not more) are too easy?  If we can't easily identify several (manybe several dozen), then there is something fundamentally flawed about the concept of difficulty being a primary rating item.  I believe that damn near all of the courses up for top 100 consideration are plenty challenging for the scratch player - so much so that its an inconsequential criteria unless we are just looking at difficulty for difficulty sake.  I can only hope that this isn't the case.

Ciao

[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.

Ally

Going back to Adrian's point of rating from a scratch perspective, how many of the courses up for top 100 discussion (so probably go as deep as 250 courses if not more) are too easy?  If we can't easily identify several (manybe several dozen), then there is something fundamentally flawed about the concept of difficulty being a primary rating item.  I believe that damn near all of the courses up for top 100 consideration are plenty challenging for the scratch player - so much so that its an inconsequential criteria unless we are just looking at difficulty for difficulty sake.  I can only hope that this isn't the case.

Ciao

Sean,

True... But maybe that's why all the courses in the top 250 are in the top 250... Without it, you may be able to include some courses like Cullen or others under 5,000 yards... Are they worthy of inclusion, regardless of architectural merit?... Should we be including par-3 courses if they have good green complexes?

[Sean_A]

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.

Ally

Going back to Adrian's point of rating from a scratch perspective, how many of the courses up for top 100 discussion (so probably go as deep as 250 courses if not more) are too easy?  If we can't easily identify several (manybe several dozen), then there is something fundamentally flawed about the concept of difficulty being a primary rating item.  I believe that damn near all of the courses up for top 100 consideration are plenty challenging for the scratch player - so much so that its an inconsequential criteria unless we are just looking at difficulty for difficulty sake.  I can only hope that this isn't the case.

Ciao

Sean,

True... But maybe that's why all the courses in the top 250 are in the top 250... Without it, you may be able to include some courses like Cullen or others under 5,000 yards... Are they worthy of inclusion, regardless of architectural merit?... Should we be including par-3 courses if they have good green complexes?

Ally

Well, according to the idea of toughness as a criteria, if the course holds its own against the scratch players, why not include them?  Once we replace the criteria of good design with toughness (presumably against par or what else can toughness mean?) the door is wide open.  Perhaps this is why ranking courses from a professional's perspective (even though very few people are really qualified to do so) is so popular.  Its an easy fall back position to say the pros would rip it so it can't be top 50 or whatever.  I spose with all the lengthening that is justified by archies the next step will be only pros who have won two events can properly rate a course.  Its a potentially endless cycle of excuses made to disregard fine architecture because of (largely fabricated) length issues.  To top it off,  hardly anyone plays from the back tees anyway.  Do you think the championship courses are rated by the raters from the back tees?  Do you think they need to rate championship courses from the back tees?  Jeepers, its gotten to the point where people should be applauding and ranking the 6000-6500 yard courses higher BECAUSE the architecture is so good they can still challenge scratch players despite being "hopelessly short for today's players".       

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think only 1 course in the top 100 was under 6000 yards, I am sorry but you must face the facts Length of a golf course does matter.

Sean, it is not extra rounds. It is visitor rounds, 8000 is a fair number of rounds for a better course to do annually, green fee and society, some will do less some more obviously. The courses in the top 100 charge more for their golf. If you are in the top 100 you are perceived as better, people pay for a badge or title. At £8 x 8000 thats £64,000per year which on a 15 multiple is £1M. Clubs that charge £80 per round wont be doing that from outside the top 200.

[Sean_A]

I think only 1 course in the top 100 was under 6000 yards, I am sorry but you must face the facts Length of a golf course does matter.

Sean, it is not extra rounds. It is visitor rounds, 8000 is a fair number of rounds for a better course to do annually, green fee and society, some will do less some more obviously. The courses in the top 100 charge more for their golf. If you are in the top 100 you are perceived as better, people pay for a badge or title. At £8 x 8000 thats £64,000per year which on a 15 multiple is £1M. Clubs that charge £80 per round wont be doing that from outside the top 200.

Adrian

I do understand the point about length, but it only shows how the lack of savy these raters have and plays into the hands of not what is good design, but what is meant to be good design according to PR men.  You can't honestly tell me that good design is dependent on a number (7000 yards) grabbed out of nowhere.  Well, maybe you can, but I am not listening to any such tripe.  If yardage was truly that important folks would insist on playing the tips.  Despite the complaints of some Yanks, I don't see this as a coming trend.  

