[Jim McCann]

At the risk of upsetting the golfing sensibilities of those on gca who openly abhor golf course ranking charts, the following
links will take you to the latest Top 100 Golf Courses listings for countries in Great Britain & The Republic of Ireland
(and remember, you don’t HAVE to look if you really don’t want to, you know):

Great Britain & Ireland Top 100:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=476

England Top 100:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=481

Scotland Top 100:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=480

Ireland Top 100:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=479

Wales Top 50:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=478

Northern Ireland Top 30:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=477

[Adrian_Stiff]

Joke rankings. You ought to be sued.

[Jim McCann]

Adrian:

Not wishing to engage in a tiresome discourse with you, but - out of interest - on what grounds would you have Top 100 Golf Courses "sued"?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jim: I don't think I can sue.

Rankings are financially important to golf clubs and by ranking my courses unfairly you have caused me financial loss. I don't think I would win in court. Things like Trip Advisor are very important, the problem is some competitors unfairly trash the neighbour, that has happened to us on your site and on others. The Players Club, 113 in GB&Ire in 2006 in Golf World. The course is better now but those trashy slag offs have cost us. No rater other than Dale Concannon and one from Golf Monthly has visted in the last 4 years both said we should have our positions elevated, but we have not. Hardly any raters have played our course, who has played from top100? We have 235 members better than category 1, about 6 tour pro's that play and practice there or attached, we have 1000 members, do lots of visitor and society play, we have staged the West region PGA championships 5 times out of 13 years, Europro pre qualyfing, we do the regional finals for a lot of the amateur club qualyfiers.......... what are they seeing wrong?

4 Wiltshire clubs above Cumberwell, 7 Gloucestershire clubs above Kendleshire, come on that's man in the moon stuff.

I don't really want to diss any course on here, but just who does these rankings and I am talking about the regional ones. I can only talk with confidence over the three counties close to me but yours are absolute shite and bear no resemblance to what would be popular opinion or an opinion based on quality golf course architecture. You (top100)  have moved all my courses down after I complained last time.

Is the top 100 based on anything what the clubhouse is like or what the car park is like?

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

Let's be honest, one look at the tour and you need look no further to realise that holding events is not about quality of course. I was about to side with Jim and suggest classic architecture was being more readily recognised......and then I see a Clark and Alliss trick at #1 in Wiltshire, promptly followed by Dave Thomas blandness at #2!

Contrary to what you suggest about reviews based on the car park, I'm not so convinced that Thatcherite money from the 80's isn't still to be felt in some of these rankings.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - I think in general new golf courses get a bad rap, that is going to be a minority opinion on this site, but the game has moved on despite what many here are against. The great courses are 7000 yards +. Just look at the lists, there are only a few over 6500, the dislike to water amongst a certain fraction is bizzare when you talk to the majority. You ask anyone in Bristol what is the best 18th hole and the big opinion would be the 18th at the Kendleshire.....reason the second shot comes in over the water. I don't really understand the dislike to water amongst raters.

Bowood has some of the worst short holes you will see, the variety is lacking, the bunkering monotonous, it looks like its been created on a drawing board by the same token it is not crap either. You tell me that course is better than The Players Club, The Kendleshire or Cumberwell Park and I will cry in my beer. I really don't think any of my courses belong in the GB&Ire top 100, and this area is pretty thin on top100 contestants, but I know how my courses are perceived locally.......how do you measure them by some charlies opinion or by their commercial success.

[Paul Gray]

But Adrian, the argument you make is akin to saying that the latest boy band are the best musicians in the world because, short term, they are the most successful. Do McDonalds produce better food than the supposedly best restaurants? Certainly they sell a lot more food.

Golf course architecture, like music or food, is an art form. It takes time and effort to appreciate the best of it but it's easy to first get into it with the pop versions of the day. Quality is not measured in receipts.

