[Mark Chaplin]

British based www.top100golfcourses.com have just published their latest world top 100 list. Note they say it isn’t a definitive link!
https://www.top100golfcourses.com/news-item/top-100-golf-courses-of-the-world-2020

[Jeff Schley]

Yeah I saw this a week or so ago with their top 50/100 Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England ect. which had some interesting outliers.  I'll have to go through with more time, but just perusing it...... Turnberry is up to 8, Somerset up to 50, Woodhall Spa up to 62.  Some drops are Oakland Hills drops 20 spots to 73, Whistling Straits drops 16 to 79 and Muirfield Village drops 19 to 84. Seminole also down 8 to 37.  Augusta is down to 12 btw.

Deal gets in at 95!

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know anything about rankings, but for some reason I trust the lists coming out of GB&I more than I do the ones from America.  I think it might be like trusting the BBC World New Service more than CNN -- you know, because of that 'neutral' accent the announcers have (which I suppose is actually the 'south of England' accent) and their calm, even-tempered delivery no matter what the nature of the story. Plus, that sort of unnecessary precision - instead of saying 'President Trump lashed out at Speaker Pelosi today' they say 'American President Donald J. Trump today vehemently opposed the recent contention by U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi that he had breached the rules of international protocol in his dealings with the Ukraine". 
What I'm saying: it's a mind set. Proper and all that, unruffled, The Economist-long-view approach instead of fashionable and reactionary populism. That's one heck of a timeless Top 10 they have there!   

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Do they explain their methodology anywhere? Does every reviewer get a vote?


I've always liked their site and respected their rankings but I get confused by their "ball" ranking. I've see courses with 6 balls end up lower with a rank than something with 5 balls.

[John Sabino]

I think their methodology is based on frequent raters rankings, but you'd have to check with them to be sure.


Whatever their methodology, their results are quite good. I like the rise of Woodhall Spa on their list and the fact that more European based courses make the cut (Royal Portcawl, Valderrama, West Sussex, Kininklijke and Utrecht) than you typically see in American magazines that are US centric.


Seminole gets ranked in a better spot on their list (#37) than most lists, which rank it too high. Golf Magazine remains the gold standard on course rankings, but this list is approaching it in quality. Exhibits A, B, and C are Paraparaumu, Ganton, and Royal Adelaide which are absent from Golf magazine and shouldn't be. Biggest (good) surprise is the inclusion of Essex County Club.


I agree with Peter on the fact that it comes out of the UK gives it a certain credibility. I think it's important to have a diversity in quality rankings that are not US based, and this effort and what Darius Oliver does down under should be appreciated.

[Tom_Doak]

Do they explain their methodology anywhere? Does every reviewer get a vote?


I've always liked their site and respected their rankings but I get confused by their "ball" ranking. I've see courses with 6 balls end up lower with a rank than something with 5 balls.

The balls are rankings their readers give out, and their readers' opinions have very little weight in the final voting, I think.  They have a few panelists of their own and I think they give those guys a heavy thumb on the scale, but the same does not apply to just anyone who posts an online review.



I believe their methodology starts with inputting all the other published rankings, first.  It's telling that most of the "big moves" Jeff and John mentioned in fact mirror the recent GOLF Magazine ranking.  You can believe that two independent panels thought the same in all of those cases, if you want . . . but that's not what Occam's Razor says.


As to them adding Deal to the list, even though it's not on most of the others:  you can do that if your own results for the U.K. show it clearly beating several of the other courses that got into the top 100 via outside opinion.


On the other hand, they have a couple of new courses they stuck into their ranking where they have no data from any other publications.  Those have to be based on just a handful of votes.  I had asked Ran about the voting results for one of those courses, and they clearly didn't get the same votes on it that the GOLF Magazine panelists cast!
 


As for giving this ranking more credibility than others because it comes out of the UK . . . it's more European-centric, for sure, and that will appeal to some, but they don't have near the coverage of classic U.S. courses that others do.  But then, consider that the list really comes off the internet, and think about what that does for its credibility.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Do they explain their methodology anywhere? Does every reviewer get a vote?


I've always liked their site and respected their rankings but I get confused by their "ball" ranking. I've see courses with 6 balls end up lower with a rank than something with 5 balls.

The balls are rankings their readers give out, and their readers' opinions have very little weight in the final voting, I think.  They have a few panelists of their own and I think they give those guys a heavy thumb on the scale, but the same does not apply to just anyone who posts an online review.

Thanks Tom, that explains it.


John S. - good to see a post from you. I've been following your blog and recovery from your health issue. Glad to see you on the mend

[John Sabino]

Ryan - Much appreciated. I can assure you, it's good to be seen! John

[jeffwarne]

I've used their website a lot over the years and it continues to improve.
Their World Top 100 is a  pretty good list I'd say, but where they a really are very useful website is their breaking up and ranking courses by local region, which is invaluable in trip planning. One you identify a course or area you want to play you simply click on a course in that area. A little tricky at first, but highly useful and comprehensive.


