[Tommy Williamsen]

For the most part I look at rankings and think, "Hm that is interesting that x is ranked above y or that xx is ranked at all."  But I don't really have dog in the fight.  Where my clubs rank is interesting but it does not affect my income.  Rankings do make a difference for those who make living from clubs.  I have seen courses change green fees and dues, do to rankings.  Some proudly display their rank.  I was in Lost City, SA and went into the pro shop and saw a plaque indicating that it was ranked in the top 100 outside the USA by Golf Digest.  I asked the pro, "Does that really make a difference to you?"  "Absolutely," was his reply.  I have been on the GD rating panel for more than 20 years and I work diligently to get it right, because I know it does make a difference to some clubs.  

So Adrian, I can understand your upset.  

[Niall C]

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...

Jim

I would love to know what the 15 regions in Scotland are and what the individual rankings are for each region. From what you say, you seem to have been outvoted on the likes of Ranfurly Castle, Hamilton, Elgin and Cawder which are courses that are comfortably better IMO than quite a few on the top 100 list. If your colleagues haven't played those courses then that seems to back up my previous comment about courses being located in the right area.

Nobody goes to Glasgow or Lanarkshire for a golfing holiday but that's not to say there isn't some very good golf there.

Niall

[Jim McCann]

Niall:

Here's a link to where you can gain access to Top 100 Golf Course's fifteen Scottish districts (just click on "Select an Area" when the link loads).

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/country.asp?id=3

(And, for the more cynically minded, Niall is not operating as my stooge in a shameless product placement routine...  )


    

[Paul Gray]

Ulrich,

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that all views are equal. Quite simply, they are not. Me waxing lyrical about some piece of modern jazz and awarding six gold saxophones in a review doesn't mean anyone should actually take my comments seriously because I know next to nothing about the subject.

Through nothing but the best of intentions an inexperienced golfer might rate a course highly simply because he or she has little to compare it to. It might well be the best course that particularly golfer has ever played but still be a million miles short of being genuinely outstanding. If all you ever play is £18 farm tracks the best of that bunch is likely to rate highly with you because you know of nothing else.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Paul,

why would that particular golfer, who has never played any other course than his dogtrack around the corner, care enough to write a review on a site like Top 100 Golf Courses? Obviously, he would have to search for information on other courses to even find that site. Then he would have to read that information about other courses thoroughly enough to find out that there is an option for him to submit a review. And then he would use the search function this way and that way and come across many other courses, before finding out that his dogtrack isn't even available in Top 100 Golf Courses!

By then this supposedly novice golfer should be pretty educated and know that something is wrong with his course. He would have to go through a nomination process for his course and learn yet more about which courses are added to Top 100 Golf by some staff member and which aren't. This guy would have to tremendously care to even get that far. And then I say, everyone with that kind of passion is a good rater of golf courses.

So I think your scenario is highly unlikely. The much higher likelihood would be of an ignorant golfer to give Sunningdale a bad review, because the greens aren't soft. But that will certainly not affect the rankings and believe me, this guy will get flak from other reviewers.

Ulrich

[Adrian_Stiff]

Firstly - The top100 site is actually well thought of and over the last few years a number of clubs allude to their ranking on the websites/advertising....so its a good thing to be ranked highly.

As I see it the problem is the ranking is bettered or worse by the number of balls allotted by the 'unqualified' rater.

So, Sean Arble lets say could rate from 1 ball to 6 balls. He does not play dogtracks but his 6 Ball may not even exist or only very rarely, his 3 ball might be actually a decent course, his 4 baller say (Burnham)... He therefore might play a nice course like Sutton Coldfield and give it a 2 baller........ Charlie Farley an unofficial 26 handicapper who plays on groupon deals and 2-4-1s plays a farmtrack and thinks it was ok and gives it a 4 or 5 ball, when he gets a freebie and plays in a corporate day at Bowood he gives that a 6 baller.

That messes up any sensible ranking system.