[Niall C]

I think a large part of the problem with rankings is that to a great extent they become self-perpetuating eg. how many raters look to play courses outside the rankings to see how they compare ? Not many I would suggest.

Perhaps the way to approach this would be to break down the areas into smaller sizes and then have them ranked by local golfers as opposed to someone from outside the area who has no real knowledge or experience of golf in that area. Once the best in the area has been established then perhaps the raters can play what the locals consider the best in each area and then compare their findings from there. Not ideal but at least it would avoid travesties like Forfar only being no. 80 in the Scottish list, or heaven help us, Silloth no. 57 on the national list.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

One issue with your idea is not many areas have enough courses worth talking about.  Top100 now has a county ranking system and for the most part its a waste of time because in effect they are recommending courses which should never be recommended.  When many see a course ranked #4 in a county they are going to think its worth an hour or two car journey.  I can understand rankings of larger areas (West Country, London and Southeast etc) with some areas having 30+ courses and some maybe only having 10 courses.  It seems to me that Top100 is eroding its authority by trying to include way too many courses in the rankings.  I think it was better off with smaller lists and Gems making up the odd n' sods.  

Adrian

Paul is right.  Rankings can't be based on money rolling in.  You keep saying things have moved in golf, but it is quite clear the old guard commands serious respect from the punters and experts despite not using loads of water etc.  

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think Niall's way is probably the way forward. Locally you know the best courses, I don't know the best ones in Newcastle so my opinion is worth zero there. It needs a fair scoring system that equates to everyone's 5/10 equalling everyone elses (not easy I suspect). I tend to think raters get into 'raters mode' and  they are frightened to break the mould.

Paul I am not certain those things you mention are so relevant. A great song can under the radar for so long but eventually its discovered, if my courses were charging £9.99 then to some degree I could agree with you. You ask your friends at The Bristol about their competitors, Players Club and Kendleshire will roll off their tongues as to the best, Woodlands gets a lot of business too but that's on more the £9.99 line.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I agree with your assessment that top100 have gone too deep with their rankings.

Sean - I agree that measurement largely is not on ££££, but when a £50 a round course is busy it says something, we are not talking £9.99 stuff.

[Niall C]

Sean

I'm referring to the top end, not a list for every course in a given area. Obviously some areas are weaker than others but I'd suggest there are probably courses on the list that get there because they happen to be in the right area where there are lots of quality courses and vice versa there may be gems in areas not known for golf that don't make any list. For instance how much further up the list would Silloth be if it were located 100 miles further south, or indeed 100 miles further north.

If you go with local knowledge first then having national raters compare the best in each area then I think thats the best you can do.

Niall

[David Davis]

I would say rankings are always tough and subjective, even on the macro level. Start breaking them down to country, county, area and even city and there are usually a few that stick out and after that it becomes difficult.

Sean, while you disagree that there are courses in these counties of interest, you are looking at it from the perspective of not only a solid golfer but also a spoiled one. If were living in one of these counties or those were your courses that would perhaps be a lot more important to you.

Here in The Netherlands for example I really struggle to rank more than 10 courses due to the drop in quality but they will rank as many as 50.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

Using your local raters for local courses, I wouldn't list more than three courses for WORCS; Blackwell, Boughton Park and the front 9 of Broadway (which really means I wouldn't list it).  I wouldn't have the gall to list places like Redditch and Kings Norton.  I can only imagine what I would think if someone recommended I drive an hour to play these courses.  To me, there isn't much point in focusing on an area with such a dearth of good courses.  So the locals idea would have to spread out to wider areas.  

For what its worth, I would list your Stranahan Course in a bigger area than GLOS.  I am not saying its a world beater course, but its a well thought out and interesting design which is trying for a different segement of the golfing population.  That to me is worth more than the run of the mill design which isn't bad, but not in the least inspiring - we all know those courses and there are plenty of them listed in Top100.  

