[Ally Mcintosh]

Is Perranporth on the list as well? That really shouldn’t be there. Cool course though.


Agree they are all worthy golf courses that deserve a proper write-up rather than some arbitrary number and the ensuing discussion.


We should celebrate the variety by having to talk about the courses, not assigning a Top-100 place with 60 words of blurb that means nothing.


Anyway, like the other thread, I’m only arguing for the sake of it today. I will move on… and I look forward to visiting a few of the courses that Sean has profiled over the years and that I have yet to see.

[Mike Worth]

Question about Cleeve Hill.


I see that it is on the list at #94. But the UK Golf Guy’s list says Cleeve Cloud (not Cleeve Hill).


I’m confused. Are these two different courses or are the names used interchangeably to describe the same course?


I played Cleve Hill about a month ago. I thoroughly enjoyed myself definitely a course I would go back to multiple times.

[Tom_Doak]

Question about Cleeve Hill.


I see that it is on the list at #97. But the UK Golf Guy’s list says Cleeve Cloud (not Cleeve Hill).


I’m confused. Are these two different courses or are the names used interchangeably to describe the same course.


I played Cleve Hill about a month ago. I thoroughly enjoyed myself definitely a course I would go back to multiple times.

It's the same place.  Cleeve Hill is the location [and maybe the name of the course now?].  Cleeve Cloud is [was?] the local golf club attached to the course.

[Sean_A]

Sean is one of the few voices who really is an influencer, but even he has now trapped himself in the rankings paradigm.

Tom

I am not sure what you mean, but I don't feel trapped. I have a firm understanding of what makes me happy about golf. However, I realize that understanding doesn't translate to "best".

Ally, I will push back against not considering Perranporth for top 100. 😎

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean is one of the few voices who really is an influencer, but even he has now trapped himself in the rankings paradigm.

Tom

I am not sure what you mean, but I don't feel trapped. I have a firm understanding of what makes me happy about golf. However, I realize that understanding doesn't translate to "best".

Ally, I will push back against not considering Perranporth for top 100. 😎

Ciao

I just looked and see Perranporth - rightly - isn’t there. The course has a lot of cool, crazy shots. You can have a load of fun there. But the scale of the course is too small to accommodate many of those crazy shots. If you want craziness, the course has to be big enough to take it. If you want small scale, the course has to be more generous (I’d posit Gullane 3 is a *better* course than Perranporth for instance).


I love your tours of unheralded courses. I know I’d enjoy them all immensely. But I still hold slight reservations that your attempt to slot them in to some kind of Top-100 placing is a little random at best. Or putting it another way, you seem to see no difference in quality between a Painswick and a Birkdale, which doesn’t really matter for most of your followers on here. But will come as a huge surprise to 99.9% of the golfing public. It’s a refreshing take though, don’t get me wrong.


Tom: Earlier you state that panelists don’t sit around and compare whether (for instance) Southerndown is better than Cleeve. But don’t you think it is those kind of comparisons that are worth far more than a Top-100 placing? Every golf course enthusiast would learn far more if a critique said something like “Course xyz has shades of Royal St. George’s in the way it etc… etc…” Compare and contrast to places that every golfer is familiar with. Then they can work out what they might like.

[Sean_A]

Sean is one of the few voices who really is an influencer, but even he has now trapped himself in the rankings paradigm.

Tom

I am not sure what you mean, but I don't feel trapped. I have a firm understanding of what makes me happy about golf. However, I realize that understanding doesn't translate to "best".

Ally, I will push back against not considering Perranporth for top 100.

Ciao

I just looked and see Perranporth - rightly - isn’t there. The course has a lot of cool, crazy shots. You can have a load of fun there. But the scale of the course is too small to accommodate many of those crazy shots. If you want craziness, the course has to be big enough to take it. If you want small scale, the course has to be more generous (I’d posit Gullane 3 is a *better* course than Perranporth for instance).