So you are saying over 15 years a club earns a million on the back of top 100 status?  If so, maybe some would - the ones which are bottom feeder top 100s.  I can imagine Woburn doing so for example, but not the old top dogs who have been top dogs for 100 years.  Those guys got the press before there was press! 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

7000 yarders dont mean everyone should use those tees Sean. I think you do need 7000 yards these days in most new golf course situations, 7000 yards gives you the flexibilty to be shorter if you want too, a 6000 yarder will be far less attractive to better golfers if 6000 yards is all it can be. I think the problem a bit has been exagerrated because so many people hit the ball a ong way now with the technologly, its not just the pro's, many of the flatbellys can bang it 300 easy peasy and that tends to destroy some of these great courses that i referred too as going redundant. So for that reason the length aspect becomes a very real issue.

Golf courses that have staged Open championships, Ryder Cups, TV tournies are on peoples must play list, its all part of the rat race I guess and the ones that dont hop on become the hidden gems (that you like)... but because they are less popular they dont get the higher green fees. Plusses and minusses in that.

[Jud_T]

I guess we can expect Celtic Manor to rocket up the charts now...Tiger can only advance the ball 80 yards out of the wet U.S. Open rough? Must be a great track!   

[Sean_A]

7000 yarders dont mean everyone should use those tees Sean. I think you do need 7000 yards these days in most new golf course situations, 7000 yards gives you the flexibilty to be shorter if you want too, a 6000 yarder will be far less attractive to better golfers if 6000 yards is all it can be. I think the problem a bit has been exagerrated because so many people hit the ball a ong way now with the technologly, its not just the pro's, many of the flatbellys can bang it 300 easy peasy and that tends to destroy some of these great courses that i referred too as going redundant. So for that reason the length aspect becomes a very real issue.

Golf courses that have staged Open championships, Ryder Cups, TV tournies are on peoples must play list, its all part of the rat race I guess and the ones that dont hop on become the hidden gems (that you like)... but because they are less popular they dont get the higher green fees. Plusses and minusses in that.

Adrian

We shall have to agree to disagree.  I don't beleive for a second that 7000 yards is an ideal requirement for scratch golfers.  I can certainly believe that is the perception brought on by loads of nonsensical talk, PR rubbish and the overwhelming marketing desire to label one's course as a championship test.  What I want to know is how that marketing scam is doing for the upstart clubs/courses.  Its fine for the older clubs that are actually championship venues.  They had a huge headstart in the popularity stakes that for most will never be relinquished.  Plus, a great deal, I am guessing a significant percentage of these old line clubs which aren't championship venues are not 7000 yard long  They attract punters not because of yardage, but because of reputations built over several decades.  Its the newer courses/clubs which are relying on 7000 yards as their marketing gimmick.  It would be interesting to know just how well these clubs/courses are doing and just how many of them actually made into top 100 heaven for more than a fleeting moment.  Judging from the many takeovers, buyouts and changing of hands, my guess is the entire concept hasn't worked very well even from a marketing PoV, but then I never invested in the concept.  

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Jud - it will fall out again pretty quickly as did the K Club.

Scott - your opinion is very topical as you've played a large number of good GB&I courses in the last 18 months so you are far more upto date than most of us. Finishing with HC is a nice touch!!

[Andrew Mitchell]

Detailed rankings now available online

http://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/Golf/courses/Top-100-Golf-Courses-in-the-UK-and-Ireland?WT.dcsvid=SilverpopMailing&WT.mc_id=2010-11-02%20Today's%20Golfer%20Editorial%20Newsletter%20(1)

[Anthony Gray]

  I just don't get it.

  Anthony

[Jud_T]

 

[Ben Stephens]

7000 yarders dont mean everyone should use those tees Sean. I think you do need 7000 yards these days in most new golf course situations, 7000 yards gives you the flexibilty to be shorter if you want too, a 6000 yarder will be far less attractive to better golfers if 6000 yards is all it can be. I think the problem a bit has been exagerrated because so many people hit the ball a ong way now with the technologly, its not just the pro's, many of the flatbellys can bang it 300 easy peasy and that tends to destroy some of these great courses that i referred too as going redundant. So for that reason the length aspect becomes a very real issue.

Golf courses that have staged Open championships, Ryder Cups, TV tournies are on peoples must play list, its all part of the rat race I guess and the ones that dont hop on become the hidden gems (that you like)... but because they are less popular they dont get the higher green fees. Plusses and minusses in that.