We are all going to like different things and everyones top10/ top100 is going to differ, but a collection of qualified opinions is the only way it can work. I think a fair person can analyse the courses in his region as he knows the local ones quite well and allott them a score (with guidance from a system/rules on how to score) if you have not played the course in your area, dont rate it. Each rating is fed into the computer/database. If it is a decent opinion (ie, you delete the ones that give Muirfied a 1/10 and they gave their home course 10/10) you can let him rate the courses he plays. When a course has 10 opinions or more it is a solid rating. It  will have points that can be fed into a master database to produce real stats that are fairer than the current ones.

[Paul Gray]

Ulrich,

Adrian has pretty much read my mind so I don't really have a great deal more to offer. That said, we're all assuming that Jim et al actually take notice of all reviews. For all we know, Jim might well filter the opinions expressed as it's often pretty clear who does and who doesn't know what they are talking about.

All I would add is that if you honestly think that clueless folk don't post massively overly positive reviews on Top 100 I would urge you to take a closer look. I don't want to get out and out hostile right now towards anyone's business but, trust me, I've read reviews of some awful courses which, based on the reviews alone, you'd be forgiven for thinking were world class. "Fantastic" seems to be a very liberally used word in places.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Adrian, Paul,

let me ask you two questions:

1) Are there actually $18 farm tracks on Top 100 Golf?

2) If 9 out 10 golfers LOVE Bowood and HATE Muirfield, then why rank Muirfield higher?

I realise that the second question is very hard to answer or, in other words, if it takes you less than three paragraphs, then I am going to label you a Charley Farley type with a Sean Arble self image and discard your answer

Seriously, my answer would be slightly evasive as well: it will never happen that 9 out of 10 golfers prefer Bowood over Muirfield. Maybe one or two Charley Farleys will appear, but it will never happen in a significant way that could influence rankings. Yes, if it does happen, then we must rank Bowood over Muirfield. BUT IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. And it didn't: Bowood is not ranked at all in England, whereas Muirfield is #3 in GB&I.

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Ulrich

There is serious grade inflation on Top100, to the point where it is very difficult to see the discrimination in quality.  For instance, Swinley and Blackwell are both given 5 balls - and that is nothing like an isolated incident.  There are too many "raters" on Top100 rating courses based on the weather, birdies, the clubhouse, the welcome, etc etc etc. Its to the point where the ball system is seriously compromised (laughable really) - this much is quite plain for anybody who cares to look at site for a few minutes.    

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't pay any attention to the golf number of golf balls next to a course.  I think that is the weakest part of the web site.  I don't think it really think it adds anything.

[Martin Toal]

These rankings are always contentious, and strictly ordering courses is always going to generate disputes. Some places do it in a 1-10, then tranches of ten, in alphabetical or random order thereafter. I think that has merit.

Biut since it is individualised, and it seems Bearwood Lakes (my club) is (even a few places) below The Belfry (Brabazon), I will be resigning my membership at the next renewal.

Anyone want to buy a debenture?

[Mark Chaplin]

From a review on Deal, I guess it's horses for courses;

I understand the 'purists' liking these sort of quirky courses where one minute your hitting a 9 iron 200 yards and the next you are having to hit a driver to a 150 yard par 3, but much prefer places like The Brabazon, Celtic Manor, Vale of Glamorgan and the like. Guaranteed a well stocked Pro Shop / Golf Superstore, proper yardages on the fairways, holding greens and you can wear all the proper Poulter clobber without the locals turning their noses up! 4 Ryder Cups at the Belfry says it all.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I don't pay any attention to the golf number of golf balls next to a course.  I think that is the weakest part of the web site.  I don't think it really think it adds anything.

Tommy - The problem is those ball ratings + or - where you are in the rankings, so it is financially important. A top 100 GB&Ire GolfWorld rating is worth around a million pounds to a business, if you can can add/inflate £20 to your rounds (say 4,000) on a 12 P/E multiple. The Top100 rating is not worth anything like that but it is becoming significant.
Ulrich - Your not understanding my point, I am just hypothetically banding course names around. Yes there are £18 dog tracks around on that site, but they dont figure in the GB&Ire top 100 obviously, they are more at the regional level.