Niall

Silloth does quite well in the rankings and is good enough to be listed in any area of GB&I - should it ever mysteriously shift its location .    

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

I think the fact that this rankings openly admits to only looking at about 1 in 3 courses in Scotland puts it into context. Its the top 100 of the courses they visited.

 Jon

[Jim McCann]

Adrian:

I thought when you first responded that your comments were related to the NATIONAL lists in the thread that I started.

As I now know your gripe is with the COUNTY lists that Top 100 Golf Courses established a couple of years ago, I can certainly understand your concern if you feel they are having a currently detrimental financial impact on your golf operation.

It’s probably of absolutely no comfort whatsoever, but I can assure you that your unhappiness with our rankings is not unique: Andy Newmarch, the Top 100 Marketing and Operations Director, has been fielding a number of calls these past few days from people who have seen their course drop down the various national listings this time around.

Top 100 Golf Courses has an ever expanding team of local raters in GB & Ireland (who don’t always announce their credentials in advance) and a group of advisors at county level who help to shape the listings at that level. Perhaps our people in the Wiltshire/Gloucestershire region need to get out a bit more?

We are not in the business of doing anybody down, Adrian. Neither do we curry favour with any of the clubs that feature more prominently in the charts. Their courses are where they are on merit. I’m sorry if you feel the particular listings that you refer to are unfair.  

However, as Top 100 Golf Courses claims to be the “most informed” golf course ranking operation, please feel free to email jim@top100golfcourses.co.uk with your own (unbiased) rankings and we’ll throw the figures into the mix next time. Now that I think of it, I’m sure you’ve sent us your listings before so your numbers are already part of the process .  

Jon:

Top 100 Golf Courses has on board, as a very active consultant, a man who has played EVERY course (all 600+) in Scotland.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jim : I think your overall GB&Ire top 100 are pretty good. There are no horrors in there and all pretty good courses. Each and every person will see a course a few notches below one that he opines higher. I think Turnberry is #1 but I have not seen county down, others see Muirfield...largely it does not matter all these lists are just rejuggling the numbers, BUT your regional rankings are absolutely bizzare. I can see how someone passionate about a certain course can over-value but someone in Gloucestershire is having a laugh. Please dont tell me that's the work of more than one person!!! Wiltshire is the same, I have not looked at Somerset yet but if anyone had the#1 other than Burnham they need to be carted off to the farm. I find it quite hard to decide 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th best in that County so I am more open to surprise, but without looking Mendip, Weston, Bath, Oake (one of mine),Enmore, Orchardleigh, Minehead, Saltford, Clevedon...would probably be the 10.
Someone asked me from top100 to give a Doak value to courses in these counties. Did they use them or laugh at them?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon:

Top 100 Golf Courses has on board, as a very active consultant, a man who has played EVERY course (all 600+) in Scotland.

Good to know though the write up says 220 of the 600+

Jon

[Ulrich Mayring]

Most counties in Great Britain have better courses than most countries. Does that mean there should be no rankings for most countries? I don't think so. When you're in Germany you're not going find any Sunningdales. But you can find a number of golf courses, where you will have a lot of fun playing. So why not tell people, who are interested in that?

The "balls score" should tell you what you need to know about absolute quality. If a county's leading golf course has a "4 ball" score, you'll know that in some other counties it would not even be listed. Likewise, if you feel "your" course is stiffed by the rankings, but very popular among players, encourage them to submit reviews to improve the "ball score". The rankers will notice that.

The only gripe that I would put forward with the regional rankings is that the boundaries are too arbitrary. There could be a great course very near my place, but in another region. There are a number of solutions to this problem, but they all involve dynamically generated lists, so these rankings cannot be published as a fixed "such and such Ranking 2014".

Ulrich

[Jim McCann]

Jon:

You'll find 220 courses that are RANKED within the fifteen regions that are covered in Scotland.

I can assure you, I'm on a personal mission to ensure that Top 100 Golf Courses features only the very best Scottish courses from which a Top 100 can be arrived at.   

