Golf Monthly Top 100

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean - if the reviewers couldn't get on at Queenwood they cannot rate it.

[Ivan Morris]

Adrian - Rating courses is acceptable, ranking them isn't - in my not so humble opinion. I agree with you that the way the points criteria is decided is hooey at times. BTW, Sean - Queenwood is a very private club south of London, England where many of the touring pros like to hang out. What the ;-)))) is TOC? 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ivan - It might not be okay to rank in your opinion but yours is minor (nothing wrong in a minor opinion btw). People by and large like things in lists and the issues with rankings sell more. Lists create lots of discussion too. Financially being high or even in the list is very very very important for a newer golf course, a bad ranking can pickle it. So it has its importance to many and equally some people need not care.

[Ivan Morris]

Adrian - Having 'minor' opinions doesn't mean they are wrong (or right.) My definition of a good golf course is simple: How soon would I like to play it again? No fancy jargon.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Folks, I am not sure why it is difficult to understand why we rank courses.  We rank everything.  Magazines rank Colleges and universities, cars, and even doctors.  When I travel I look at Trip Advisor and Yelp to help find restaurants and hotels.  You can believe that I not only see how they are rated but where they are ranked.  It is a way of life.  Ranking courses is fun and interesting.  In this thread I noticed someone dismayed that Lytham was rated as highly as it is and another who thought it should be higher in the rankings.  It also helps the traveler discover courses that might be overlooked.  Enjoy them or disregard them.  They are not going away.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian - Having 'minor' opinions doesn't mean they are wrong (or right.) My definition of a good golf course is simple: How soon would I like to play it again? No fancy jargon.

Ivan thats right. As long as the person realises his opinion is a minor one its fine. The only time it becomes a problem is when that person votes that opinion within a small count, perhaps even his sole call. Of course we do this all the time in life and the result is either a success or a mistake.

[Mark Chaplin]

Tommy - spot on, I'm off to Vegas for the first time in February, I checked TripAdvisor for a hotel and needless to say I'm not staying at 283 of 283  it's shite, nor am I staying at 1 of 283 its too leggy. I have however chosen a hotel at the very top of the second tier, a balance of cash//quality.

St Endoch not Muirfield, West Sussex not Sunningdale.........maybe those listings do have a purpose!

[Sean_A]

Sean - if the reviewers couldn't get on at Queenwood they cannot rate it.

Top100 managed to rate Queenswood.  I am quite surprised one of the big mags missed it - if indeed they did.  I didn't see it in the 2nd 100 either.

Ciao

[Martin Toal]

Sean - if the reviewers couldn't get on at Queenwood they cannot rate it.

Top100 managed to rate Queenswood.  I am quite surprised one of the big mags missed it - if indeed they did.  I didn't see it in the 2nd 100 either.

Ciao

Queenwood and Skibo's absence from the GM rankings were discussed on a GM Forum.

The editor posted a comment that both courses asked not to be included, so they weren't.

[Martin Toal]

On the general point, so long as we acknowledge that there are some courses which are better than others, then it is perfectly possible to start rating and ranking them. The problem is in (a) determining the criteria and (b) assigning the proper score.

In the GM rankings, conditioning and presentation counts for 30% of marks awarded, and this has been a hot discussion item. It explains, for example, the Belfry's relatively high ranking around 80, because although it is a rather dull course, in my opinion, I will acknowledge it is usually in excellent condition and nicely presented.

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/courses/tophundred/530644/the-assessment-criteria-top-100-uk-and-ireland-golf-courses-2012.html

[Ben Jarvis]

Interesting to read that the quality of catering and the changing rooms is assessed when rating the course...

[Ben Jarvis]

Interesting to read that the quality of catering and the changing rooms is assessed when rating the course...

It also appears that Swinley and New Zealand's positioning on the list have suffered due to a lack of website.

I thought the locker rooms at Swinley were more than adequate. In fact, the visitor locker room had been refurbished in the last few years apparently - perhaps to help their ranking??

[Ben Jarvis]

Ben - I doubt Swinley care in the least where they come in these lists.

Agreed, was being a little sarcastic re the locker rooms.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Interesting to read that the quality of catering and the changing rooms is assessed when rating the course...

I agree crazy criteria.

[Niall C]

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/courses/tophundred/530644/the-assessment-criteria-top-100-uk-and-ireland-golf-courses-2012.html

Cringeworthy reading. I loved this one - "is there a clear and fair definition between fairway, semi-rough and rough". The inability to exactly discern these changes is a feature of all of the best Heathland and links courses I know.

Brian

Couldn't agree more with you. Heathland courses, like links courses, should be scruffy round the edges in my opinion. I've got to think that the green artificial turf used for pathways at Silloth would have got extra points in this survey when in reality it simply detracts from a wonderful golf course, a point some of us ventured to make to the club when playing the BUDA.

I also recall another top 100 course I was a member of that spent a fair bit on signage, paths, seats, markers etc just to get further up the rankings when they would have been better of bulldozing through the swathes of gorse that made 2 out of the 3 par three greens near blind.

Niall

[Jud_T]

This has got to be the silliest set of criteria of any golf ranking anywhere.  Practically 2/3 of it has nothing to do with GCA.  To think of it differently, if Prestwick tripled their maintenance budget, put in 3 distinct cuts of rough, built a massive McMansion clubhouse, had bagboys and cute hostesses handing out cool towels and installed a bunch of fancy tee markers and signage they'd not only destroy the whole ambience and historical significance of the place, but they'd rocket up this list in the process.  Worse than garbage, this list is actually detrimental to the game IMO.

