Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jim McCann on January 29, 2012, 12:16:34 PM
-
Lists, lists and even more damned lists…
The Top 100 Golf Courses website has just completed the update of its rankings for the following countries/territories:
Wales (Top 30),
Northern Ireland (Top 25),
Republic of Ireland (Top 100),
Scotland (Top 100),
England (Top 100),
Great Britain & Ireland (Top 100),
Continental Europe (Top 100),
New Zealand (Top 40),
Australia (Top 100),
South Africa (Top 100),
Caribbean (Top 50),
South America (includes Argentina Top 20),
Middle East (includes UAE Top 10),
Asia (includes China Top 20),
Mexico (Top 25),
Canada (Top 100),
USA (Top 100),
World (Top 100)
The following link will take you to a page where you can select a list that may be of particular interest:
http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/news.asp
I realize such grand scale vulgarity can offend golfing sensibilities so please accept my apologies if this thread causes any upset. ;)
On the other hand, for those who secretly DO like to peruse such golfing lists, and I suspect there’s more who do than will actually admit
to it, your opinion of the Top100 efforts might be of interest to others on gca. :)
-
Nice website for course junkies. Very well done.
Anthony
-
Kingsley 1 spot above Victoria National! Take that Kavanaugh.... ;)
-
Jim,
How was the Australian list compiled?
-
Jim - How are these ratings compiled, is it just opinion and if so whose.
-
Regarding how this list is compiled, it is right there on the website...bottom of this page.
http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/aboutus.asp (http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/aboutus.asp)
-
Brian,
I agree that is the website's greatest use: "I'm going to Portugal, what is potentially good near Lisbon?" Then other sources to narrow the list so one doesn't, as you say for example, come all the way to Sydney from OS and pay hundreds to play Royal Sydney.
-
Glad to see that Ian Andrews'work at Highland Links has been recognized with the Stanley Thompson course moving back to the number one rating in Canada.
-
Scott, Adrian
Further to Mac Plumart's reply above, the Oz chart (like all the other charts) is an amalgam of a) historical data taken from golf
publications, b) our own listings (going back to when the website was formed in 2004), and c) on the ground input from trusted
correspondents in the field, along with the reviews of ordinary golfers.
Several gca people were asked this time to provide rankings for Australian courses that they had played and their data was factored into
the final Oz listings by Keith Baxter, the Top100 Editor-in-Chief.
-
great site, but
Butler national down 44 spots to 88.. Seriously???
-
great site, but
Butler national down 44 spots to 88.. Seriously???
That's the thing about rankings. They're not going to please everyone.
I'm very familiar with Butler and a few years back I would have thought "44" would have been a good spot. Golf Digest had it #21(?) a few rankings back as well. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I've seen a fair amount of ranked courses in the past 4 years and Butler being "88" now sounds about right to me based on what I've seen. Of course, that's just my opinion.
-
great site, but
Butler national down 44 spots to 88.. Seriously???
I wouldn't rank it all--its hard but not great and not even very unique with the trees gone on #7/18.
-
'Liking' the site.
-
Re the Ontario (Canada) rankings, I think they are very well done -- they align very closely with my own opinions (I have seen all but two on the list).
Still cannot understand how Kawartha goes unnoticed by another rating panel - I encourage anyone in the area to make the effort to see it: http://onegolferstravels.blogspot.com/2011/12/kawartha-golf-cc.html
In the US, I believe Wine Valley should be listed (at the very least) in the Best in State Rankings. Ditto for Dismal River and Prairie Club (Dunes).
Dormie and Mountaintop not considered for Best in State in NC?
Shooting Star in Wyoming?
Overall, though, a good list all-around.
-
Quite a few surprises in the US list. Butler and Medinah are not top 100 courses when Engineers and Rustic Canyon fail to make the list
-
Is it PC that produces a seperate Northern Ireland list and then an Ireland one which only includes the courses of Eire?
Makes little sense to me and limits the use to visiting golfers.
-
great site, but
Butler national down 44 spots to 88.. Seriously???
I think the question is more, "How does a course that hasn't made significant changes drop 44 spots in the ranking?" Same thing with Spyglass - nothing has really changed there the past couple of years yet it dropped 30 spots.
-
Brian - what is there to avoid about Royal Sydney? It's a solid course close to the city centre, excellent accommodation, decent food and you can get a ferry from across the road to the city.
-
I think this site is far and away the best for searching out possible courses to play. The rankings too are better than the big mags, but still lacking in digging a little deeper. I suspect, the England, Wales etc and Gems lists are a way to shed light on the 2nd and 3rd tier courses, but it would be nice if some (Pennard is a an example) were promoted to the top.