I love your tours of unheralded courses. I know I’d enjoy them all immensely. But I still hold slight reservations that your attempt to slot them in to some kind of Top-100 placing is a little random at best.


Tom: Earlier you state that panelists don’t sit around and compare whether (for instance) Southerndown is better than Cleeve. And whilst you are right, it is those kind of comparisons that are worth far more than a Top-100 placing: Every golf course enthusiast would learn far more if a critique said something like “Course xyz has shades of Royal St. George’s in the way it etc… etc…” Compare and contrast to places that every golfer is familiar with. Then they can work out what they might like.

Perranporth is a bit funky and some holes are tight in certain winds. I could say a huge number highly rated champions course have hole without enough space because of rough and sand. I won't get hung up on the space issue unless it applies equally to the famous courses. For instance, Ganton and Alwoodley have stupidly narrow holes but they get a pass.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Perceived lack of width at Ganton & Alwoodley is purely down to rough management. Perranporth’s small scale is down to landscape. I see that as posing a completely different set of problems.


As I said, I enjoyed Perranporth hugely. It made me laugh and smile. It had quite a number of cool shots. It’s not even on the same page as Ganton or Alwoodley. It’s a beer match or a twilight round with a half set.

[Thomas Dai]

I suspect that of the top say 25-50 most posting herein would likely come up with the same 90% of courses although the order might vary.
It’s the range above this, perhaps 50-300, where I reckon most of the discussion/arguments lie. It’s also the range which contains a bunch of fun and enjoyable and sometimes more economically priced courses.
As an aside I believe someone, a website I think, can’t recall which one though, recently analysed several different top-100 listings and summarised which courses appeared most often, their order and which courses were the outliers.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Perceived lack of width at Ganton & Alwoodley is purely down to rough management. Perranporth’s small scale is down to landscape. I see that as posing a completely different set of problems.


As I said, I enjoyed Perranporth hugely. It made me laugh and smile. It had quite a number of cool shots. It’s not even on the same page as Ganton or Alwoodley. It’s a beer match or a twilight round with a half set.

It's a different set of problems in theory. In practice it amounts to the same thing unless the offending courses are willing to risk losing their status as minor championship venues. That said, Perranporth has more smile enducing character than Ganton and Alwoodley combined. It belongs in the conversation.

I am not nearly as high on Alwoodley as the experts.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Perceived lack of width at Ganton & Alwoodley is purely down to rough management. Perranporth’s small scale is down to landscape. I see that as posing a completely different set of problems.


As I said, I enjoyed Perranporth hugely. It made me laugh and smile. It had quite a number of cool shots. It’s not even on the same page as Ganton or Alwoodley. It’s a beer match or a twilight round with a half set.

It's a different set of problems in theory. In practice it amounts to the same thing unless the offending courses are willing to risk losing their status as minor championship venues. That said, Perranporth has more smile enducing character than Ganton and Alwoodley combined. It belongs in the conversation.

I am not nearly as high on Alwoodley as the experts.

Ciao

Perranporth’s problem isn’t width. Completely different.

[Sean_A]

Perceived lack of width at Ganton & Alwoodley is purely down to rough management. Perranporth’s small scale is down to landscape. I see that as posing a completely different set of problems.


As I said, I enjoyed Perranporth hugely. It made me laugh and smile. It had quite a number of cool shots. It’s not even on the same page as Ganton or Alwoodley. It’s a beer match or a twilight round with a half set.

It's a different set of problems in theory. In practice it amounts to the same thing unless the offending courses are willing to risk losing their status as minor championship venues. That said, Perranporth has more smile enducing character than Ganton and Alwoodley combined. It belongs in the conversation.

I am not nearly as high on Alwoodley as the experts.

Ciao

Perranporth’s problem isn’t width. Completely different.

Like the Bann, I disagree with you.
There is enough space in normal wind conditions. If the wind is contrary there can be some issues, but even then, there is some space not cut which would help immensely. The only hole which seriously raises my eyebrows is the 4th.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean is one of the few voices who really is an influencer, but even he has now trapped himself in the rankings paradigm.