Sure you have to take many reviews with a grain of salt, but those reviews generally explain what that particular reviewer enjoyed and of course there are local bias' but you can go from there.
Of course very often a course ranked 11th is more appealing to me than one ranked 3rd, I just think of it as more of an alphabetical list. and often the "gems" are quite good and worth playing.
I've used it(along with other resources such as GCA and the CG) for nearly every overseas trip I've been on in the past 10 years and for the most part I haven't been suprised to the downside at all.

[Ira Fishman]

I've used their website a lot over the years and it continues to improve.
Their World Top 100 is a  pretty good list I'd say, but where they a really are very useful website is their breaking up and ranking courses by local region, which is invaluable in trip planning. One you identify a course or area you want to play you simply click on a course in that area. A little tricky at first, but highly useful and comprehensive.


Sure you have to take many reviews with a grain of salt, but those reviews generally explain what that particular reviewer enjoyed and of course there are local bias' but you can go from there.
Of course very often a course ranked 11th is more appealing to me than one ranked 3rd, I just think of it as more of an alphabetical list. and often the "gems" are quite good and worth playing.
I've used it(along with other resources such as GCA and the CG) for nearly every overseas trip I've been on in the past 10 years and for the most part I haven't been suprised to the downside at all.

+1. It also may be the only site where I have seen comments by women which is a big boost to my trip planning.


Ira

[Sean_A]

One course surprised me, Royal Aberdeen. I haven't noticed if it made the huge splash it seems to on this list.

BTW, does anybody else find using this site on a phone incredibly frustrating?

Happy Hockey

[Niall C]

Sure you have to take many reviews with a grain of salt, but those reviews generally explain what that particular reviewer enjoyed and of course there are local bias' but you can go from there.

Golf World UK used to produce a weighty book of 1,000 Top GB&I courses. It was similar in format as courses were marked out of five stars and collated in regions so you could readily get a handle on what was to offer in each region. Each course would have a sample of different reviews and comments that when you put them together gave you a pretty good flavour of what to expect. It was my go to book for many years and I suspect even though it hasn't been updated for many years or indeed published for many years if you can find it in a second hand book store or on line I would highly recommend it. Yes, the reviews might be 10 or 15 years old but many of the courses are unlikely to have changed significantly since.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

For years there was a book entitled the Daily Telegraph guide to golf courses in the UK with summaries of all/most clubs included.
It was from this book and from looking closely at Ordnance Survey maps and road atlas' for courses that first led me to play courses like Welshpool and Church Stretton way back in the 1970's.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

For years there was a book entitled the Daily Telegraph guide to golf courses in the UK with summaries of all/most clubs included.
It was from this book and from looking closely at Ordnance Survey maps and road atlas' for courses that first led me to play courses like Welshpool and Church Stretton way back in the 1970's.
atb

There was an Automobile Association guide in the early 80's, with maps in the back, which I completely wore out on my trip in 1982-83.  Longer write-ups of fifty courses in the front.  Extremely handy.

[JC Jones]

As for giving this ranking more credibility than others because it comes out of the UK . . . it's more European-centric, for sure, and that will appeal to some, but they don't have near the coverage of classic U.S. courses that others do.  But then, consider that the list really comes off the internet, and think about what that does for its credibility.

Given the number of US courses in the GOLF magazine Top 100 and Next 50, I wonder if the opposite is true with respect to the current GOLF panel and whether they have the coverage of GB&I (and Continental) courses that they should.

[Tom_Doak]

Given the number of US courses in the GOLF magazine Top 100 and Next 50, I wonder if the opposite is true with respect to the current GOLF panel and whether they have the coverage of GB&I (and Continental) courses that they should.

I don't know who a lot of the panelists are, but it would surprise me if there were very many Americans in the mix who hadn't played a lot of courses in the UK & Ireland.  I've seen something like 270 myself.


Besides that, we aren't ranking the top 100 in GB & I, as we are going to do in America.  To get down to all the candidates for the 100th spot, you need to have seen quite a lot more courses.  There are maybe 100 legitimate candidates for a top 50 list, if not less; but for a top 100 list I would say there are 250 or 300 legit candidates.

[JC Jones]

Given the number of US courses in the GOLF magazine Top 100 and Next 50, I wonder if the opposite is true with respect to the current GOLF panel and whether they have the coverage of GB&I (and Continental) courses that they should.

I don't know who a lot of the panelists are, but it would surprise me if there were very many Americans in the mix who hadn't played a lot of courses in the UK & Ireland.  I've seen something like 270 myself.


Besides that, we aren't ranking the top 100 in GB & I, as we are going to do in America.  To get down to all the candidates for the 100th spot, you need to have seen quite a lot more courses.  There are maybe 100 legitimate candidates for a top 50 list, if not less; but for a top 100 list I would say there are 250 or 300 legit candidates.

I didnt have you in mind when I made my post.  My guess is your depth is as good as anyone.  But my guess is, given your depth, you probably have a few courses in GB&I that you think should be on the GOLF magazine list over some of the American ones.  Just as you look at the list for this top100 and think there should be more American courses.


Point being, the American generated list is US focused, the European generated list is more Euro focused.  The point of origin and the depth of the experiences of the respective panels likely being the issue.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()