Ciao
-
Mostly pretty good. But Elie 67th in Scotland? That's absurd beyond belief.
-
I actually think the rankings are shite when you go deeper in the numbers, the regional ratings are totally laughable when you go past the best 4 or 5 in the counties, the formulae is very strange you can get some bobo to 6ball his own crap course and 1ball the great course next door and skew the rankings. Some bobo with no knowledge can slate a golf course because the greens are hollow tined or because he saw some golfer play and not put his divot back, now you can sift through that sort of info on the site and make up your own mind but when their scores count its tripe. There was a chap in our area who did this to a lot of courses and he eventually lost his job though the info is still on this site.
At the end of the day you go by the traffic coming through your door and how much the green fee is, that is more objective way of whats best and whats not though location plays an obvious part as well.
I think a good set of ratings could be achieved by creating a panel in each county, probably a minimum of 10 competent persons per county that decide the order of the best to worst in that county (probably no reason to go past 20), providing those people are fair you would get a much truer position of whats best in the county, those 10 competent people create a top 20 of the courses in their county and the touching counties, if they do not have knowledge of a course they mark the fact they have 'no knowledge' that help factors the regional courses in the country/GB&I perspective, if you get a bobo opinion in there (like #Painswick being the no1 course in Gloucestershire) you disqualify it, you give criteria how to mark a golf course clearly trying to educate the rater as to what he should score for and what does not matter.
I might have a go at it via facebook if I can get some others to help moderate it.
-
Jim,
How was the Australian list compiled?
Scott
I've known Keith for a number of years and know he used the recent Golf Australia listing + my own. Am not sure how he incorporated same.
Jim
I think the Australian list is much better than it has in the past
-
Adrian
A problem with your take is getting enough people who care about what #17 in Worcestershire is and getting enough people who have played all the candidates per county. It doesn't make much difference if 10 people have seen all the courses in question as that sample of raters is far too small. For most counties, once we get below 5 courses (even less for some counties) it doesn't matter where the courses are rated because they aren't really being recommended. Sure, we may find the odd course here and there which stands out, but in the main it will be a stream of similiar quality courses which don't make an impression.
I think a county list is better by listing the courses which are in the top 100 or were in the discussion for top 100 - so maybe a few hundred courses overall. Then, add gem courses to each county list of courses which the raters/editors believe are worthy of mentioning for whatever reason(s). In other words, courses they would recommend even though they aren't ranked highly.
For instance, looking at Worcestershire.
I would probbaly rate the following three as candidates for top 100 England:
Harborne
Edgbaston
Worcester
I can also see an argument for Blackwell. There may be votes for Redditch, Kidderminster, Mosely, Worcestershire and Kings Norton - though I am hard pressed to see why. So my rating of Worcestershire would be:
1.Harborne
2.Edgbaston
3.Worcester
Gem: Blackwell
Looking at Top100, 10 courses are listed. All four of the above are listed. It doesn't really matter which order, but listing six more dilutes the important information of recommending the best. Making the list longer doesn't help the golfer who knows anything about courses in the Midlands - meaning he can leave the county and play a better course perhaps the same distance as he would have travelled to play a dud which is listed in WORCS. To me, rankings have to be about the best and avoid listing mediocre courses (usually for sake of completeness). I don't understand the compulsion to list courses which raters themselves wouldn't drive 10 miles and pay the green fee.
Ciao
-
Sean - I dont disagree with what you are saying but to get to the point of getting the fairest ratings you have to go beyond the 100 to get the 100 as you said you might need to go to 300. You quite often 'tote' courses that you love that are well below the radar, thats a good thing or certainly is not a bad thing. County ratings can mere into regional and can merge into national, my point is it is much better to start off deciding A is better than B is better than C. The best knowledge would come from within the counties as there would lots that have played the local courses and you would get a much fairer top 10, as you say it might be insignificant what the 17th course is in Worcester but some counties may have 50 courses of significance, Surrey would be one. Its the principle that matters, I suggested a minimum of 10 raters, no reason why it might not be a 110 opinions as long as you have an objective method to weed out the bobo opinion. I think you might be suprised in the importance of ratings, when brought up here the threads often go into several pages, whilst many bulk at another list, its often because they see a crazy ranking. I quite like a star system or similar but some years ago Golf Monthly did a Gold, Silver, Bronze award, some awards were given with the rater being one of the clubs own members and one course got a Gold that ieally is a 'must avoid course'. I am familiar with my county and I think its much easier to be up to date with courses close to you than obviously miles away, so my point is that ratings are best done on a more local basis and then they can be collated by another method.
-
The U.S. State lists are laughable. If you're having a bad day and need a good laugh, check out the Indiana ranking.
-
The U.S. State lists are laughable. If you're having a bad day and need a good laugh, check out the Indiana ranking.