Tom

I am not sure what you mean, but I don't feel trapped. I have a firm understanding of what makes me happy about golf. However, I realize that understanding doesn't translate to "best".

Ally, I will push back against not considering Perranporth for top 100. 😎

But there you go, right there!  You are a great champion of the merits of places like Perranporth, but when you start trying to cram them all into the back half of some top 100 list, one starts to question what the top 100 is even about.  The average guy who wants to go tick off all of the top 100 courses would be totally lost at Perranporth! 


To me, it's just a different kind of golf.  In fact, they contacted me a couple of years ago about doing work to it, and I demurred because if the goal is to make it "more top 100" they are also likely to make it "less Perranporth". 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom: Earlier you state that panelists don’t sit around and compare whether (for instance) Southerndown is better than Cleeve. But don’t you think it is those kind of comparisons that are worth far more than a Top-100 placing? Every golf course enthusiast would learn far more if a critique said something like “Course xyz has shades of Royal St. George’s in the way it etc… etc…” Compare and contrast to places that every golfer is familiar with. Then they can work out what they might like.

Ally:  it would be better if you could compare Southerndown and Cleeve directly, instead of viewing both through the lens of a course on the Open rota.  Neither of them has any aspirations for that and that's one reason they are both fun experiences.  But, how many people are going to take time to read either of our comparisons for two courses that are fairly far down the list of places golfers would seek out?


At the end of the day, all you really want to do is highlight that they are full of character and worth seeing, instead of speeding past on the motorway on the way to some higher-ranked venue.  That's what the Doak Scale is designed to do.  If I give one of them a 7 that doesn't mean they are "better" or should rank higher than all of the 6's, as many people assume . . . they are just more interesting to see vs. another run of the mill 6 that offers "better golf" as some would turn up their noses.

[Sean_A]

Sean is one of the few voices who really is an influencer, but even he has now trapped himself in the rankings paradigm.

Tom

I am not sure what you mean, but I don't feel trapped. I have a firm understanding of what makes me happy about golf. However, I realize that understanding doesn't translate to "best".

Ally, I will push back against not considering Perranporth for top 100.

But there you go, right there!  You are a great champion of the merits of places like Perranporth, but when you start trying to cram them all into the back half of some top 100 list, one starts to question what the top 100 is even about.  The average guy who wants to go tick off all of the top 100 courses would be totally lost at Perranporth! 

To me, it's just a different kind of golf.  In fact, they contacted me a couple of years ago about doing work to it, and I demurred because if the goal is to make it "more top 100" they are also likely to make it "less Perranporth". 

I freely admit that I hope we can look at rankings with fresh eyes. Far too much has been a given for far too long. But the top 100 has no influence on where I choose to play so I have no skin in the game. I suspect the same is true for you.

I am not trying to jam Perranporth into the top 100. I am saying it's in the conversation. I can understand if folks think it misses out, but to dismiss Perranporth as not in the conversation, I have to wonder which 200ish courses are considered. I am all in favour of a fresh look at rankings. Ignore the history and start over. Which, to a small degree, has been happening. As I say, any new regime or fresh approach takes 4-6 editions to get it rightish.

BTW, the average guy is lost at TOC.

Ciao

[Jim Sherma]

Tom - “who’s going to take the time” to hear you and Ally compare less than obvious courses of merit? I’m thinking that is a lot of why we are all on this site. I personally have much more interest in the Perranporth’s of the world than another bus tour dump and check off the box course. We all get to a point where we know the obvious courses are great, or at least really, really good. At that point we should all be seeking something different and authentically unique in some way.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - “who’s going to take the time” to hear you and Ally compare less than obvious courses of merit? I’m thinking that is a lot of why we are all on this site. I personally have much more interest in the Perranporth’s of the world than another bus tour dump and check off the box course. We all get to a point where we know the obvious courses are great, or at least really, really good. At that point we should all be seeking something different and authentically unique in some way.

