News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« on: December 16, 2015, 12:51:05 AM »
National Club Golfer has just brought out their rankings of "affordable" GB courses charging less than £100.

In fact, it is more than that. Courses are ranked according to a formula which takes into account inherent quality AND the cost of a green fee. On this basis I don't quite understand the reason for the £100 threshold...

Nonetheless, it makes for interesting reading; if only for the identity of one of the panellists!


 http://digital.nationalclubgolfer.com/launch.aspx?pbid=d6c7c9df-8c1d-4826-9ddb-9acdbdeace27&error=1&debug=d6c7c9df-8c1d-4826-9ddb-9acdbdeace27

« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 01:56:51 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2015, 04:12:39 AM »
I actually had been planning to do a similar exercise over the Xmas break. The big issue for me was how do you give a mark for each of the course quality and the course value. This just adds up the rank and the green fee which I thought about but seemed the wrong way to me - is the difference in 30 places in the rankings really the same as £30 difference in green fee.

What I'd planned to do was take the top 100-150 courses from top100golf.co.uk and then see what the Confidential guide had given each of these as a mark (removing any where there weren't 2 scores). Say the top score was 10 and the bottom 7, I'd then use these as the bottom and top marks for the green fee. I'll probably still do it and probably get roughly the same results - I have previously done a course tour of Silloth with the title "The best value course in the world?"

I also think there needs to be the odd adjustment for obvious issues - I'm not sure how Askernish can be described as a value course when it costs so much to get there.

Also, I know Sean isn't but were a couple of the panellists members of Ladybank - 19th best course??? I have never, ever, heard of it talked in those terms. I haven't played it but top100 has it as 8th best in Fife and 46th in Scotland which would put it around 150-200 in GB&I. Just checked and it isn't in Sean's top 100 GB&I list. Would be very interested to know which courses would have been up or down on his own personal list - I imagine he talked Kington, Huntercombe and Cleeve Hill up the list.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2015, 05:00:22 AM »
Ed

Hmmm, just saw this list. 

I didn't pay any attention to the formula.  I figured its a formula and as with any golf formula it will be quite subjective.  There will always be large discrepancies in comparing the rankings of any four people.  All I did was provide a ranking of courses under £100 as best I could. 

Yes, I did talk up Kington and Cleeve Hill...I am not sure the other panellists have seen or perhaps even heard of these two.  Although, I am quite surprised to see Kington rated so high...Cleeve Hill as well for that matter.  To a large degree, this is the point of the ranking...to showcase fine courses which are often overlooked by the media.  With this in mind, a few courses stand out for me...Thetford,  Spey Valley, Irvine and Ipswich.   

I do disagree concerning what it costs to travel to a course as a criteria.  That sort of approach opens a huge can of worms which has no solution.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2015, 05:03:11 AM »
Interesting thanks Duncan.


I believe the 'average' golfer considers the green fee most closely and so they have come up with a very simple and effective equation. 

If this could be a spread sheet one could write our own formula. Personally  I place less importance on the green fee but agree that a £45 vs a £95 difference should be considered in this kind of rating.  I would reduce the importance by dividing the green fee by 1/3rd.   To use the Doak scale I would then have to put 1 over the new value figure and multiply.


However the real value of his kind of article is to remind the Non GCA majority, that there are great courses out there and they needn't cost more than a trip to a Premiership game.

If
« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 05:04:48 AM by Tony_Muldoon »
Let's make GCA grate again!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2015, 05:19:04 AM »
Spangles

Personally  I place less importance on the green fee but agree that a £45 vs a £95 difference should be considered in this kind of rating.  I would reduce the importance by dividing the green fee by 1/3rd.


That's where the rubber hits the road.  I don't really have a formula in mind for value golf other than to say the green fee is about 10-15% of my overall view of a course.  Once a fee starts to move above £125 I begin to lose interest unless the course is very special. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2015, 05:31:21 AM »
Ed

Hmmm, just saw this list. 

I didn't pay any attention to the formula.  I figured its a formula and as with any golf formula it will be quite subjective.  There will always be large discrepancies in comparing the rankings of any four people.  All I did was provide a ranking of courses under £100 as best I could. 