I found the New York list pretty good.(although there certainly could be arguments about the order of spots and there are many courses that could argueably be top 25 and bump out another)
probably need about 20 gem spots
I find the TOP website a fantastic starting point when visiting an area, and I appreciate the work that's gone into it.
Much more useful than any of the magazines
-
The U.S. State lists are laughable. If you're having a bad day and need a good laugh, check out the Indiana ranking.
Sven, why? Other than perhaps the addition of the courses at French Lick aren't the top 4 what should be expected?
-
Sven
The Top100 Team are fully aware that their State rankings for the USA are not what they could be.
It took a couple of months to gather in and process the data for the English rankings last Autumn
and we've just embarked on a similar exercise to update our listings for the US so I'd ask you to
look again at the end of March - once the standings have been overhauled - to see if the rankings
look any better then.
-
The U.S. State lists are laughable. If you're having a bad day and need a good laugh, check out the Indiana ranking.
Sven, why? Other than perhaps the addition of the courses at French Lick aren't the top 4 what should be expected?
Have you played Swan Lake?
-
Sven
The Top100 Team are fully aware that their State rankings for the USA are not what they could be.
It took a couple of months to gather in and process the data for the English rankings last Autumn
and we've just embarked on a similar exercise to update our listings for the US so I'd ask you to
look again at the end of March - once the standings have been overhauled - to see if the rankings
look any better then.
Jim:
I figured it was simply a question of getting the course lists populated with suitable candidates. There are at least seven or eight courses in Indiana alone that were not listed, whether in the rankings or as gems. Is this a function of working off of the various rankings lists, which would have a bias towards private courses over public?
Sven
-
The U.S. State lists are laughable. If you're having a bad day and need a good laugh, check out the Indiana ranking.
Sven, why? Other than perhaps the addition of the courses at French Lick aren't the top 4 what should be expected?
Have you played Swan Lake?
Sven,
I am not saying you're wrong. I am just curious as the courses I now of as the 'best' are all listed.
I have not played nor heard of Swan Lake.
I have played Victoria National, Wolf Run and Crooked Stick and would rank them in that order.
I also have played Brickyard Crossing, Purgatory and Prairie View but they are not in the running for the top spot in the State.
-
I didn't get the impression that the state lists were anything but a listing of the Top 250 level courses listed by state. I didn't assume that the "gems" were listed to be the next best courses in each state--they don't really seem to have much of a function, however.
Swan Lake most likely wouldn't be one of the top 30 PUBLIC courses in Indiana, let alone overall. Chris Clouser wrote a nice book about Indiana public offerings--I don't remember if he mentioned it or not and don't have the copy in front of me. The courses there are decidedly average. Blackthorn isn't what it was when it opened--they took out some bunkers to make it less expensive to maintain (and decidedly less strategic). Its fun to play and used to be my home course, but its hard to for me to argue for it on any kind of ranking list.
-
Congrats to GCA's own newbie Fergal O'Leary for his accomplishments in assisting with tthe Top100 website. Well done.
I mean, how could one take so long to play all the US top 100's???
-
The U.S. State lists are laughable. If you're having a bad day and need a good laugh, check out the Indiana ranking.
Sven, why? Other than perhaps the addition of the courses at French Lick aren't the top 4 what should be expected?
Have you played Swan Lake?
Sven,
I am not saying you're wrong. I am just curious as the courses I now of as the 'best' are all listed.
I have not played nor heard of Swan Lake.
I have played Victoria National, Wolf Run and Crooked Stick and would rank them in that order.
I also have played Brickyard Crossing, Purgatory and Prairie View but they are not in the running for the top spot in the State.
Mark:
I had no problem with the top three. I had a problem with a list of 6 courses from Indiana that includes Swan Lake.
As Jim indicated, this is a work in progress. When you work with the top 250, states like New York, California, etc. will have a list that looks halfway decent, even if a few random gems are thrown in. States like Indiana with a smaller representation in the 250 will end up looking a bit off.
I'd feel sorry for the guy that plays Swan Lake over the multitude of better options in Northern Indiana as a result of consulting this list.
Sven
-
I'm a regular reader of the Top 100 site for a number of years now. It is a very fine effort and I don't think the rankings per se are the most interesting part, but the comments by players. I don't care much whether a course ends up at #10 or #50, but reading the comments is always interesting.
That being said, what I do find lacking at times is the editorial description. While it has some important data (like who designed it - saved my day a couple of times in the past), there is also a somewhat generic critique. It's neither fish nor meat - trying not to be subjective (like the player comments), but on the other hand not structured enough to be objectively useful (as in comparing two courses).
Ulrich
-
Nicely done website, poor ranking methodology.