Adrian

We shall have to agree to disagree.  I don't beleive for a second that 7000 yards is an ideal requirement for scratch golfers.  I can certainly believe that is the perception brought on by loads of nonsensical talk, PR rubbish and the overwhelming marketing desire to label one's course as a championship test.  What I want to know is how that marketing scam is doing for the upstart clubs/courses.  Its fine for the older clubs that are actually championship venues.  They had a huge headstart in the popularity stakes that for most will never be relinquished.  Plus, a great deal, I am guessing a significant percentage of these old line clubs which aren't championship venues are not 7000 yard long  They attract punters not because of yardage, but because of reputations built over several decades.  Its the newer courses/clubs which are relying on 7000 yards as their marketing gimmick.  It would be interesting to know just how well these clubs/courses are doing and just how many of them actually made into top 100 heaven for more than a fleeting moment.  Judging from the many takeovers, buyouts and changing of hands, my guess is the entire concept hasn't worked very well even from a marketing PoV, but then I never invested in the concept.  

Ciao

Sean,

I tend to agree more with Adrian, most advanced amateur players, like myself, and scratch golfers/pros would prefer to play 7,000 yard courses why? Basically it will expose the weakness of the weaker golfer more. Today there are too many 18 handicappers that expect to get on every par 4 in 2 whether they have a shot or not. I get a bit arsed off about people complaining about the hole being too long when there is a handicap system and about me hitting the ball ‘too long’.

Adrian is a successful businessman and what he has done at the Player’s Club is a credit to his ability as a businessman, designer, professional golfer, green keeper and GCA enthusiast. He is now one of my role models and has opened my view a bit more about the commercial realities behind a creation of a golf course. The Codrington Course at the Player’s Club is now in the top 200 in Golf World GB&I rankings – an amazing feat considering that this course did not exist 15 years ago!! Adrian is still intent on improving this course with the aim of getting it into the top 100 which I believe is feasible. There are more than 150 advanced golfers who are members/practice at the Player’s Club inc. Gordon Brand jr, Chris Wood and top amateurs etc. That is an enormous percentage of advanced golfers and the greens there is the best I have played of any golf course I have played this year.

The Stranahan is, which I believe, a GCA/Sean Arble type course – I had so much fun playing on it – it’s an landfill course with some great fairway shaping etc. I believe there will be more golfers playing on it in the future as it’s a 3 hr round course with a few quirkiness that you would find on an ‘antique’ course.

I am sure Adrian would be happy to host you there anytime. I would definitely come and play with you if you are planning to go there.

Cheers
Ben

[Sean_A]

7000 yarders dont mean everyone should use those tees Sean. I think you do need 7000 yards these days in most new golf course situations, 7000 yards gives you the flexibilty to be shorter if you want too, a 6000 yarder will be far less attractive to better golfers if 6000 yards is all it can be. I think the problem a bit has been exagerrated because so many people hit the ball a ong way now with the technologly, its not just the pro's, many of the flatbellys can bang it 300 easy peasy and that tends to destroy some of these great courses that i referred too as going redundant. So for that reason the length aspect becomes a very real issue.

Golf courses that have staged Open championships, Ryder Cups, TV tournies are on peoples must play list, its all part of the rat race I guess and the ones that dont hop on become the hidden gems (that you like)... but because they are less popular they dont get the higher green fees. Plusses and minusses in that.

Adrian

We shall have to agree to disagree.  I don't beleive for a second that 7000 yards is an ideal requirement for scratch golfers.  I can certainly believe that is the perception brought on by loads of nonsensical talk, PR rubbish and the overwhelming marketing desire to label one's course as a championship test.  What I want to know is how that marketing scam is doing for the upstart clubs/courses.  Its fine for the older clubs that are actually championship venues.  They had a huge headstart in the popularity stakes that for most will never be relinquished.  Plus, a great deal, I am guessing a significant percentage of these old line clubs which aren't championship venues are not 7000 yard long  They attract punters not because of yardage, but because of reputations built over several decades.  Its the newer courses/clubs which are relying on 7000 yards as their marketing gimmick.  It would be interesting to know just how well these clubs/courses are doing and just how many of them actually made into top 100 heaven for more than a fleeting moment.  Judging from the many takeovers, buyouts and changing of hands, my guess is the entire concept hasn't worked very well even from a marketing PoV, but then I never invested in the concept.  