Personally I think any good rating system must start regionally, then you mass the info together for the wider picture. If you look at the Doak system its a fairly simplistic system of 0-10 and one mans opinion, if you took that to the next level and you had 10,000 TDs each with knowledge of 50 courses and they gave their 0-10, you would end up with some course perhaps with 200 opinions, from that the rating would be pretty solid, I suspect with 10 or 20 opinions it would be pretty accurate. Maybe you dont go in the ratings until the rating is solid (more than 10). I actually started to produce a ranking system several years ago but never finished it properly, I never really finished off the correct parameters of what was important /less important, but the principle was a rater filled in about 25 questions, he rated each hole on the course from 1 to 10 (with some  guidance how to score), there were 7 other columns like, views, conditioning, length, space, safety. I had nothing for clubhouse or general club feeling.... some golf clubs just smell nice.

[hhuffines]

Mark, you have to admit that the first thing you're likely to hear from a RCP member is "where do YOU play?"

[Mike_Young]

TOP 100???  Why did we ever choose the number 100?  This entire exercise is silly when some countries with 600 courses choose a top 100 and then another with 16000 chooses a top 100.  Perhaps it should be a top 1%.  That would take the number ranked in the US to 160 and Scotland to 6.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

Blackwell has all of 7 reviews. That number isn't statistically significant.

I don't know the course, but if it is 100 years old and a six time regional qualifier for the Open, then it surely must be great. Perhaps not as great as Swinley, but you're like Tom Doak and splitting hairs between great and greater. 99 of 100 golfers would dream playing a course like Blackwell I am guessing.

Ulrich

[Mark Chaplin]

Mike - no 7 in Scotland will be a lot better than 100 in the USA!

Ulrich - Open qualifiers tend to be played at good honest member courses, it's no indication of "greatness". Langley Park, Wilderness and Rochester & Cobham in Kent are all fine courses and clubs but Doak 5s at best.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Blackwell has all of 7 reviews. That number isn't statistically significant.

I don't know the course, but if it is 100 years old and a six time regional qualifier for the Open, then it surely must be great. Perhaps not as great as Swinley, but you're like Tom Doak and splitting hairs between great and greater. 99 of 100 golfers would dream playing a course like Blackwell I am guessing.

Ulrich

Ulrich

And yet, Blackwell is a great course that only seven people kn ow about?  What does it matter if 99 of 100 golfers would dream of playing Blackwell?  I used it as an example of virtually no discrimination between the top and bottom of a list.  If you think there are at least 100 5-6 ball courses in GB&I then I suggest, in the great tradition of Spinal Tap, that some courses then be given 7 balls  .  I am not coming close to buying what teh Top100 punters are selling, so we shall have to agree to disagree.

Ciao  

[David Davis]

As is the case with many sites that try to rank things even if only partially by public opinion. The public opinion part of it becomes a lot stronger and more accurate the more people fill in the ranking for a given subject. Sean, if we take you as the example of someone that knows what they are talking about and your review and number of balls are at one end of the spectrum there will be people that think a lot more of a course than you and people that think a lot less of the course. The more reviews the more accurate it will be over time even if the people reviewing have a lot less expertise than you do. Take a look at IMDB.com, booking.com or Tripadvisor.com, which are all perfect examples of this. In order to make up for the fact that rankings are building up in many areas on Top 100 there are other factors brought into the equation. I'd argue it makes as much sense as any ranking out there and more than most. Certainly more than one being done by one person.

Personally, my business is advertising, specifically niche advertising and what I can tell you about the independent audits of golf sites to determine their demographic audience for advertising purposes is also very interesting (at least to me). With the exception of GCA which is a very small niche site for opinionated people about a very specific niche topic that does not live from or allow advertisers this is what many of these sites live on. Top 100 Golf Courses was independently audited by an external agency, the results regarding the demographic put it's audience and user base as the highest of all golf websites in terms of important factors for advertisers such as average income for the users, # of golf trips on a national and international level etc etc. In general, more travelled, more courses played the better the average opinion. They also have one of the largest registered user bases.