Based on a combination of others rankings and their local representative (and all his personal biasses).
Cannot compete with larger group based rankings, such as the recent Links effort by Tom Dunne.
-
Nicely done website, poor ranking methodology.
Based on a combination of others rankings and their local representative (and all his personal biasses).
Cannot compete with larger group based rankings, such as the recent Links effort by Tom Dunne.
Frank
I can't see the problem with using other rankings to create the mainstay of a new system. I to wonder about the editorial adjustments. At the very least, this part of the process should be better explained on the website. That said, if there were no editorial adjustments than it would probably be difficult to really distance this system from the others. I can see where an editor may allow himself one or two alterations based on his experience. I suspect this is how Pennard makes the list as I have never seen it ranked anywhere else. I also suspect, their own list is used with the other major mags as part of the process now - so the editorial adjustments from say 5 years ago may now carry more weight as "officially" rated courses rather than editorial adjustments - if you know what I mean.
I don't think the opinions of punters are taken into account. A separate list used to be created and published in book form. Perhaps it would be interesting if those lists (if still compiled) were published on the site, but I can understand a reluctance to creating a competing ranking on one's own site!
I also liked it when they went beyond the top 100. Now they are doing the county deal which I am not sure carries much weight. For the best courses we already know they will top county lists. For counties with a dirth of good courses they are essentially recommending people see a bunch of 4s. I can understand some 4s being recommended as gems because of their individuality/originality, bt a great many of the county listings are courses few people care about let alone want to go out of their way to play. If I go back to my WORCS example, if really pressed I wouldn't really even have three ranked. It could well be two; Harborne & Edgbaston with Blackwell (Fowler Simpson?) & Worcester (Dr Mac) as gems because of their designers - meaning the courses are recommended but with qualification. When I see courses like Kings Norton and Fulford Heath pushed, it makes me wonder what the point is. I say bring back the old system and ditch the county system - tee hee.
Ciao
-
Brian - When I look at my home county ratings I think/know they are wrong, it has Ross on Wye @1, I have never seen ROW higher than The Players Club in any magazine ratings and if it has been how have I missed it (because it must be in an insignificant one) that aside Ross on Wye is a nice course and I can see how some would love the trees, its a course carved through trees basically quite narrow, certainly is top 5 in the county and a single opinion could have Ross, The Players Club, Kendleshire or Minchinhampton as the top course but any other opinion is a doughnut opinion in the same way as Aston Villa are not the best football team in England. The problem for me though is when I see some courses ranked 7, 8, 9 etc and I absolutely know those courses are not right and they are excluding some good ones, that distortion is because NOT ENOUGH OPINION has been taken into account and perhaps the rater(s) has not played the others. The more opinions the more accurate the result. TheTop100 is a very good web site ruined by its rankings, but that could be improved, that improvement though needs to start at the bottom with the counties, get the foundation right and it will work. It is fairly easy to compile a top 100 its the ones outside that make it hard, if you stick to GB & I theres no need to fully research the counties but if you want to produce top 100 England, Scotland then you actually need to be accurate down to GB & I top 500.
-
Adrian,
TheTop100 is a very good web site ruined by its rankings
I absolutely agree and have long wondered when they have such a great thing with their comprehensive coverage of the globe and well set-out and managed content, they try to compete on ratings with other publishers who simply do it so much better.
Every explanation of the site's method of rating courses has struck me as quarter-baked, and sadly the results have reinforced that in many cases.
When I see an explanation like this from Jim:
The Top100 Team are fully aware that their State rankings for the USA are not what they could be... so I'd ask you to look again at the end of March - once the standings have been overhauled - to see if the rankings look any better then.
My first, immediate response is, "why publish lists that you know have serious flaws?". You only get one shot at a first impression.
-
Scott - "serious flaws" is an interesting assumption from "not what they could be".
Personally I much preferred Top100 when they had the GB&I top 100 followed by gems, splitting down into counties carries zero weight. Number 1 in one county may not even be top 10 if it were elsewhere.
-
Personally I much preferred Top100 when they had the GB&I top 100 followed by gems, splitting down into counties carries zero weight. Number 1 in one county may not even be top 10 if it were elsewhere.
Precisely. Who cares that Joe Bloggs GC is rated #9 in Shropshire? Worst of all, rating a course is tantamount to recommending it and in that way the county system is not at all effective.
Ciao
-
The more opinions the more accurate the result.
or is it the more opinions the more homogenized the result? Personally, I prefer single malt to a blend...
-
Mark,
Lists being revealed in Jan and "overhauled" by March? Those behind the lists would appear to feel there are major errors and/or there isn't sufficient authority in how they were compiled. Otherwise, why immediately overhaul them?