Ciao

Sean,

I tend to agree more with Adrian, most advanced amateur players, like myself, and scratch golfers/pros would prefer to play 7,000 yard courses why? Basically it will expose the weakness of the weaker golfer more. Today there are too many 18 handicappers that expect to get on every par 4 in 2 whether they have a shot or not. I get a bit arsed off about people complaining about the hole being too long when there is a handicap system and about me hitting the ball ‘too long’.

Adrian is a successful businessman and what he has done at the Player’s Club is a credit to his ability as a businessman, designer, professional golfer, green keeper and GCA enthusiast. He is now one of my role models and has opened my view a bit more about the commercial realities behind a creation of a golf course. The Codrington Course at the Player’s Club is now in the top 200 in Golf World GB&I rankings – an amazing feat considering that this course did not exist 15 years ago!! Adrian is still intent on improving this course with the aim of getting it into the top 100 which I believe is feasible. There are more than 150 advanced golfers who are members/practice at the Player’s Club inc. Gordon Brand jr, Chris Wood and top amateurs etc. That is an enormous percentage of advanced golfers and the greens there is the best I have played of any golf course I have played this year.

The Stranahan is, which I believe, a GCA/Sean Arble type course – I had so much fun playing on it – it’s an landfill course with some great fairway shaping etc. I believe there will be more golfers playing on it in the future as it’s a 3 hr round course with a few quirkiness that you would find on an ‘antique’ course.

I am sure Adrian would be happy to host you there anytime. I would definitely come and play with you if you are planning to go there.

Cheers
Ben

Ben

First off, I don't care ditzbah how far a guy hits a ball.  The goal is to get it into the hole.  When the long hitter can match par consistently, then gradually move back to where he finds he can no longer play to par - then move forward.  These guys are like children learning how much resposibility they can handle.  The parent lets the line go, then reels em' once in a while to help them get grounded.  Many of these good players you speak of not as good as they think.  

My argument with Adrian is not in the least personal.  He strikes me as a heads up guy looking to serve his clients as best he can.  I have no qualms with Adrian.  My qualm is with the notion of trying to please all the people all the time.  I don't think it is possible in most circumstances. Somewhere, somehow, imo, the architecture has to take a hit if the goal is to consistently build 7000+ courses.  I surely accept that a hit is okay if it helps to turn a profit, but I am not sold on the marketing idea of an instant championship course due to length.  Jeepers, I went back to Michigan and played with an old mate who always insisted on playing the tips.  Even he wanted to step up a set to the 6500 markers and he also noticed and insisted we play a few more forward tees because he liked the look of the shot.  I was flabergasted,  but it shows that there is hope for even you - tee hee.  

BTW Adrian has been very generous in inviting me down more than once.  I always intended to make it and in fact had it organized...for the day of the huge flood in 2007 - heavy sigh.  Still, I am ashamed not to have made it down afterwards., but to be honest the course of his I like the look of is the newish 9 holer whose name I can never remember.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

7000 yarders dont mean everyone should use those tees Sean. I think you do need 7000 yards these days in most new golf course situations, 7000 yards gives you the flexibilty to be shorter if you want too, a 6000 yarder will be far less attractive to better golfers if 6000 yards is all it can be. I think the problem a bit has been exagerrated because so many people hit the ball a ong way now with the technologly, its not just the pro's, many of the flatbellys can bang it 300 easy peasy and that tends to destroy some of these great courses that i referred too as going redundant. So for that reason the length aspect becomes a very real issue.

Golf courses that have staged Open championships, Ryder Cups, TV tournies are on peoples must play list, its all part of the rat race I guess and the ones that dont hop on become the hidden gems (that you like)... but because they are less popular they dont get the higher green fees. Plusses and minusses in that.

Adrian

We shall have to agree to disagree.  I don't beleive for a second that 7000 yards is an ideal requirement for scratch golfers.  I can certainly believe that is the perception brought on by loads of nonsensical talk, PR rubbish and the overwhelming marketing desire to label one's course as a championship test.  What I want to know is how that marketing scam is doing for the upstart clubs/courses.  Its fine for the older clubs that are actually championship venues.  They had a huge headstart in the popularity stakes that for most will never be relinquished.  Plus, a great deal, I am guessing a significant percentage of these old line clubs which aren't championship venues are not 7000 yard long  They attract punters not because of yardage, but because of reputations built over several decades.  Its the newer courses/clubs which are relying on 7000 yards as their marketing gimmick.  It would be interesting to know just how well these clubs/courses are doing and just how many of them actually made into top 100 heaven for more than a fleeting moment.  Judging from the many takeovers, buyouts and changing of hands, my guess is the entire concept hasn't worked very well even from a marketing PoV, but then I never invested in the concept. 

