[David_Tepper]

YES! (and a real tribute to head greenskeeper Alex Macdonald)

http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Sport/Golf/Golspie-Golf-course-moves-into-Scotlands-top-100-23022012.htm

[Jon Wiggett]

Well done Golspie!!!! It is a course to often over looked yet it has a bit of each type of golf links, heathland and parkland. Good price too.

Jon

[Jim Eder]

This is great to see.  I have been surprised it hasn't gotten more recognition. I really enjoy the design, I love the par 3s and 9, 15, 18 are tough par 4s. It however does offer some birdie opportunities. I love the bunkers.  The people are terrific.  And when the gorse is in bloom it is beyond gorgeous.  I can't wait to play here several times on my next trip.  Congrats Golspie!!

[David_Tepper]

Jim -

As a group, I think the five par-3's at Golspie compare very favorably to the par-3's at Dornoch, Brora & Tain.

DT

[Jim Eder]

David,

I am with you on that.  Just wonderful.

[Niall Hay]

YES! (and a real tribute to head greenskeeper Alex Macdonald)

http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Sport/Golf/Golspie-Golf-course-moves-into-Scotlands-top-100-23022012.htm

Very nice. Not too far from you right David?

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

Yes, Golspie is just 10 miles or so up the road from Dornoch. I have been a member at Goslpie GC for almost 10 years. The condition of the course has improved greatly over the past 3 years and the lengthening of 2 of the par-4's to par-5's has worked out much better than I thought it would. 

DT

[Scott Warren]

I am astounded it hasn't been a fixture of the list previously, though nothing surprises me with the top 100 golf website.

Very good news for the club, though, and DT I agree with your praise of the one-shotters at Golspie. They're at least as good a set as those at Dornoch and Brora, IMO.

Funnily enough, the review quoted in the linked story says, "The par 3 tenth (Lochy) with its water feature is just wonderful." I must say my opinion and that of many I've discussed the hole with is exactly the opposite. That little pond is just what the hole doesn't need, nor is it really in character with anything else on the course.

[Stan Dodd]

Golspie is such great fun






Golspie such great fun.  There are quite a few thrilling shots.  Ditto on the par 3's.  But the 9th is a really, really good hole.  A challenging drive and a tough 2nd to a wonderful green complex  back in the woods, one of my favorite spots on the property.
The presentation of the course in the past 4 years has gotten better each year. Top notch green keeping.
The reception in the golf shop and clubhouse is warm and friendly.  A great place for golf.

[Jim McCann]

I'm truly delighted that a cracking little course like Golspie should make it into the Scottish Top 100,
though the article in "The Northern Times" misquotes me - it was another reviewer who liked the water
feature at the 10th hole, not me.

I must say too that I'm disappointed Scott Warren had to have a sly wee dig at the Top 100 website,
not for the first time too.

Instead of maybe congratulating it for giving due prominance to a course that thoroughly deserves it,
he took the opportunity to chide the Top 100 site for taking so long to give Golspie the exposure that it
undoubtedly merits.

There's just no pleasing some people, I suppose...   

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I think a site that claims "Our ratings are the most informed in the world" bears scrutiny. And under scrutiny, there have been more people than just me who have suggested your website's lists have had some extremely questionable inclusions and exclusions.

As I recall, some recent US-based lists were re-released in double quick time for that very reason.

[Jim McCann]

Scott

For your information, the Top100 state rankings in the US are being expanded "in double quick time"
because a decision was made to collapse the national Top 250 rankings back to a Top 100 list then
build up the state rankings, one by one.

This was done in response to feedback received from browsers and we're around halfway through that
process.

Again, rather than give credit for increasing our coverage from around 300 courses to more than 900,
you choose now to criticize what's being done.

As I said earlier, there's just no pleasing some people...

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

State lists were released that are now being altered, a mere couple of months later.

I don't doubt a positive spin is being placed on that decision, but as you say, the lists came out, there was "feedback received from browsers" and the lists were immediately changed.

"Our ratings are the most informed in the world" is a fair bit of self-congratulation and I don't think my criticism is unfair.

It's a great site and a thorough resource.

[Jim McCann]

Scott

State lists for the US were NOT just released then altered a couple of months later by the Top100 website.

Until the end of last year, courses appeared in state rankings as a by product of their inclusion in the national
Top 250, a chart that was built up over many months. Unfortunately, this meant that we only featured courses
in state lists that were nationally ranked (plus a couple of dozen browser-nominated gems). 

We decided in January - as we did earlier in 2011 for GB&I - to discontinue the top down strategy and pare back
the US national list to 100 then build the state lists from the bottom up, ensuring that we displayed at least five
courses for each and every state. 

We've just finished the first 20 states and are working on the remaining 30 right now:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=411

I'm afraid there's no "immediate change" - if only!!!

What we have is a process that evolves over time to hopefully prove that we are indeed "the most informed"
ranking operation in the business - and if that statement is too self-congratulatory for you then please accept
my apologies for upsetting your fragile golfing sensibilities.

We look forward to receiving even more constructive criticism when all 50 states are ready.


 

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

This thread formed the basis of my understanding. Your own words.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50960.msg1162271.html#msg1162271

I would ask why those behind "the most informed" ratings in the business would release lists that they know "aren't what they could be"? Why allow state lists to be formulated from data that the site's own admin admits is insufficient? That doesn't sound terribly thorough.

Similarly, in that thread, my mate Kev Pallier says your site's Aussie ratings list is compiled by nicking Golf Australia Magazine's list and adding his own input. Is that a fair summary of how that list was put together?

if that statement is too self-congratulatory for you then please accept my apologies for upsetting your fragile golfing sensibilities

I've always found the speed with which someone resorts to childish jibes is inversely proportionate to the substance of their argument.

[Jim McCann]

Scott

I'm not going to repeat what I posted earlier but the Top100 website recognized its coverage of
courses at state level in the US wasn't good enough so it decided to do something about it this
year.

I would have thought that particular move would have been enough to satisfy most fair-minded
people who could see we were admitting to a deficiency in part of our world wide coverage which
we were prepared to resolve.

I wondered when you's start sniping about our Australian coverage too.

Kevin Pallier and several other Australian gca members contributed to our recent update of their national
Top100 chart. And no, we weren't involved in "nicking" Golf Australia Magazine's list. Their figures were
incorporated into our database of rankings for that country by the same process we use for each and
every one of the other national and international charts that we create.

You didn't think that we just pluck our charts out of thin air, did you?    

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

I think we have both made our point and are unlikely to yield. Let's leave it at that. Lists built on databases of other publications' rankings, and your own admission that the data was not as good as it should have been, to me makes the claim of "we are the best in the world" a fairly suspect one.

That's not to broadly dismiss the site. To repeat what I have said many times previously, it's extremely thorough and has a lot of great uses for the travelling golfer.

[Jim McCann]

Scott

I'm glad to leave it at that, having had the opportunity to clarify what we're doing with the US states.

Let's not forget too that this thread was meant to be a celebration of a cracking course that often gets
overlooked by golfers who travel to play in that remote part of Scotland.

Believe me, NOTHING gives greater pleasure than seeing the likes of Golspie, Forfar, Kilmacolm and
Auchterarder given exposure on the Top100 site - my annual quest is to try and unearth one or two of
the old golfing gems that are all too often overlooked by the mainstream media.

I'm sure there are plenty of Australian courses in a similar position. Perhaps you'd like to nominate one
or two in times to come.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()