Now sure you can argue that you are still right and the majority is wrong (where there is a majority) but then you are putting your subjectivity above that of everyone else's and honestly, that has no advertising value nor relevance whatsoever outside of here on GCA. Even though I and many of the other guys might agree with you (or not).

 

[James Boon]

Jim,

Its hinted at here, and I'm sure you've told us before, but have you an exact list of how these rankings are pulled together?

I've always felt that if you ignore some of the comments posted and the occasional anomaly, the rankings are not too far off. However I'm disappointed to see Notts (Hollinwell) drop 10 places.

Clearly as my home course I'm going to defend it, but I wonder how many of your raters have played it recently? There has always been the acceptance at the club that at times the conditioning hasn't been up to scratch, but in the last year or so the work Gordon Irvine has been doing has come on leaps and bounds and keeps getting better. Also, some reworking of the bunkers has helped the heathland aesthetics. I know ranking are more than aesthetics and conditioning, but when they are both improved, it does hurt to see the club drop so many places?  

Cheers,

James

[Mike_Young]

Mike - no 7 in Scotland will be a lot better than 100 in the USA!

Mark,
I'm not disputing that..BUT #100 in Scotland may be no better than #1700 in the US...

[Niall C]

Niall:

Here's a link to where you can gain access to Top 100 Golf Course's fifteen Scottish districts (just click on "Select an Area" when the link loads).

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/country.asp?id=3

(And, for the more cynically minded, Niall is not operating as my stooge in a shameless product placement routine...  )


    

Yes I am, and I fully expect to get paid for it as well 

Niall

[Niall C]

Jim

Just been in to check the local ratings and started with Moray as it's an area that I've played all but one of the courses in Moray in the last few years so can safely say I know it reasonably well. I note you've included Moray in with Aberdeenshire which I suppose is fair enough although geographically its quite a wide area relative to others. Couple of comments;

1 - you've ranked the top 20 courses but against each course you have individual ball ratings that seem to contradict the courses ranking. For instance a course that is higher in the rankings might only have 4 balls against 5 balls for a course below it. How does that work ? (apologies if you've already answered that)

2 - I'm going to make a guess and suggest that you've not played the majority of courses in Moray which would explain the complete omission of Moray Old and Elgin, both of which have been good enough to host the Northern Open in the recent past. The inclusion of Spey Bay at no. 10 is inexplicable. Not sure I would have it in my top ten in Moray let alone the two areas combined. Its certainly nowhere near as good as Duff House Royal which no doubt suffers in ranking terms because its not a links. Good to see Buckpool in there mind you but overall whopever is doing the ranking for that area clearly needs to get out more.

Niall

[Paul Gray]

Ulrich,

I'm really not sure that I need to add much (again) since a number of highly respected individuals have already done so but, for the sake of it, and without requiring three paragraphs to answer your second question, here it is:

1) Yes, at local level there are plenty of over rated dog tracks floating about in the rankings. And without wishing to speak for him, I believe Jim is aware of this and making efforts to address it. Certainly in my area he is.

2) I'll simply refer you to my previous reference to me and my lack of knowledge of modern jazz. Once again, this isn't a simple popularity contest and all opinions are most certainly not equal. If you want a popularity ranking, simply review the annual reports of all public courses and you'll be able to find out who has the biggest gross income. I'll suggest that you might end up with a mockery of a ratings system when that Ashbury place down in the West Country ranks in the Britain and Ireland Top 10 but you'll have the pop chart you're apparently looking for.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

you will find Moray Old, New, Elgin, Forres all in the Highland region for some reason. Still trying to get my head around Durness being ahead of Reay Noticed that the courses that had no 'ball rating' also had no detailed info

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()