Golf Magazine Australia's top 100

[Chris Kane]

This is the first time Golf Magazine have featured a top 100 ranking.  More than a few surprises in this one!

1 Royal Melbourne
2 Kingston Heath
3 Royal Adelaide
4 NSW
5 The National (Moonah)
6 Metropolitan
7 Newcastle
8 Victoria
9 Kooyonga
10 Joondalup
11 Kennedy Bay
12 Moonah Links
13 Lake Karrinyup
14 Brookwater
15 Hope Island
16 Hyatt Regency Coolum
17 Royal Canberra
18 Laguna Quays
19 The Australian
20 The Vines
21 Thirteenth Beach
22 The Heritage
23 Secret Harbour
24 The Lakes
25 Lakelands
26 Sanctuary Cove (Pines)
27 The Dunes
28 Barwon Heads
29 Portsea
30 Royal Sydney
31 Terrey Hills
32 Commonwealth
33 The Vintage
34 The Glades
35 Paradise Palms
36 The National (Ocean)
37 Araluen
38 Bonville
39 The National (Old)
40 Twin Waters
41 The Links Port Douglas
42 Huntingdale
43 Macquarie Links
44 The Grange (West)
45 Royal Hobart
46 North Lakes
47 Meadow Springs
48 Mount Lawley
49 Pelican Waters
50 Capricorn (New)

[Chris Kane]

51 Yarra Yarra
52 Robina Woods
53 Camden Lakeside
54 Peninsula (North)
55 Yarrawonga (Murray)
56 The Grand
57 Horizons
58 Tasmania
59 Grange East
60 Toowoomba
61 Sanctuary Lakes
62 St Michaels
63 Noosa Springs
64 Alice Springs
65 Long Island
66 Royal Queensland
67 Kooralbyn
68 Capital
69 Woodlands             Tom Doak will be impressed!
70 Concord
71 Bunbury
72 Royal Pines (East)
73 Indooroopilly (West)
74 Foster-Tuncury
75 Cape Schanck
76 Cranbourne
77 Glenelg
78 Ocean Shores
79 Palm Meadows
80 Murray Downs
81 Sorrento
82 The Links Lady Bay
83 Colonial - formerly Paradise Springs
84 Mirage
85 Tocumwal (Presidents)
86 Bonnie Doon
87 Pacific
88 Port Fairy
89 Cobram-Barooga (Old)
90 Mount Broughton
91 Federal
92 Spring Valley
93 Arundal Hills
94 Corowa Old
95 Tallwoods
96 Southern
97 Killara
98 Sanctuary Cove (Palms)
99 Albany
100 Gold Creek

[Danny Goss]

This is ridiculous.

I dont think we have enough decent courses to bother with a top 100. How many of these would you bother to travel 100  miles to see?

Having said that I agree with you Chris. Some of these rankings have to show a distinct lack of architectural knowledge. Who were the rankers?  

[Chris Kane]

Danny,
Australia clearly has more world-class courses than any other country in the world, if Woodlands is our 69th best!  I'd happily drive 10 hours to see Woodlands.  I never realised there were so many GREAT courses in our midst  

[Matthew Delahunty]

Chris,

You beat me to the punch. I bought this mag this afternoon and found some of the rankings rather interesting. Apart from the top 10 there seemed to be a clear liking for new courses while the traditional slipped down the lists.

I found these most interesting:
Newcastle at 7 as high as I've ever seen it in any ranking.
Joondalup at 10. (Golf Digest had it at 28, not in Golf Australia's top 25)
Moonah Links coming in at 12.
The Heritage at 22 (Golf Digest had it at 42)
The Lakes at 24 - as low as this has been for a long while, probably ever.
The Australian at 19 - ditto
Royal Sydney at 30 - ditto
The National Ocean at 36 while the Old is at 39
Toowoomba at 60 - I don't think I've ever seen it in a ranking before.
Concord at 70
Cape Schanck at 75 (while Woodlands is at 69?)
The poor ratings of the Sandbelt courses - Commonwealth at 32, Yarra Yarra at 51, Peninsula North at 54, Long Island at 65, WOODLANDS AT 69 (what's going on there), Spring Valley at 92, Southern at 96 - no Keysborough or Kingswood
No Peninsula South or Horsham.
(I've got an old rankings list - circa 1981 - which had Elanora at 20. These days it never makes a top 100 list.)