If the upcoming overhaul was always planned, why blow the first impression by releasing, a matter of weeks earlier, a list you are aware "isn't what it could be" and intend to immediately change?
If it's the former, then fair play to them for reacting to the shortcomings and attempting to fix things so quickly.
If it's the latter, it seems bizarre to release something you realise has such flaws.
-
The more opinions the more accurate the result.
or is it the more opinions the more homogenized the result? Personally, I prefer single malt to a blend...
Jud - But what if the malt I serve you, you dont like.
It is not about trying to say what is best, its being accurate what is 77th best. It may be that many dont think it matters what is 9th in Shropshire, but if you are going to say whats 9th in Shropshire do the job accurately. You will be more accurate with a greater number of opinions. The top100 site is potentially the best way to locate and research courses, but not evey course is on there. In that respect the www.uk-golfguide.co.uk is probably #1 in the UK. I dont know of any other good ones. If you have the right directory and its the most used you can sell advertising easy. I agree with Scott, why release a list you know is flawed.
-
Brian,
Quite frankly, I don't know the exact process that Keith Baxter, the editor-in-chief of the Top100 website, uses when compiling the
various listings! I do know that he has a bedrock of historical data from a number of publications to which is added ratings from a number of different people - professionals and ordinary golfers - on the ground.
For instance, I cover Scotland and in order to be able to properly compare courses I feel you have to actually play ALL the top tracks - no
use taking the word of others who might have only read about a course in a book or only played it once 25 years ago. It's relatively easy to define a top 75 but then you have around 50 courses in contention for the remaining 25 places so you have to actually play AT LEAST 125 courses (more like 150) to make sure you've got the very best 100.
In my opinion, the Top100 site has 50% of its Scottish rankings about right. I'd mark down 31 courses and raise 19 higher but then it's not the Jim McCann Top100, so I have to accept that other sources will mark St Andrews (Old), Carnoustie (Championship) and Royal Troon (Old) higher and Moray (Old), Glasgow (Gailes) and Elie lower than I have them.
Top100 does have a number of trusted correspondents around the world who help in the compilation of national charts and half a dozen gca members recently assisted with the update of our Australian Top 100, for instance. Some gca people are also assisting as I write with the reranking of our US Best in State rankings.
Scott & Adrian
Our US state rankings are being overhauled because, at present, we rank only a relatively small number of courses. The intention is to more than double the scope of our coverage from approximately 320 courses to over 760. Something that takes a bit of time to do properly, I'd hope you'd agree.
All
I'm not a member of gca in order to broadcast the virtues of the Top100 site though I am open to constructive criticim that can improve
what we do. Anybody who would like to help refine our county/state rankings in GB&I or USA are more than welcome to send me an email to jim@top100golfcourses.co.uk with their suggestions.
-
The more opinions the more accurate the result.
or is it the more opinions the more homogenized the result? Personally, I prefer single malt to a blend...
Jud - But what if the malt I serve you, you dont like.
It is not about trying to say what is best, its being accurate what is 77th best. It may be that many dont think it matters what is 9th in Shropshire, but if you are going to say whats 9th in Shropshire do the job accurately. You will be more accurate with a greater number of opinions. The top100 site is potentially the best way to locate and research courses, but not evey course is on there. In that respect the www.uk-golfguide.co.uk is probably #1 in the UK. I dont know of any other good ones. If you have the right directory and its the most used you can sell advertising easy. I agree with Scott, why release a list you know is flawed.
Adrian
If there is anything we know about ranking its that trying to definitely state #77 is better than #78 is a fool's errand. Even if it were possible, how is having 25 people rate the top 10 in Shropshire going to produce "more accurate results" than 10 people doing it? You have already said you think your ranking of Gloucestershire would be better than a larger panel on Top100 - call me confused.
Ciao
-
Sean - You are not being fair. I said that I saw serious flaws in the Gloucestershire ranking. Some of it is bizzare and I think its bizzare because its been done by not many opinions, some of it is like saying Hartlepool is better than Crystal Palace if you can understand that analogy. I am not saying MINE should be the only one to count. If we take 20 opinions we will get a better accuracy of what is best, thats not so much different in what the top100 site have tried to do. What you need is good opinion of course and there needs to be a secure way to cancel that doughnut opinion.
As Jim stated whilst 75 places in a top100 may be safe the other 25 places need much research, as I said in an earlier post if you need to find top 100s for the Englands, Scotlands, Wales, Irelands you need very detailed research so that needs to start from the foundations of best in the counties, get that accurate to at least top 20 and you have the basis, get that wrong and doughnut appears!