Ciao

Sean,

I tend to agree more with Adrian, most advanced amateur players, like myself, and scratch golfers/pros would prefer to play 7,000 yard courses why? Basically it will expose the weakness of the weaker golfer more. Today there are too many 18 handicappers that expect to get on every par 4 in 2 whether they have a shot or not. I get a bit arsed off about people complaining about the hole being too long when there is a handicap system and about me hitting the ball ‘too long’.

Adrian is a successful businessman and what he has done at the Player’s Club is a credit to his ability as a businessman, designer, professional golfer, green keeper and GCA enthusiast. He is now one of my role models and has opened my view a bit more about the commercial realities behind a creation of a golf course. The Codrington Course at the Player’s Club is now in the top 200 in Golf World GB&I rankings – an amazing feat considering that this course did not exist 15 years ago!! Adrian is still intent on improving this course with the aim of getting it into the top 100 which I believe is feasible. There are more than 150 advanced golfers who are members/practice at the Player’s Club inc. Gordon Brand jr, Chris Wood and top amateurs etc. That is an enormous percentage of advanced golfers and the greens there is the best I have played of any golf course I have played this year.

The Stranahan is, which I believe, a GCA/Sean Arble type course – I had so much fun playing on it – it’s an landfill course with some great fairway shaping etc. I believe there will be more golfers playing on it in the future as it’s a 3 hr round course with a few quirkiness that you would find on an ‘antique’ course.

I am sure Adrian would be happy to host you there anytime. I would definitely come and play with you if you are planning to go there.

Cheers
Ben

Ben

First off, I don't care ditzbah how far a guy hits a ball.  The goal is to get it into the hole.  When the long hitter can match par consistently, then gradually move back to where he finds he can no longer play to par - then move forward.  These guys are like children learning how much resposibility they can handle.  The parent lets the line go, then reels em' once in a while to help them get grounded.  Many of these good players you speak of not as good as they think. 

Sean, my argument is that a long hitter is more likely to par or let alone birdie a long par 4 or long par 5 than a weaker player who is more likely to get on the green in 3 or 4 shots. I am not big and strong but I have the skill/ability which enables me to hit the ball quite long thanks to having a well worked out swing. My weakness is my short game around the greens but playing yesterday with Boony at Brancaster my short game was good which helped. The advanced golfer has more strengths than weaknesses and a 7000 yard course plays more to their strengths, one of the biggest beef I have is that some shorter courses have fewer long holes and the par 4 lengths are generally too similar meaning I am hitting short irons or chips for my second shot – is that enjoyable for me not really.

Both Hunstanton and Brancaster are perfect because it has variations in distance for par 3, par 4 and par 5s and is championship standard length apart from the back nine at Brancaster. At Rutland I designed a course which is 6800 yards of the back and less than 6400 off the yellows and the course plays differently because of the different angles and distances the tees provide which caters golfers of all levels. The difficulty of the greens is the same for everyone.

My argument with Adrian is not in the least personal.  He strikes me as a heads up guy looking to serve his clients as best he can.  I have no qualms with Adrian.  My qualm is with the notion of trying to please all the people all the time.  I don't think it is possible in most circumstances. Somewhere, somehow, imo, the architecture has to take a hit if the goal is to consistently build 7000+ courses.  I surely accept that a hit is okay if it helps to turn a profit, but I am not sold on the marketing idea of an instant championship course due to length.  Jeepers, I went back to Michigan and played with an old mate who always insisted on playing the tips.  Even he wanted to step up a set to the 6500 markers and he also noticed and insisted we play a few more forward tees because he liked the look of the shot.  I was flabergasted, but it shows that there is hope for even you - tee hee.   

Adrian has a business to run and to survive. This means having to try and please everyone which is impossible. This is the same for most business even the top brands go out of their way to try and please everyone.  Even the owner has called the Normanton course at Rutland Water – ‘Championship course’ this has definitely brought in more new customers.
Before I got into GCA and its psyche, to play golf I used to look at the golf course directory and look up for championship courses more than 6500 yards because then I used to think that is an ‘proper golf course’ this is currently the mindset of many golfers in the UK. Most players want to play on well manicured course with flattish kind of greens. Now I am seen by my friends as a bit of a golf snob when it comes to courses thanks to me understanding golf course architectural styles and GCA which has now influenced my choice of course to play on!  I would have not played Cavendish if it wasn’t for GCA and Boony!

