The Rolex World's Top 1000 Golf Courses

[Andrew Mitchell]

I received a flyer from Amazon this morning regarding this new book, due to be published next week.

The authors are Gaetan Mourgue D'Algue, Bruce Critchley (Sky TV Golf commentator), Peter Pugh (involved in the recent Colt book which has had it critics here) and Kristel Mourgue D'Algue.

Anyone know anything this book or seen an advance copy?

Is it a completely new product or just a updated edition?

Just wondering if it's worth buying.

[astavrides]

It depends--how much does it cost?

Can you jot down the top 1000 here, so we can comment on it?  

Has anyone played all of them?

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I guess alarm bells should ring when the title begins with a sponsor/company name. I would steer clear of it IMO.

Dónal.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Andrew

I too would be interested, not so much for course updates but for the travel and hospitality related stuff.

As we've discussed, I've found the Peugeot edition (and now I see there have been editions published after mine) greatly helpful.

I also think their approach to reviewing courses is vastly preferable to the American magazines' sham ratings, not just for process but for using a cardinal system for output.

As for that output, they do a decent job sorting courses, best of all leaving the "20" category empty, perhaps the wisest comment ever found in any of these mythical ratings efforts.

Mark

[Tony_Muldoon]

Andrew

I too would be interested, not so much for course updates but for the travel and hospitality related stuff.Mark

Interesting that I feel the opposite. That sort of info gets so quickly out dated that the need for it in a book is superflous now we've moved past the times of WW1 and 11 into WWW! 

The Peugeot branding works in a nod to Michelin, but Rolex and the names of the authors do not fill me with confidence that the book might offer us anything new. We shall see.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tony

I feel just the opposite re Rolex.  Namely I'm more confident in an effort sponsored by a company that wants to sell a nongolf product than one sponsored by a company that is selling a golf-related product.

Think about how compromised the magazines are in this.  Rolex doesn't need golf course ad revenues, doesn't care which course goes where in a stupid list.  They just want to sell watches to rich people.

Regarding the WWW, to paraphrase an American sporting term, on paper it always wins; however, in the real world I've discovered:
1) You can't believe everything you read on the Internet, including GCA.com -> some sources are better than others, and a priori it can be very difficult to discern which sources are crap.
2) Going on the Internet can be a hugely inefficient, time-sucking exercise.

As a side note, I see this is a *world* list.  My Peugeot covers Europe.  Andrew or Tony, do you know if the Rolex effort is separate?

Hope both of you are well
Mark

[Steve Okula]

The Mourgue D'Algues, Gaeton the father and Kristel the daughter, are also mainly responsible for publishing the Peugeot Guide these past ten years.

[John_Conley]

It's going to be real interesting when the list comes out.  You think there are complaints when such-and-such course doesn't make a Top 100...

[Richard Choi]

I guess alarm bells should ring when the title begins with a sponsor/company name. I would steer clear of it IMO.

Why? "Michelin" star system is the gold standard in rating restaurants.

[Matt_Ward]

The issue for me with any such listing -- is have all the top 1,000 been personally played -- were they played by the same person or are the assessments some form of consensus? Also, under what sort of time frame were the assessments done. For example, if a course was rated from 4 to 5 years ago -- has anyone played it in a much more timely fashion.

The title sounds marvelous but the methodology makes me curious to the actual process followed.

[Stuart Hallett]

I find the Peugeot guide a very honest effort in doing a nearly impossible job. It is a very helpful guide and the Mourgue d'Algue's have an excellent golfing culture, worldwide ! That surely helps.

[Chuck Brown]

All I know is that I want to make restaurant reservations as "Gaetan Mourgue D'Algue."

[Sean_A]

The idea isn't bad, but like the Peugeot Guide, its far too ambitious.  The Peugeot Guide should have ignored GB&I because its out of its depth in this area as some of the ratings suggest.  That said, like Mark states, I like their approach much better than the usual nonsense.  However, there is nothing worth while this book can tell me about a course I don't know of because it can't properly focus on 1000 courses - its way too many to give me any real insight.  Bottom line, I shall not purchase the book.  To be honest, the entire theme of golf books in any genre are for the most part middling to poor.  Its time we had proper writers with something to say writing golf books. Its much better to have Patric Dickinson's proper take on 18 courses than to have Joe Blogg's take on 1000 courses. 

Ciao  

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Rest assured, there is no way that set of authors have played all 1000 of the courses they will list.  I'd bet a hundred euro that they have not even played half of them.

But, if there really was a consensus list of the top 1000 courses in the world, I would be willing to wager I only know one person who has PLAYED more than half of them (I might have seen more than half, but I certainly haven't played that many).  Can you think of anybody who would have?  I guess if fully half of them are in America, then there are a few people who would have played 400 out of those 500, and maybe 100 others abroad.

I agree with Mark B. that the magazines are all compromised in the lists they put out, but at least they have some incentive to try and get out a better list than their competitors.  Rolex has no real incentive to get their list right, and it's highly unlikely they would spend the time or money to double-check themselves.  Most likely they will just list every golf course that's ever made a top 100 list, plus all of the GOLF DIGEST international listings, and then round out the list with their own favorites and those in which their friends have a financial interest.