[Niall C]

"Worse than garbage, this list is actually detrimental to the game IMO."

Jud

Very well put. I think that was the conclusion I was coming to in my earlier post. In contrast, I had the pleasure of playing a number of rounds this summer ( ?) with a well known member of this board and a rater for one of the US mags and it was interesting seeing the criteria used for rating the course. I certainly don't recall any of the peripheral stuff mentioned here coming into the equation.

Niall

[Martin Toal]

I agree that conditioning should be a secondary consideration after design and that the availability of a website or good food in the clubhouse is at best tertiary.

In GM's defence, though, I would say that calling this list the ranking of best courses is probably not exactly what they mean. It is not a list based on GCA, rather, I suspect they mean the best golf experiences, and to the average golfer, the peripheral stuff, for example in the case of The Belfry, the sense of playing a Ryder Cup venue, as well as clubhouse experience and facilities for visitors etc etc are more important than whether Colt's vision is still being properly honoured, or whether a hole is a true Redan or not.

The general thrust of the ranking is reasonable though. Top links near the top, then leading heathland/sandbelt courses, a few more lesser links, and few parkland courses with high rankings. I don't think the precise order is important once you get outside the top 5 or 10, so whether the number 78 is really better than the 84 is unimportant.

[Sean_A]

While I don't really agree with many of the placements/omissions/inclusions, I don't have a problem with the criteria.  It is available to peruse making reading the lists between the lines easier.  No question the criteria make this list as much about the experience as the quality golf.  I for one NEVER trust lists which claim to be all about the golf because I know folks are influenced by

history
royal status
membership status
difficulty of access
clubhouse/locker room/food
conditioning
views
cost
etc

Just look at all the threads about these issues then tell me they don't mean anything.  Lets face it, there is plenty of good golf to be had, a lot of times its these extra items which endear us to places.  For many golf is about the day, not merely the round.   

Ciao

[Jud_T]

The real damage to me is that the average punter often takes these things as gospel without delving too deeply into the details.  In that case, being Top 20 versus bottom 20 does make a big difference.  There's also the knock-on effect to consider, which is considerable.  A guy plays a fancy, luxurious, well conditioned club that he knows is highly ranked, then by association he makes the judgement that a course has to be fancy, luxurious and well conditioned to be highly rated.  The GCA circle jerk two step if you will.

[Sean_A]

Brian

Yes, conditioning will always be an anomaly from my (and I know yours as well) perspective.  For instance, I would mark The Belfry down for conditioning because whenever I have played it the course was damp compared to others in the area - yet many think it is well conditioned.  Damp is hard issue for me to overlook!  Me, I go about 2/3rds the quality of course which would include beauty and conditioning (because I can't separate these issues out of the joy to be alive factor).

Ciao  

[Martin Toal]

In GM's defence, though, I would say that calling this list the ranking of best courses is probably not exactly what they mean. It is not a list based on GCA, rather, I suspect they mean the best golf experiences, and to the average golfer, the peripheral stuff, for example in the case of The Belfry, the sense of playing a Ryder Cup venue, as well as clubhouse experience and facilities for visitors etc etc are more important than whether Colt's vision is still being properly honoured, or whether a hole is a true Redan or not.

Martin - I disagree with the point you're making as I think absolute quality is absolute quality. And I also think you are slightly overestimating how much beard pulling goes on in the GCA ranks! Not to sound like a pretentious so and so but it's like a really well conceived fine dining meal versus a nice kebab - one is immediately satisfying and the othe complex and requiring far more skill - yes it's an acquired taste, but if you take the time to acquire it you will be rewarded more in the long run. And that goes for the experience too - when you look at the "experience" at places like the Belfy, the K club long enough to get past the initial wow factor of all the luxury, you might detect a total lack of character and sameness to it. You go to a Woking or a Tandridge or a Royal Ashdown forest and you get somewhere unique, rich in history and character. The GM lads probably think they should be renovated to include a spa and swimming pool! Who should set the criteria to determine what is the "best"? I don't know but I am a hell of a lot more likely to go with a prolific author and revered commentator on Golf Course Architecture like Brad Klein than some fella who suggests we should take note of the tea and coffee making facilities or how "fair" a "test" the course is.

I also disagree on the general thrust of the rankings. It's a joke of a list and now we know why.

Brian

I think you are being a bit harsh on the poor GM raters. Muirfield, RCD and TOC are not kebabs.

To fully understand this we would need to see the raw scores, and if you did so, you might find that conditioning is not a terribly strong discriminating factor, i.e it doesn't make much difference. But neither should tradition and the fact that you can only have a fourball between 3 and 4 pm on the second Thursday of the month confer any extra points. If it is all about the course, it is all about the course. Can't have it both ways.

I totally get the 'Wow!' factor problem, which is possibly greatest of all at The Belfry. I played there recently and overheard someone say that they didn't really think it was great but must be wrong because it held those Ryder Cups after all. Likewise The Grove with its great service and facilities. But Celtic Manor isn't in the 100, The Belfry is only 80-ish (although I would put it a lot lower), as is my own club, Bearwood Lakes.

There is a risk of the opposite effect too. Just because Dr Al or Harry Colt designed the course shouldn't confer any great blessing as of right and perhaps reviews by those who do not know a lot about the work of the great architects are more objective.

In terms of the general thrust of the list, I am not so sure it is heinously off the mark for many courses. Sure, there are a few anomalies here and there, but I don't see it favouring swanky high service courses or modern monstrosities.