There were honourable mentions to three courses who didn't make the list - Ellerston, Ranfurlie and The Willows. They didn't receive enough votes to qualify under the criteria - I assume that means not enough judges had played them. The ratings were worked out on the same basis as Golf Magazine did the World Top 100.

There was a panel of 26. Each member was given a list of 200 courses and asked to rate the course on the categories of course condition, strategic integrity, design and ambience/aesthetics. Each of the scores was averaged acorss the 26-member panel to give average scores for each category and an overall score.

The 26 panel members were:
Steve Allan, George Begg, Andrew Berkman, John Blackman, Tony Cashmore, Michael Court, Neil Crafter, Max Garske, Ian Healy, Andrew Langford-Jones, Len Findlay, Maisie Mooney, Ossie Moore, Geoff Ogilvy, Nick O'Hern, Graham Papworth, Ross Perrett, Bernie Pramberg, Graeme Rowland, Chris Rutherford, Warren Sevil, Bob Tuohy, Ross Watson, Wilbur Wilde, Rob Willis and Anne Wilson.

I suggest Golf Magazine put a bit more time into their presentation. A few of the locations on the list were mispelled.

Danny,
I don't think it matters how many world class courses we have. People do want to know what are the best courses they can play. I bet most Aussies don't know much about the world's top 50 (apart from the ones they see on TV) but they know what the best 10 courses in their city are. And I'm sure people like to compare how their club ranks with the one down the road (whether one doubts the credibility of those rankings or not). Personally, if I'm planning a trip interstate or somewhere in the country I like to know what courses are worth playing. And I've also played some courses in the world Top 100 which aren't significantly better than many top 100 courses in Australia.

[Brian Walshe]

Top 100 lists always provoke criticism.  A lot of people think they should be banned because they are not worth the paper they are printed on.  This list is the most compelling piece of evidence yet in support of that argument.

Moonah Links 12, Woodlands 69  

Enough said.

[Chris_Clouser]

I'm assuming that Ellerston didn't have enough people rate it, if any of them have even been to the course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Danny,

I've long thought SCOREGolf magazine here in Canada goes about it all wrong too, ranking the country's top 100 courses when the bottom half doesn't contain a single course any one should go out of their way to see.

I think the rationale is, club members get a real charge when they see their home course listed as 91st, or 100th for that matter. And I guess, too, they can sell a lot more copies of the rankings issue of the magazine to people like that, anxious to see where their home course is listed.

In other words, if they limited the ranking to a top 50, SCOREGolf takes the risk of members of an additional 50 clubs ranked in the bottom half lacking interest in the issue.

Just a meaningless, probably incorrect theory  

[H_Kruse]

Chris
Its always interesting how these things work out.

Of course I'd be most surprised if anyone of the panel had visited/played all 100 courses and hence why a top 50 is a more practical list from that standpoint.

Good to see  fair representation of Golf Course Architectects on the panel.

Dela

I agree the omission of Peninsula South, Horsham and even Southern is a little odd. I guess most people find Horsham off the beaten track, but it is one of the finest inland courses in the country and on its own little piece of sandbelt.

I find Royal Canberra at 17 and way ahead  of several classic Sandbelt courses  and even its Rose Bay cousin in Royal Sydney  an interesting relationship on the list

As always with such lists, many sparks to fuel the fire of interesting discussion

[George Blunt]

Yes,  bound to raise some questions:
The Dunes & Barwon Heads better than Portsea and Royal Sydney?
Royal Melbourne - Composite course or RMGC West?
Why can't they rate RMGC W & E seperately?
Newcastle has always been an uderrated golf course, but top 10 in Australia?
Were architects allowed to rate their own courses, and as importantly their restorations/renovations?
Hardly any of the second tier courses in Sydney made the list.  
The members of  Concord, Killara and Bonnie Doon will be surprised that they have been outranked by a public course - St Michaels, while those at Pymble, Elanora, Oatlands and Ryde Parramatta (to name a few) will be surprised they don't warrant a mention.  (Personally I agree with the raters in this regard)

Cheers,

George

[Chris Kane]

George,
This is what George Begg had to say:

...given that Royal Melbourne is on regular display to the world each February at the Heineken Classic and the club has a policy of regular competitions on the Composite layout we decided to stick with one of the most recognised layouts in Australia

This argument doesn't wash with me - surely it would be more interesting to see where the East and West stack up individually?