Jim:


It's been forty years since I played Southerndown, so my memory is a little fuzzy, but I have the sense that both Ally and I both prefer it to Perranporth and would not have much to debate there.  We need to find someone who disagrees, so we can gang up on them.  Maybe Sean will volunteer to take the Perranporth side?

[MCirba]

All ears here.

[mike_malone]

My recollection of Southerndown was of one significant up and down hill that encompassed most of the course. It was modest by comparison to Perranporth which had quite interesting land. 


 My bias is for interesting land so I preferred Perranporth.

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like we need one of Seans course match threads - Perranporth vrs Southerdown vrs Cleeve!
atb

[Sean_A]

Seems like we need one of Seans course match threads - Perranporth vrs Southerdown vrs Cleeve!
atb

I don't know Southerndown well enough. Despite the opening hole and goose shit all over the place I recall being very impressed.

Ciao

[V_Halyard]

Joe


I have seen all 27 within the last year and gave it credit with my mark for the huge uplift in quality. I suspect you are right though, given the issues with travel in recent years. Expect the next assessment to be more rounded out as travel resumes.

Agree. I think this reflects the timing of recent dune and other work having been completed on the eve of the pandemic. 

[Robin_Hiseman]

My concern with bringing ranking acclaim to unheralded courses like Cleeve Hill is that it is going to be followed by the inevitable hiking up of the green fee rates. This is of little concern to well-to-do international golf course travellers, list tickers and raters (guilty as charged), but locally it is going to make the course less affordable and perhaps even unaffordable. It is a fine balance between rightly bringing an underappreciated course to wider public attention, as Sean has done so admirably, before snatching it away from them again as it becomes overpriced. Cleeve is currently in the golden phase where it is both admired and affordable. I hope it will stay there.


It's not so long ago that Cleeve was going to close. It is brilliant that it has been saved and, by all accounts, is thriving under new ownership. Long may that continue. How they navigate this new path they find themselves on is going to be interesting.

[V_Halyard]

The other thing I was going to ask is this, is Wales being short changed ?
Niall

I was surprised that Southerndown isn’t included.
Atb

It's seems like Southerndown is slowly losing its rep as a top notch downland course. I wonder why.
Ciao

Social media would be my answer.
Many imo lessor courses, not just in the same area but generally, have constant outpourings of photos etc on social media. Southerndown doesn't. Same for other courses too. A case of post or be forgotten about?
Mind from a purely members perspective forgotten about mightn't be a bad state of affairs.
atb

In the old days making a top 100 list was the marketing/pr. These days some courses have to market/pr and network to make a top 100 list. It's all one huge circle because there is no critical discourse. Only good to excellent photos from an angle which reveals beauty, but little about how a hole plays and/or gushing articles. Unless I think some good history will be revealed, I rarely read golf course pieces. Or we get Bernard Darwin wannabes cranking out 1000 words and nothing is said... sold at premium price. Flowery puff pieces which Darwin would never have published.

Ciao

Yes lists can be PR. That was initially their job but they have evolved.  No list is perfect except those with a single subscriber. As one who has been infected with “The Golf Architecture” and actively participates in the picture taking you refer to, it is important to note that golf courses need people to survive. In some places, golf is under attack as detractors and municipalities seek to reclaim open space or build housing developments. Don’t denigrate pro-architecture media.

I know 100’s urban kids that will day dream about the day they might get to walk amongst the shadows of the features in those pretty pictures. Widen your perspective.

Those courses that don’t care about new people simply don’t participate in the picture show. But the lists (and puff pieces) are a byproduct of communication of the simple question, “where should we play”. They allow for shared recognition of artistry and engineering well executed.

Reminder. This is a group about Golf Course Architecture for F**** sake   
We discuss places to play and why you should play them in ways that will banish us to the garage at parties in the company of casual golfers.

This is a group of folks that converse about our inherent list of courses so I will defend to the death those willing to promote why the Architecture of a course matters, even some That suck.

