[Richard Fisher]

https://www.golfmonthly.com/courses/top-100-courses/top-100-golf-courses-60876


As always, the GM listing is rather different from the Golf World, NCG and the Top 100 Golf Courses rankings, especially below the Top 20.
Incidentally I always rather liked the 'banding' system that Golf World (UK) used about forty years ago (when it presented a 'Top Fifty' only) of simply having Top Ten, Next Ten, etc etc and not sub-dividing within those bands, but that sensible practice seems to have disappeared completely from the ever-controversial (...!) world of course rankings.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Any list which places Hillside above Silloth has got to be hopelessly flawed...

[Richard Fisher]

Duncan I agree with you warmly on that specific, anyway! And I shall never understand how Hankley (which I do enjoy) is nearly twenty spots above (say) Alwoodley. On the other hand there are some pleasingly old-fashioned aspects to the GM listing which I rather like.


One definitely good thing about this GM listing is  the provision of green fee information, which makes for some interesting comparisons. I note that the highest-ranked course (and the one single Top Fifty venue) to charge less than £100 for a round is Harlech (45th and £95), although Silloth (51st and £65) marks a significant change of tack. At the other end a summer 36-hole day at the Hon Company is now more than £400...

[Cliff Hamm]

is there another ranking where Waterville is above both Ballybunion and Lahinch?  Carne not in the top 100?

[Mark Pearce]

Duncan I agree with you warmly on that specific, anyway! And I shall never understand how Hankley (which I do enjoy) is nearly twenty spots above (say) Alwoodley. On the other hand there are some pleasingly old-fashioned aspects to the GM listing which I rather like.


One definitely good thing about this GM listing is  the provision of green fee information, which makes for some interesting comparisons. I note that the highest-ranked course (and the one single Top Fifty venue) to charge less than £100 for a round is Harlech (45th and £95), although Silloth (51st and £65) marks a significant change of tack. At the other end a summer 36-hole day at the Hon Company is now more than £400...

Seriously?  Hankley above Alwoodley?  That's simply absurd.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Let's be honest, anything outside the top thirty or fifty is just a toss-up. I have never heard of Remedy Oak. Anyone ever play it?

[Adam Lawrence]

Let's be honest, anything outside the top thirty or fifty is just a toss-up. I have never heard of Remedy Oak. Anyone ever play it?

Yes. A beautiful piece of land and a huge missed opportunity.

[Sean_A]

Let's be honest, anything outside the top thirty or fifty is just a toss-up. I have never heard of Remedy Oak. Anyone ever play it?

Remedy Oak wouldn't sniff my top 100 best in GB&I. To be frank, Cleeve Cloud is a better course, but there is no chance this magazine would rank it top 100.


Ciao

[Richard Fisher]

Far and away the biggest criticism of the GM process (as I suspect for many other ranking bodies) is the complete and (to my mind astonishing) absence of any female panellists. GM is commendably transparent about their ranking panel and their handicaps ( very largely single-figure): of the three senior panellists, eight staff panellists, and twenty-two reader panellists, every single one is male. Doubtless that pattern is repeated by other ranking agencies elsewhere (and is also of course reflected on GCA too).


I think I have asked this question here before, but has anybody ever seen a 'top 100 courses for women golfers'?

[Thomas Dai]

Far and away the biggest criticism of the GM process (as I suspect for many other ranking bodies) is the complete and (to my mind astonishing) absence of any female panellists. GM is commendably transparent about their ranking panel and their handicaps ( very largely single-figure): of the three senior panellists, eight staff panellists, and twenty-two reader panellists, every single one is male. Doubtless that pattern is repeated by other ranking agencies elsewhere (and is also of course reflected on GCA too).
I think I have asked this question here before, but has anybody ever seen a 'top 100 courses for women golfers'?

A very valid point Richard. Well said.
atb

[Brett Meyer]

Far and away the biggest criticism of the GM process (as I suspect for many other ranking bodies) is the complete and (to my mind astonishing) absence of any female panellists.

Maybe the lack of female panelists helps explain the lofty ranking of Hankley Common. I played through a group of female golfers that was having a hell of a time with the uphill par 3 sixteenth. They could all hit the ball well but many couldn't get enough loft to clear the heather in front of the tee. They devised a nice adaptation to the ball-searching-in-the-heather problem: send the first who hit up to forecaddie for the rest.


I'm not sure that I've ever seen a list that has Hankley Common above Swinley Forest. And there's a good reason for that. I haven't played enough of the list to know for sure, but West Sussex and Rye must be at least 30-40 spots too low.


In general, I'm getting tired of the standard style of ranking where every course is slotted into a spot and we're given no sense of the sensitivity of the placements. How bunched are the rankings? Are there some courses that have a particularly high standard deviation across the panelists? It'd be nice to see some kind of confidence interval where in addition to the final placement we're given a sense of the range in which the panelists' rankings fall.


We have so many of these rankings now and they're all done the same way. Especially given the increasing importance of sophisticated data analysis, you think that there would be an opportunity for someone to give us a list that gives us a bit more information.