Yes, I did talk up Kington and Cleeve Hill...I am not sure the other panellists have seen or perhaps even heard of these two.  Although, I am quite surprised to see Kington rated so high...Cleeve Hill as well for that matter.  To a large degree, this is the point of the ranking...to showcase fine courses which are often overlooked by the media.  With this in mind, a few courses stand out for me...Thetford,  Spey Valley, Irvine and Ipswich.   

I do disagree concerning what it costs to travel to a course as a criteria.  That sort of approach opens a huge can of worms which has no solution.

Ciao

I agree re travel except in obvious outliers. The only 2 outliers that spring to mind are Askernish and Machrie. Even Machrihanish is only 3 hours from Glasgow so it is not that remote. Devon and Cornwall have almost 2 million people. Askernish and Machrie however have no real population to speak of and you have to take cost of travel into account. Probably best though if you just do the list and people can factor this in themselves.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2015, 05:42:01 AM »
I looked at the list and thought wow this is an unusual list, Sean will be pleased to see his favourites finally in a ranking.


I think an UNDER £50 list is actually more affordable. I think most people see £100 as too much and only for very special times. A day at Sunningdale seems fair value.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2015, 06:00:44 AM »
I agree Adrian.

£100 is WAY more than the average golfer would ever pay for a round of golf, other than as a once in a lifetime  visit to a really top course.

£50 is certainly nearer to the average golfer's idea of "affordable".

Having said that,  given the high weighting  given to cost jn the rankings, I don't see why a threshold is needed at all. The likes of Sunningdale and Birkdale  would automatically  be demoted by the formula.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2015, 06:08:34 AM »
It's certainly nice finally to see Reddish Vale on a top 100 list  (other than Sean's).

We wondered what Ed Battye of Golf Empire was doing booking on our system for a solo round at 7am one morning in August!

JJShanley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2015, 06:26:37 AM »
It's sad that Silloth and Southerness, separated by eight miles, requires a 1 hour 45 minute drive.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2015, 06:29:46 AM »
I agree Adrian.

£100 is WAY more than the average golfer would ever pay for a round of golf, other than as a once in a lifetime  visit to a really top course.

£50 is certainly nearer to the average golfer's idea of "affordable".

Having said that,  given the high weighting  given to cost jn the rankings, I don't see why a threshold is needed at all. The likes of Sunningdale and Birkdale  would automatically  be demoted by the formula.

I agree, £50 would be a better cut off, but it would also require a much better knowledge of the hinterland courses. 

I think seeing Sunny Old ranked 99 would look very odd  :D...and go against the grain of highlighting lesser courses. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2015, 06:49:09 AM »
As ever some good grist to the mill for getting a discussion started. About a million years ago Golf World used to do a top 1,000 courses in UK which rather than try and rate 1,000 courses from 1 to 1,000 banded courses from 1* up to 5*. The top 100 courses were then ranked as were the next 100 courses and the whole lot brought out in book format.


They also had a value for money list and surprise surprise, Silloth topped that list also. The book is sitting on my bookshelf at home and I think I might have a peek tonight to see what else was on the list. I'll be very surprised however if Ladybank gets a mention. For me that is the one course that really jumps out. It's been many years since I played it but I recall a course overgrown with Christmas trees flanking what seemed to be each and every fairway. No doubt there was a very good course somewhere in there but frankly even if price was no object I would rather play any number of the lower ranked courses with cheaper greens fees.


Also Gullane 2 at 49 and Gullane 1 at 46 while Gullane 3 is much further down the list. Seems to me they got that one a**e over t*t. And in the name of all that is holy how can they have a list of the best affordable courses and not include FORFAR !!!!!


Niall

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2015, 06:59:41 AM »
Putting Ladybank in there between Silloth and St. Enodoc and Machrihanish and Pennard is pretty strange. 


I see, however, that they accomplished their main goal with the list ... there must be thirty advertisements from clubs that made the new top 100.

Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2015, 07:04:50 AM »
I played Ladybank in the Summer. Nice course but I think perhaps the ranking for that one is more price than quality - I think I paid £25 in early September online.


Surprised Brora isn't higher, but a good list. The magazine is delivered free to most Clubhouses so perhaps those featured may not be such good value in 18 months time as Committees after being pleased to feature then put the prices up.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2015, 07:26:48 AM »
Putting Ladybank in there between Silloth and St. Enodoc and Machrihanish and Pennard is pretty strange. 