In my own Top 100 chart, I include places like Ranfurly Castle, Paisley, Bonnyton and Hamilton but we produce the Top 100 Golf Courses Top 100 for Scotland, not the Jim McCann Top 100 for Scotland so my ratings are just part of the process that sees these terrific courses [along with places like Cawder (Cawder), Elgin and Hilton Park (Hilton)] just miss out on a coveted national top 100 spot.

Next year, I intend to visit courses that I've not yet played, such as Alyth, Drumoig, Glenisla, Royal Dornoch (Struie), Torwoodlee and Williamwood. I'd also like to revisit the likes of Pollok and Stirling to see if any of these courses really do have the Top 100 qualities that others think they might possess.

Oh, and a certain new layout to the north of Aberdeen is due another wee visit in 2014, seeing as I didn't actually get to tee it up there when I saw it officially opened for play last year...

[Jon Wiggett]

Ahhh, that makes sense Jim.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

I take your point and, having never played any of your courses, I'm certainly not hear to criticise them. Nonetheless, you make reference to The Crown course at Bristol and, to be fair, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that. Sure, you are no doubt stiff competition for the folks at The Bristol but you're citing a golf course which isn't clambering for a top county ranking. The Bristol is known to be a good 'everyman' course, popular and good value at £18 for a twilight round. That isn't to say it's competing directly with Burnham and Berrow for either the same custom or some 'best in the west' rating.

I'm not sure that Jim is getting it too wrong; the number of courses selected in a county is a fair reflection of the level of quality on offer and I belief Jim is taking steps to gather some better information at local level. It may well be that you've been hard done by, I honestly don't know, but I do know that the Hampshire ratings look far better this year than last. They are far from perfect and, again, I'm not sure there isn't still some 'new wave' 80's chic at play (a lot of people that should know better are still impressed by tales of money being thrown at projects) but overall there are big improvements.

As a final note, without wishing to direct this specifically at Adrian, does anyone that feels modern courses get unfairly reviewed really want to mount an argument which says that Little Aston, Moortown and Gleneagles Queens are all worse golf courses than The Brabazon at the Belfry? The fact that you can't get a room, dinner, breakfast and two rounds of golf for £59 at the former should tell you all you need to know.

[Sean_A]

The Brab gets a bad rap, but it ain't a bad course by a long shot.  The drainage is terrible, but it has two iconic holes.  How many modern courses can claim this?  I am not saying the course is awesome or anything, I don't really care for it, but people really do get carrried away slagging the Brab.

Ulrich

If an area doesn't have courses which are good, why have a ranking system in place to falsely elevate their worth?  The ball system in place for Top100 is terrible.  All sorts of rubbish scores for rubbish reasons get included in the averages.  Sticking to my area, Blackwell gets a 5 balls and Worcester doesn't have a punter rating.  5 balls should be reserved for some of the best courses in GB&I, yet there are many Doak 4-5s which get 5 balls.  I think this is a case of punters not having very good experience in the country to offer meaningful ratings.    

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Actually newer courses tend to get over rated to start with then fall back to a more sensible level. Loch Lomond, Chart Hills and The Wisley are all examples of this.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

everything you write is correct, there are flaws to the system. In fact, there is no system without flaws. All you can do is give people the opportunity to get things right. It is like democracy. The results are often bad, but they are always "of the people who actually matter" - those that care enough to participate.

Strictly speaking, everyone who cares should participate to make things better. If only those, who value soft, long tour venues, care enough, then who is going to build different courses?

All of you guys here care enough to participate, with that I don't mean necessarily at Top 100 Golf. Choose your own poison. I chose Top 100 Golf and this board here as well as a few other places. It doesn't matter where, just that the work is honest and driven by passion. From my experiences Top 100 Golf does well on those accounts.

I'm sure that additional expertise at county level would be very welcome.

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()