[JC Jones]

Matt:

Rest assured, there is no way that set of authors have played all 1000 of the courses they will list.  I'd bet a hundred euro that they have not even played half of them.

But, if there really was a consensus list of the top 1000 courses in the world, I would be willing to wager I only know one person who has PLAYED more than half of them (I might have seen more than half, but I certainly haven't played that many).  Can you think of anybody who would have?  I guess if fully half of them are in America, then there are a few people who would have played 400 out of those 500, and maybe 100 others abroad.

I agree with Mark B. that the magazines are all compromised in the lists they put out, but at least they have some incentive to try and get out a better list than their competitors.  Rolex has no real incentive to get their list right, and it's highly unlikely they would spend the time or money to double-check themselves.  Most likely they will just list every golf course that's ever made a top 100 list, plus all of the GOLF DIGEST international listings, and then round out the list with their own favorites and those in which their friends have a financial interest.

Who is this man of mystery?  My guess is John Mayhugh.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The Man of Mystery is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2SSZA0CjdQ

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  I don't think I've ever met John Mayhugh.

The guy I was referring to is my friend Masa Nishijima from Tokyo, who was interviewed on this site a few years ago.  He used to take tour groups from Japan to all of the best courses in Britain and Europe and America and Australia.  When we listed 400-500 contenders for the top 100 courses in the world, Masa would vote on 350 of them ... 50 more than anybody else.

[Carl Rogers]

It seems to me that with the proliferation of world golf, it is getting more and more problematic to determine the top beyond the top 25.

How would any of you like to approach the problem of rankings?  Should there be any rankings?  Can there be a number 1?

As stated by many, how can anyone play enough courses!!??

[Adam Lawrence]

Assuming they are using the same methodology as the Peugeot guide, then they have a team of anonymous inspectors, as the Michelin guide does for restaurants, and every course is visited by one of those inspectors. See www.peugeotgolfguide.com and click on Our Commitment for the details.

I don't always agree with the Peugeot ratings, but the modus operandi is very sound.

[Robert Thompson]

For what is is worth, I did the Canadian course reviews for the book.... done through a web form. My understanding is the writers are using the information of the reviewers. They certainly studied all the ratings lists for Canada to come up with a group for me to offer my perspective. I'll be intrigued at seeing how the book comes out -- but I think it is still a few months away.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Allow me to respond to what you forwarded to me ...

Playing the courses from a singular point of view is more helpful for me than having some sort of vague Zagat's approach to putting something together and then proclaiming it as being the definitive guide to stellar golf.

The problem Tom is that too many of the old time courses are presumed to be great and a good many in the modern more recent time frame are held on the sideline. You're right -- likely the folks involved here would go the buffet route -- being sure to lump courses that have ever been rated and then ipso facto are now a part of their grand 1,000 total. What baloney.

Tom, let me say this - the reason I value "Confidential Guide" is that it applies a consistent approach (yours) to what constitures quality golf design. You articulated your floor on what makes for great, not so great, so-so and below grade assessments. I don't have to agree with it 100% --- likely no one would -- but I learn more from the singular take you provide then to go through some mindless exericse where numbers are crunched from people who have played / seen some of the courses but likely nowhere near anything of real consequence.

Tom, if there's no "real incentive" then what's the point in buying it. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where lists -- of any type and produced by whatever means -- are thrown forward for the buyers (suckers) to absorb as being something of consequence -- when in actuallity little is really produced.

I'm not saying that a cumulative listing can't be done -- no doubt it's all opinion -- but I'd rather have an opinion that is consistent in their application of their rationale and who has demonstrated a zeal to get to the key players firsthand.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I agree with you entirely.  But, that means a really good ranking of 1,000 courses just can't be done.  Nobody has seen them all, or even close.

[Mark Bourgeois]

All that may be true but the value to me of the Peugeot guide is as a travel planner:
http://peugeotgolfguide.com/gb/int.htm

Additionally, there's a section listing nearest airport by club.

Mark

[Ulrich Mayring]

Actually I also find ratings valuable for travel planning. That is why I have organised my ratings on a map (see link in my signature). This way people can just zoom in on the part of the world they are interested in and see if any courses are rated there.

Obviously, my 100 courses do not amount to much and even 1000 would not nearly be enough. But I hope to one day be able to combine my map with others in a collaborative fashion. The key points for me are that

a) any attempt at objectivity is bound to fail
b) raters must not be anonymous
c) raters must be independent

Ulrich

[Matt_Ward]

Ulrich:

Who said that objectivity is going to happen in an exercise in which opinion is the primary element ?

The issue is whether you get a real consistency to what is listed. When you throw into the picture a ton of people to provide "consensus" findings you get watered down results.

When I see a listing of 1,000 courses all of that is likely no more than the inclusion of courses through various assumptions gleaned from other already printed results. As Tom D mentioned -- people simply include various courses from previous findings and then bundle that into some larger entity and pronounce it to whatever end result they wish. It's really low brow info because there's been no firsthand accounts from the people doing the reviewing. Just simply throw info together -- slap a brand name on to it for the purposes of commercial gain and people will simply buy it. Not a bad formula for those who don't want something deeper and more comprehensive.