-
Jim, I live the top 100 site and don’t really worry about the exact rankings but use the site to get a feel for what’s available in each region. I would not play a course based solely on a ranking and cant imagine number 10 is much different from 20 and so on. As a starting point to carry out further research the top 100 site is a very valuable source.
Anyway, I have a question which may not be of much use to anyone but as I come from the region in question I was just curious. If you look at the Scottish Borders region it only seems to list 18 hole courses despite some of the more recommendable plays being nine holers. Is it site policy to only include 18 hole courses?
-
Mark,
Lists being revealed in Jan and "overhauled" by March? Those behind the lists would appear to feel there are major errors and/or there isn't sufficient authority in how they were compiled. Otherwise, why immediately overhaul them?
If the upcoming overhaul was always planned, why blow the first impression by releasing, a matter of weeks earlier, a list you are aware "isn't what it could be" and intend to immediately change?
If it's the former, then fair play to them for reacting to the shortcomings and attempting to fix things so quickly.
If it's the latter, it seems bizarre to release something you realise has such flaws.
I don't know much about the development of the Top 100 website, but I assume that the US list has existed for some time now, side by side with the other lists. I'm just speculating, but it's possible they knew of the shortcomings of the US list (as Jim has mentioned), but chose to publish it along with the other lists, as omitting it, and waiting until March would have looked very strange indeed.
Sometimes you have to release a product (a list in this case), even when you know it's flawed. It happens all the time in business.
While it's admirable to seek perfection, there comes a time when you must realise that nothing is perfect, certainly not golf course rankings. Why? Because, they are a collection of opinions. The important thing is to correct the mistakes/shortcomings, and Jim has indicated that that issue is being adressed.
-
If we take 20 opinions we will get a better accuracy of what is best
Adrian,
I'm not sure that's right, where judgment is subjective rather than objective. Let's take the analogy of wine rating, for example, which has been used here before. There are, in the wine world, a number of very highly regarded critics. There is also a very wide spectrum of styles of wine. Perhaps the most succesful critic is Robert Parker. He has a palate which favours big, bold flavours like much Californian red wine and highly rates quite alcoholic, highly extracted wines. The best known UK critic is Jancis Robinson. She much prefers subtler, less bold and, arguably, more refined wines. They have, famously, argued bitterly over particular wines in the past (Parker loved Ch. Pavie 2003, Robinson described it as being unfit for drinking). If we took these two highly regarded critics and averaged their scores then wines that one loves but the other hates would score moderately and be beaten by wines that both found acceptable but didn't love. I'd rather know my critic, calibrate my palate to theirs and understand their reviews/ratings accordingly.
20 golfers rating any course will have different preferences. You have, quite correctly, suggested that the average Joe golfer might like The Belfry better than any of the current UK Top 10 (whoever's top 10 you choose). I don't want to be selecting a course to play based on their avaeraged opinions. That's why the views of certain posters here are of such great value. If Sean likes a course, it will be great fun, won't be too long and yet will offer plenty of challenging shots and strategic interest. If Scott Warren likes a course it will still be high on interest but may be a bit longer and could well be quite tough. I haven't yet found a poster whose preference for a course would make me avoid it but you certainly can start to "calibrate" your own preferences against other people's views.
I guess this is the reason why, like Sean, I don't set that much store by rankings but would rather read a review describing the course and a general grouping, like Rich Goodale's Rihcelin Scale. The Confidential Guide is, for me, a much better approach than any "Top 100" ranking.
-
Sean - You are not being fair. I said that I saw serious flaws in the Gloucestershire ranking. Some of it is bizzare and I think its bizzare because its been done by not many opinions, some of it is like saying Hartlepool is better than Crystal Palace if you can understand that analogy. I am not saying MINE should be the only one to count. If we take 20 opinions we will get a better accuracy of what is best, thats not so much different in what the top100 site have tried to do. What you need is good opinion of course and there needs to be a secure way to cancel that doughnut opinion.
As Jim stated whilst 75 places in a top100 may be safe the other 25 places need much research, as I said in an earlier post if you need to find top 100s for the Englands, Scotlands, Wales, Irelands you need very detailed research so that needs to start from the foundations of best in the counties, get that accurate to at least top 20 and you have the basis, get that wrong and doughnut appears!
Adrian
It doesn't follow that more opinions equals a better opinion.
I also don't necessarily agree that to find the best we must work up from small areas to larger areas. Indeed, nearly all of the best candidates for top 100 have already been identified. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The issue, and it will always remain an issue, is how courses stack up against each other. That will forever be a matter of opinion even if most can agree on which 75 courses of the 100 will be included. Indeed, no matter how much folks rail on about this list or that, most of them are far more similar than not. I can't personally see why you and Scott think the Top100 list is terrible - if it is bad, all the lists must be bad.