The Players Club Codrington course plays 6500 off the medal tees and 7000+ off the championship tees. The 7000 yard tag is an additional marketing gimmick that can potentially bring in a few K’s of green fees to the golf course – there is nothing wrong with using the 7000 yard tag!

BTW Adrian has been very generous in inviting me down more than once.  I always intended to make it and in fact had it organized...for the day of the huge flood in 2007 - heavy sigh.  Still, I am ashamed not to have made it down afterwards., but to be honest the course of his I like the look of is the newish 9 holer whose name I can never remember.

Take it Sean!!, Adrian is very enthusiastic when it comes to golf course design and great to have a discussion with face to face. I believe the shorter Stranahan course will impress you. When I first went there and had a look at it under construction – I must admit I thought it will be an ok shorter course but after having a tour around it with Adrian and him explaining the design philosophy and principles – I thought wow! And having played 14 of the holes I really enjoyed playing it this course oozes potential and I would be happy to take you on the Stranahan – the Codrington can be a long slog with fantastic large green complexes which are well designed and the surfaces are really smooth! The 9th green is enormous. Lets agree on a day to play there next year.

Ciao

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Oh another thing Sean, my dad (CONGU 7 hcap) and myself (CONGU 5 hcap) played Doral Blue Monster off the championship tees with a few tees forward playing around 7100 yards. My Dad is not a long hitter and there are a few long par 4's at Doral. Unfortunately the Blue Monster exposed my Dad's weakness - length and he shot over 100 which is very rare - I managed to shoot in the mid 80's.

Generally when the course is longer, my dad tends to struggle more which expose the skill levels even more than if a course was shorter. I just wish there were more longer courses (which will never happen) 

Cheers
Ben

[Mark Pearce]

Ben,

What you appear to be saying is that "good" golf courses are courses which play to your strength but don't expose your weaknesses (accuracy and short game) whilst punishing accurate players with great short games who don't hit it miles.  Instead of bemoaning the fact that a low handicapper with a good short game who only hits it 250 yards off the tee but keeps it straight will beat you on a challenging 6,500 yard course, why not work on the short game and practice hitting fairways?

[Niall C]

Detailed rankings now available online

http://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/Golf/courses/Top-100-Golf-Courses-in-the-UK-and-Ireland?WT.dcsvid=SilverpopMailing&WT.mc_id=2010-11-02%20Today's%20Golfer%20Editorial%20Newsletter%20(1)

Jumped in to see where Silloth was and disappointed at the usual mid table ranking (#51). What caught my eye was the caption which spewed the usual chat about remoteness and then referred to the nearby power station proving an eyesore. The fact that they are getting Silloth mixed up with Seascale doesn't give you confidence in the rating.

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

Either that or the idiots think that the mill (I think it's a mill) is a power station.  The ranking of Silloth is always an indicator of the reliability of these rankings.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,

What you appear to be saying is that "good" golf courses are courses which play to your strength but don't expose your weaknesses (accuracy and short game) whilst punishing accurate players with great short games who don't hit it miles.  Instead of bemoaning the fact that a low handicapper with a good short game who only hits it 250 yards off the tee but keeps it straight will beat you on a challenging 6,500 yard course, why not work on the short game and practice hitting fairways?

Mark,

I now hit a lot more fairways than I used to therefore I am more accurate these days. My short game was a lot better when I was an kid because I had played more and practised more. What I am trying to say is that the longer course plays more into the hands of the advanced golfer and that the scoring gap is wider than what you would find on a shorter course. The low handicapper who only hits it 250 yards is still more likely to hit the green in two because he is more consistent in hitting long irons straighter than a weaker golfer.
My short game is hot and cold – it was good yesterday – Boony would testify.

Swinley took the driver out of my hands - remember!

Cheers
Ben

[Niall C]

Niall,

Either that or the idiots think that the mill (I think it's a mill) is a power station.  The ranking of Silloth is always an indicator of the reliability of these rankings.

Correct. If Silloth isn't in the top 10 then the ranking is clearly rubbish 

Niall

[Greg Ohlendorf]

How can Turnberry come out number 1? Top 15 maybe but the best gb&i course? Wow.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()