It is hard to see Alwoodley ranked higher than either Rye or Saint. Enodoc.
It is even harder to see West Lancs ranked higher than either Rye or St Enodoc!
Or Alwoodley ranked higher than Notts(Hollinwell).
I would suggest that Southport & Ainsdale is punching above its weight, also. We've already mentioned Hillside.
And is Birkdale really the undisputed #1 in England?
Whenever I see a ranking I line it up against the very concensus top 100 courses that I know well. In England the courses I know well include
7. Deal
8. Burnham
9. Saunton East
11. Formby
13. WHO
15. Alwoodley
19. St Georges Hill
22. Notts
25. St Enodoc
27. Rye
28. Hunstanton
31. Woking
62. Wallasey
92. Princes
I also look at other courses I know well which can be borderline top100:
41. Beau Desert
51. New Zealand
65. Little Aston
95. Huntercombe
And I look at courses which I think should be top 100
54. Kington
55. Cavendish
I give over the top 6 ranked courses because I don't know them well enough to worry about it. Using the NCG criteria for courses I know well what looks out of whack for my eye test is
Burnham too high at 8...probably makes top 25.
St Enodoc too low at 25...I think it is a shoe in top 10.
Rye too low at 27...again, shoe in top 10.
Using NCG criteria my shoe in top 10 are below...only two of which agree with the ranking.
Sunny Old
St Enodoc
Sandwich
Rye
Formby
Swinley Forest
Sunny Old separated itself as the clear #1 which is interesting because in my personal best ranking there is no space between it and Sandwich as the best course in England.
I also had a very odd ranking for Perranporth using the NCG criteria, it came out with a shout for top 10! In my personal best ranking it wouldn't sniff top 25 England.
The one course which really stands out is Worlington. I had it as top 10 based on two visits, so I don't know the course overly well. But there is a huge difference between 10 and 60. The panel basically said Worlington is very borderline top 100 GB&I.
All in all its an ok list and a good start. Like any golf ranking list, it probably needs another 3-5 publications to be measurably improved. I still think too many rankers rely on history and reputation to sway their opinions. I am not sure how this sort of bias can be completely overcome.
Happy Hockey