The GBI list is raw and will evolve but it’s a list that cares about the subject. The evolution of Top100golfcourses, GW Classic and Modern GD Top 100 are lists from commercial or subscription outlets generated by folks that care.

No list is perfect but I will take a list (And Puff piece) that leads with the merit of the golf architecture vs. one that leads with the size of the kitchen that happens to have a golf course running between the attached garages. (Duncan, with full love and respect to kitchens… )

Sexy, shadowy, drone and laddertop quality imagery can not tell you how a course plays but it sparks the imagination of how a person might find themselves in that picture playing that hole. The art form has gathered thousands of new gca fans who previously had zero idea that architectural features were ‘a thing’ and that they should not only care about them, they should seek them out and play them.

It fosters discussion, curiosity, and inquisition to the benefit of the course and players. In fact, I will regularly depart from the sacred “no people in golf pix edict” as People give scale to features and will spark many to imagine their own walk in that dune.  A shitty picture of a great hole does ‘nothin’ for nobody’.

I have zero apologies and offer a strong defense on behalf of golf architecture-positive storytelling and imagery. I type these words with pride into this wonderful echo chamber populated by folks that will travel the world to remote locations based on the way mounds are shaped. 

[V_Halyard]

Sean is one of the few voices who really is an influencer, but even he has now trapped himself in the rankings paradigm.

Tom

I am not sure what you mean, but I don't feel trapped. I have a firm understanding of what makes me happy about golf. However, I realize that understanding doesn't translate to "best".

Ally, I will push back against not considering Perranporth for top 100.

But there you go, right there!  You are a great champion of the merits of places like Perranporth, but when you start trying to cram them all into the back half of some top 100 list, one starts to question what the top 100 is even about.  The average guy who wants to go tick off all of the top 100 courses would be totally lost at Perranporth! 

To me, it's just a different kind of golf.  In fact, they contacted me a couple of years ago about doing work to it, and I demurred because if the goal is to make it "more top 100" they are also likely to make it "less Perranporth". 

I freely admit that I hope we can look at rankings with fresh eyes. Far too much has been a given for far too long. But the top 100 has no influence on where I choose to play so I have no skin in the game. I suspect the same is true for you.

I am not trying to jam Perranporth into the top 100. I am saying it's in the conversation. I can understand if folks think it misses out, but to dismiss Perranporth as not in the conversation, I have to wonder which 200ish courses are considered. I am all in favour of a fresh look at rankings. Ignore the history and start over. Which, to a small degree, has been happening. As I say, any new regime or fresh approach takes 4-6 editions to get it rightish.

BTW, the average guy is lost at TOC.

Ciao

This is an echo chamber of folks pontificating the merits of golf course architecture. It is a list in and of itself. The rarity is that it includes a vibrant cross section of the producers, craft folk, folks champions and afficicianados of said architecture.


I don’t believe Sean is necessarily trapped by any paradigm any more than any registered member of this board. If you volunteer and/or request membership, you’ve actively aligned with the cause.
It’s all partially your fault anyway so there’s that.

[Brian Finn]

Comparing the Golf list to that from top100golfcourses (which I have found a great resource for UK&I course/travel research, especially as you get into specific regions):

89/100 courses on both lists

Courses on Golf, not t100gc:
Askernish (36), Royal Worlington & Newmarket (43), Addington (51), Royal North Devon (55), Huntercombe (67), Royal Ashdown Forest (69), Stoneham (72), Elie (80), Cleeve Hill (94), Fraserburgh (97), Littlestone (100)

Courses on t100gc, not Golf:
Ballyliffin Glashedy (63), Queenwood (65), Narin & Portnoo (74), Gleneagles Queen’s (77), West Hill (78), West Lancashire (86), Parkstone (88), Hindhead (91), JCB (93), St. Andrews Castle (96), Dundonald (100)

While this is only one point of comparison, there is even heavier overlap than I expected.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()