[Jeff Johnston]

is there another ranking where Waterville is above both Ballybunion and Lahinch?  Carne not in the top 100?

Not only that Cliff but (just looking at some other Irish specifics) The European Club as top ranked in ROI? I had to triple check that one. And TEC a full forty spots ahead of Baltray…? 

[Adam Lawrence]

Far and away the biggest criticism of the GM process (as I suspect for many other ranking bodies) is the complete and (to my mind astonishing) absence of any female panellists.

Maybe the lack of female panelists helps explain the lofty ranking of Hankley Common. I played through a group of female golfers that was having a hell of a time with the uphill par 3 sixteenth. They could all hit the ball well but many couldn't get enough loft to clear the heather in front of the tee. They devised a nice adaptation to the ball-searching-in-the-heather problem: send the first who hit up to forecaddie for the rest.

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a list that has Hankley Common above Swinley Forest. And there's a good reason for that. I haven't played enough of the list to know for sure, but West Sussex and Rye must be at least 30-40 spots too low.

Hankley gets huge props for beauty. People look at the amazing stand of heather and it blinds them to anything else. This isn't uncommon in rankings, let us be honest.

[Ally Mcintosh]

One of my main issues with a “for the people by the people” approach to rankings is that “the people” in this case are generally a similar bunch of lowish handicap, male golf course enthusiasts who are driven to tick off courses from previous lists.


Therefore there a lot of one hit and dones... and not the same enthusiasm to see any courses that don’t appear on a list.... so it ends up just reshuffling a pack.


In many ways it just becomes about trophy hunting. Sure the panellists must have an interest in golf courses (though not necessarily a knowledge) but for some it’s more so about reaching a goal.


I appear on a ranking panel myself. Only reasons are that - in the beginning - it helped me identify myself in a business where I had no contacts; and secondly, I just like sitting round a table with 7 others and debating courses for a couple of days. Where’s the fun in mailing in your list for it just to be subsumed in a mix of other opinions?

[Ally Mcintosh]

is there another ranking where Waterville is above both Ballybunion and Lahinch?  Carne not in the top 100?

Not only that Cliff but (just looking at some other Irish specifics) The European Club as top ranked in ROI? I had to triple check that one. And TEC a full forty spots ahead of Baltray…? 

It’s blatantly clear that they have not included proper Irish coverage within their panel. I don't mean that in relation to TEC, of which I'm quite fond. But between a couple of misses and some strange inclusions, the order of things feel like a hangover from previous panels.

[Tom_Doak]

Far and away the biggest criticism of the GM process (as I suspect for many other ranking bodies) is the complete and (to my mind astonishing) absence of any female panellists. GM is commendably transparent about their ranking panel and their handicaps ( very largely single-figure): of the three senior panellists, eight staff panellists, and twenty-two reader panellists, every single one is male. Doubtless that pattern is repeated by other ranking agencies elsewhere (and is also of course reflected on GCA too).

I think I have asked this question here before, but has anybody ever seen a 'top 100 courses for women golfers'?

Richard:


Here is one:  https://www.golfdigest.com/story/top-50-courses-for-women-2013-07


Since the beginning of the rankings, women's opinions have been an afterthought.  By the same token, one problem is that not very many women golfers are golf architecture nerds.  Thought experiment: how many women you know who have seen anywhere near as many courses as you have?




When I did try to include the opinions of women on the GOLF Magazine committee years ago -- I think we had a dozen of them in the panel -- looking at the results separately brought several things to light:


1.  A few famous U.S. courses were not well liked at all because they had basically no tees for women to play.  The forward tees at Oakland Hills (South) and Medinah (#3) etc. back then were almost 6000 yards.  For that matter, Pine Valley is only playable for scratch women golfers.


2.  Certain courses were much higher ranked because of a prestige in the women's game that none of the male panelists recognize.  In that U.S. ranking above, Pine Needles is #1, having hosted three US Women's Opens, but the larger GOLF DIGEST rankings don't care about that at all.


3.  Point 2 raises the question of how many tournament venues on the men's side are overrated just because they were a tournament venue.  Answer:  lots.


At the end of the day, doing the exercise helped me see how silly rankings really are.

[Richard Fisher]

Many thanks Tom, and for the link. I've long thought that if (a big if) tournament venues matter to you in choosing courses to play, then here in the UK venues that have hosted national female amateur championships or the home internationals remain a pretty reliable guarantee of a good day out. Not infallible, but far more reliable than (say) choosing a venue because it has hosted a particular men's professional event, with all the other non-golfing considerations that then apply. A day at Silloth or Aldeburgh or Broadstone will always beat Wentworth or St Mellion or Forest of Arden, in my book. And also be miles cheaper...
And Ally, warm agreement on the weirdness of the Irish element of the GM rankings!

[Kevin Pallier]

At least it's dropped Turnberry from the #1 spot.


I struggled to look much further once I saw that on it's last listing.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It seems to me that the most significant changes in the top 50 can be described by the code:
If Name Contains "Trump" Then NewRating=OldRating+3

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()