I see, however, that they accomplished their main goal with the list ... there must be thirty advertisements from clubs that made the new top 100.
In fairness, they normally ring up after you have made the list. It actually becomes a very good advert if you have made the list, hence so many.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2015, 07:48:23 AM »
In fairness, they normally ring up after you have made the list. It actually becomes a very good advert if you have made the list, hence so many.


I didn't mean to suggest otherwise ... just that producing such a list generates a lot of new ads.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2015, 07:48:53 AM »
Our secretary/manager came under extreme pressure to place an advert when we were first told of our inclusion. Such pressure indeed, that we began to wonder whether our place on the list was dependant on an advertisement  being placed!

 Happliy that was not the case.

Peter Pallotta

Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2015, 08:07:42 AM »
Thank you, Duncan.

I had never seen this magazine before, but came away impressed by its layout and the articles/interviews and with this list - a compact and nicely balanced blend of numbers and commentary, and for an outsider like me a handy (as I think of it, the handiest I've come across) snapshot of quality golf in GB.   

Sean - I'm glad you were a part of the panel. If you get a chance, please pass on my compliments to the publishers. I read through quite a lot of this edition, and it was a pleasure in every way.

Peter

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2015, 08:14:09 AM »
No real dogs on this listing :)


The price point is quite high though, too high I suggest.


I image we can all suggest a few other courses that could/should be included and there is a notable absence of 9-holers, of which there are several around the UK of golfing merit and more appropriate price.


Atb

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2015, 08:20:39 AM »
I also think a good percentage of the clubs use the mag for ads regardless of the content. 

I did help to add several courses to the process and several were selected.  I am, however, disappointed Leckford, Cumberwell Park Orange, Yelverton, Church Stretton and Shiskine didn't make the cut.  You can't win em' all  :D

I enjoyed the piece on Maurice Bembridge.  One of those names you hear, but from a time before there was a true Euro Tour.

Ciao
« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 08:23:04 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2015, 10:34:16 AM »
Read the review on Silloth - great picture by the way. Had to laugh when I read "If forced to find fault, the short par 3 9th is too fiddly and the back to back par 5s are not the strongest holes on the course". He needs to read Ran's write up in Course by Country as the 9th and 13th are singled out for high praise.

 

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2015, 10:57:21 AM »
Read the review on Silloth - great picture by the way. Had to laugh when I read "If forced to find fault, the short par 3 9th is too fiddly.."


"Too fiddly"? 9 Silloth is one EPIC golf hole!!

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2015, 11:15:09 AM »
I am hoping something like this starts in the US.  Tragic that the magazines stopped the Affordable Lists in the US.
Would a course like Dormie make it in the off season? ... and then with the re-play rate?
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2015, 11:23:47 AM »
C'mon Sean, confess. You wrote the review of Silloth, didn't you !?!  ;D


Ed


No need to read Ran's review, there are several of us on here who are former members and long time fans of Silloth who have been lauding its virtues on here for a number of years. The 13th is simply the best par 5 I've ever played while the 14th is perhaps one of the most fun.


As for the description of the 9th, deary deary me. I recall taking a pal to play Silloth for the first time, my friend being a member of Troon for 40 odd years. Without any pre-warning from me, he stepped on to the 9th tee, looked at the green and simply said "Postage Stamp". Any hole based on a classic like that has to have something going for it. As an aside, my friend who is still off low/mid single figures hit a 3 iron flush to the back of the green.


Niall

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Rankings of GB Courses by "Value for Money"
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2015, 11:40:22 AM »
C'mon Sean, confess. You wrote the review of Silloth, didn't you !?!  ;D


Ed


No need to read Ran's review, there are several of us on here who are former members and long time fans of Silloth who have been lauding its virtues on here for a number of years. The 13th is simply the best par 5 I've ever played while the 14th is perhaps one of the most fun.


As for the description of the 9th, deary deary me. I recall taking a pal to play Silloth for the first time, my friend being a member of Troon for 40 odd years. Without any pre-warning from me, he stepped on to the 9th tee, looked at the green and simply said "Postage Stamp". Any hole based on a classic like that has to have something going for it. As an aside, my friend who is still off low/mid single figures hit a 3 iron flush to the back of the green.


Niall

Niall,

You don't need to convince me:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,24349.msg449657.html#msg449657

Ed