Mark
I agree with you. The Confidential Guide is at least as good as any ranking, except perhaps for the Non Official GCA.com rankings. I like this very much and would use it for my go to list for play outside GB&I.
Ciao
-
The more opinions the more accurate the result.
or is it the more opinions the more homogenized the result? Personally, I prefer single malt to a blend...
Jud - But what if the malt I serve you, you dont like.
Then at least I know exactly what it tastes like and not to order it again. Better than drinking a mediocre blend my whole life because "that's what everyone in town drinks" and never knowing about that really special tipple that's only made in 1 antique cask by the cranky old woman down the road.
-
Ross
Eight of the twenty one courses in the Borders - ten of which are ranked on the Top100 site - are 9-hole layouts.
Unfortunately, I've never seen any of these courses being lauded in a golf publication as worthy of inclusion in a
regional Top 10 chart, never mind a national Top 100.
If there are one or two that you think worth a visit, let me know and I'll certainly play them sometime this coming
summer.
There's no bar on 9-hole courses appearing on the Top100 site.
I've enjoyed recent rounds at Traigh, Carradale, Cruit Island and Castlerock (Bann), all of which feature on our site
and indeed the latter two are ranked in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland charts.
-
Mark - I still think a collection of opinions is better than one opinion, you need to factor out the bad opinion though or ratings will be skewed. Ratings are subjective which as you clearly state and in some respects you cant argue with an opinion, but constantly on here and your guilty of it too, you see a course 'crazy' out of position. Its not easy to produce an objective ranking, perhaps impossible, but you factor out bad opinion if Charlie Farley rates some 5400 yarder as the best in the county when its not even staged a county championship, there could be objective measures that stopped that silly opinion.
I do think that if you did a more peoples rating then you would see a greater sprinkling of modern courses but then I think rating golf courses is generally screwed too much in favour of the older ones anyway. In my world I booked 463 society groups in 2011 so I am pretty front line in knowing the courses people want to play and their likes.
If people dont want courses ranked from 1-100 or 1-500 fine, but clearly some people do want to see that and the top100 tries to do that.
-
Sean - The problem in not having a collection of opinions is you get the doughnut. The Gloucestershire rankings are crap.
-
Adrian,
The point is that a good and sensible argument could be made that The Belfry is the best course in England and another (in the opinion of most on this site preferable) that RSG is. I agree that you could choose to dismiss obviously wrong opinions (no-one sensible for instance, is going to argue that Ramside Hall is the best course in England (though a number, whose opinions I would immediately discount for ever, might think it was the best in Northumberland and Durham)) but where do you draw the line? For me, Kington is in all respects a better golf course than The Belfry. You probably disagree. Neither opinion is bonkers, though. Averaged rankings of subjective preferences lead, I think, to mediocrity rewarded.
-
Mark - I dont agree with you that Kington is better than Belfry. I have not seen Kington, but from the pics it looks the sort of course I would want to play and I would probably play that ahead of The Belfry since I have already played it. My choice to disqualfy Kington is a choice you and Sean (and most on here) are not going to like. I think there can be objective rules that stop a course being good (lets say reduce its points), one would be length, another reason is that the best courses stage or have stage championships and so I think weight should be given to courses that stage championships, now if you look at the Golf World or Monthly or whatevers top100 the courses are generally longer courses (though over 6200 yards in most cases) and have staged some form of championship golf, there are levels of championship golf, Open, Qualyfying, Amateur Championship right down to county championships and lower. Now by my method a man voting a course that had never staged a county championship (unless it has recently) over a course that has staged 4 Ryder Cups, that opinion would not be counted. The Belfry might not be the greatest course but it certainly deserves a place in the top 100 of GB & I whilst Kington does not.
-
So if they held the Ryder Cup each year on a series of soccer pitches with cups at one end that course should automatically be top 100?
-
In essence its not nuclear physics to make good rankings, its just a heck of a lot of work collecting the data from many respondents.
The method to use is to let individual golfers make a ranked list of courses ranging from the best to the worst course (they need to have played or walked the course). Better even is to use conjoint analysis, which forces you make many subsequent choices between two courses and also allows for other factors to be included (eg. would you rather play Valderama for 300 euros or De Pan for 100 euros, or would you rather play Swinley Forest for 120 pounds or New Zealand for 80 pounds). By going through such a choice process an algorith establishes the sequence of courses, but also the utilities each of the courses would have. Either of these two methods would establish a list of courses ranked from best ranked to worst ranked for one person. For some persons this list would be short, say 40 courses and for others the list would be huge, say 1000 courses.