According to the article, architects weren't allowed to rank their own courses.  I have no idea if this included their redesigns.  

Resort courses appear to be the common theme in this ranking, and tend to be preferred over the traditional courses in each city.

[George Blunt]

Chris,

Doesn't wash with me either.  Does it take account of the different routing for the Heinekin versus the traditional composite layout?

And as you say, it would be more interesting to rate the two seperately, particulary in an Australian context.

George

[Mark_F]

Fellas, fellas, fellas,

I'm surprised you can't see the rankings for what they are - a marketing gimmick.

After all, how many times a year do you normally buy Peter Thomson Newsletter, oops, sorry, I mean Golf Australia magazine?    Once per year?

I usually only buy it for the Australian Open preview article, and berate myself afterwards for expecting something worth eight bucks.  

Sadly, golf magazines in Australia, Golf Architecture, excepted, are a bit of a joke.  Lousy photography, mostly poor writing and uninteresting features. We just have too small a population and hence cirtculation to afford anything better.

The Sunday Age here used to be worth waiting for purely for Mike Clayton's writing.  What hapened, Mike?  Please return.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark F

We are a long way removed from Steve Perkin - son of Graham - and his days as sports editor of The Sunday Age when he told me he would take anything I would write.
Now it seems it's the golf season and a few others.
You will have to buy the book - out at the end of November.
All you need to know about lists - and most of the buffoons who compile them - is in there. Suffice to say Woodlands is a little higher - about 60 places higher. Surely no course has been so ill-judged in the history of lists.

Actually buffoons is not fair but when they come up with lists like this it is hard to avoid some obvious conclusions.

[Mike_Clayton]

Sorry, I just got home from a trip to Barnbougle Dunes.
Every time I go there is looks like it is going to be even better than anybody imagined.If Royal Melbourne has 10 of the best 18 in Australia then BD has the rest.Between them they have 30 of the best 36.
When it comes to the lists of 2005 I suspect Royal Melbourne is the only one not moving down a spot.

[Chris Kane]

Mike,
Depends who is doing the 2005 lists!

Judging by the result on this one, Barnbougle has very little chance of making the 100  

[Matthew Delahunty]

Mike,

You better add some cart paths, lakes, bermuda grass and a five-star hotel (free to the media) to the course, spend $5 million on advertising and you might crack top 20.

Mark,

Of course the lists are a bit of a marketing gimmick but they'd carry a bit more credibility if they were done properly. I think it's good to discuss the merits of our courses and these lists are always going to stimulate debate - everyone's opinion differs. The problem is that people will debate the merits of Woodlands being somewhere around 8-30 but when it goes in at 69 the only debate is about the credibility of the list. Unfortunately any ranking of courses - whether as a top 100, the Doak scale or any other method you choose - really requires the judges to play each and every course and number of times. It makes no sense to compile a list of courses when you only play them once or don't play some of them at all. I don't know if you'll ever get such a "utopian " list where every course in the country is played 5 times before a judgment is made (but if anyone wants to do it I'll gladly put my hand up be paid to be a judge).

Interestingly, Brendan Moloney wrote an article at page 13 which was rather critical of what he called the Pureed Platypus Awards. I'm in agreement with the Gary Player quote/s ("the finest example of its kind I have ever seen" and "if you invited me to your house for dinner, I would not criticise your wife's cooking"). Personally, if it was the only one available to me I wouldn't mind playing worst course in Australia - it provides more enjoyment than 98% of things one could be doing in this world.

On the topic of golf magazines, I don't usually buy them but I don't buy any other magazines either. I agree that sometimes they're not very readable but I will disagree that this is because of the population. Golf is the highest participation sport in the country. If the million people who played golf had the inclination to read golf magazines there'd be no question re affordability and standard.

[tonyt]

Mike,

If Woodlands is #69, Barnbougle would have to struggle for top 20  

Especially with the mighty Joondalup at #10