Then you would need some demographical data from the person. Things like gender, age, income, golf handicap, GCA member, Pro, architect, Joe Blow, address, no of courses played. Using this data would for instance allow you to rank courses in GBI using as control group GCA members, handicap 10-15, average income. (as long as the group is large enough to be statistically significant). You could do the same for Joe BLow, handicap15-30, low income.
Key is to get as many people as possible to rank the courses they have played from best to worst, preferably through conjoint analysis with some utility like money to give the ranking a scale, then to segment the the overall pool by demographics.
This system should be relatively easy to set up for a website like Top 100, and would no doubt also increase the stickiness of the site. Approach a couple of hundred people around the world, get them to do the rankings. Then open the system up to all readers of your website. That way it would become a living ranking changing over time.
As far as I know the only site to have done something like this has been GolfWeekly in the Netherlands with a panel of 150 voters.
Rankings by experts on wine, like Robert Parker are comparable to Tom Doak and Confidential Guide. They work because we trust the judgement of the star, the expert. But it falls apart with sites like Top100, because we are not sure they have raters with the same standing/credibility (at least in the perception of the public) ....
-
Adrian,
Your position is pretty much what I expected and is clearly a very reasonable position. It's just not one I agree with, which isn't because one of us is right and the other wrong, it's because subjective judgments like this are impossible to objectify. "Which is the better golf course?" is a difficult question because the answer for each individual depends on a set of criteria which dioffer from person to person.
I wouldn't want to rely on a ranking where my ranking of a course had been dismissed as an outlier!
Frank,
Are you suggesting that the rankings be adjusted for the reader? That is, the reader gives information about himself and his preferences and the site engine then correlates a ranking for him favouring like-minded individuals?
-
Mark,
that is one of the creative ways you could slice and dice the data to make it interesting for the reader.
It could also predict which other courses a person would like given his rankings, sort of like Amazon.com
-
Frank - I am with you on this. I like the idea of a live site wherby a 'newbie' can sign up and cast his vote (provided his vote meets the criteria). If courses all had points, which you would end up having with a formula, a very simple column could be inputted wherby the points is divisible by the green fee to you a value factor, so in essence Wentworth might be 22nd with 867 points and Boat of Garten might be 112th with 561 points but factor in the green fee at £300 or £30 and the value rating of of Wentworth is say 2.86 whilst the Boat would be 18.58 (have not done the exacts).
Mark - It is difficult to say whats best as a golf course for one and whats best for another, there has to be a method to stop the bad opinion though or it gets skewed by some golf course that gets 500 people to 6ball it, the only way to do that is to have something objective. Have you ever heard of the 'flip flop' it was used for working out wage disputes in baseball.
-
Jim
Sorry, did not mean to sound like I was suggesting any should make a top 100 national ranking. Rather I would advise playing some of the nine holer’s over some of the 18 hole courses in the Borders Top ten list. Kelso for example is not much fun unless you enjoy flat ground, flat greens and thick rough.
If you are in the area Melrose and Selkirk are worth a shot, although really I was more curious about the inclusion of nine hole courses in general, rather than really recommending any of the borders courses. After all if you have the time east Lothian is only an hour and a half away.
-
Ross
I've only played five of the ten Border courses featured on our site but I'd already planned on playing Torwoodlee this year so
there's no reason why I shouldn't squeeze in the two 9-hole tracks that you've suggested when I'm in that neck of the woods.
Thanks for the steer.
Similar recommendations for elsewhere in Caledonia gratefully received...
-
Adrian
The Belfry is a great example of big and modern not being terribly good or even well liked. I have never met one person, not one, who has said he thinks The Brabazon is a very good course. Should we therefore consider it an outlier course BECAUSE it has hosted Ryder Cups?
Ciao
-
Adrian,
The problem with an accepted wisdom that discounts certain opinions is that it is self-perpetuating. My view that kington is better than The Belfry gets discounted but Joe Blow, who has just learned to play, has only ever played his local muni and then gets to play a corporate day at The Belfry gives it 6 stars or a Doak 10 or whatever top score you are allowing, and his opinion (which, I'd like to think is less objectively valuable than mine, given our respective experiences) is allowed and merely adds to the Belfry's already inflated position.
-
Mark - That scenario of Joe Blow would be mitigated in my methodolgy. The criteria could only be his knowledge of local courses, the rater would have to be initmate with at least 20 local courses, he would have to pass a test based on fairness and some objective criteria.
Sean - Our club qualified for the Help for Heroes final in 2010 there, they all and the other teams praised it highly. I have played it twice, once as early as 79, its very clinical and its not totally to my taste as I am quite a 'leftie' like you, 10 & 18 are the standouts but theres no real minger there now, 11 & 12 are much improved, the conditioning is very good and may up the anti for some, the history too. I would still call it good in the general scheme of near 3000 golf courses in the GB & Ire.