[Sean Walsh]

Kevin,

Haven't seen it in person since the fires but unless I'm mistaken some of the losses would have been an improvement.

Pine trees - I'm thinking of you.

The clubhouse however would have been a big loss for the town.  I'm sure they would have done a lot of functions out there.

[Michael Goldstein]

Sean,  glad you also like Port Fairy.  I've seen about 47 of the top 50 and believe it could go considerably higher, probably into the 30s.

One other thing I take from this list is congratulations to Mike Clayton.

[Mike_Clayton]

Kevin.

I would have Ranfurlie ahead of a quite few in there. But I would wouldn't I?!
Also Port Fairy - it has too many really good holes - 3,5,7,12,14,15,16 and yes, even 17 - to be below courses with far fewer.
I am sure people leave with a negative impression because of the last 2 holes. They come of the stretch of 12-16 along the beach and then play those two - which are good holes but suffer because they are inland from the beach. If the clubhouse was behind the 16th green I suspect it would be different.

[Kyle Henderson]

I'm glad to see I picked the right courses to play over there (9 of the top 10 and half of the top 40... in a 2 week span!).

My only quibble might be that I'd put the Barnbougle courses ahead of Kingston Heath and St. Andrews Beach above Victoria and Metropolitan, but I can see how the sandbelt courses might be better for "every day" play. It will be interesting to see if Royal Melbourne-East moves up the ladder at all after the upcoming improvements.

[Mark_F]

I would have Ranfurlie ahead of a quite few in there. But I would wouldn't I?!

I don't know about that.  I had it around 20 - around, because I haven't seen anything in Perth, where I assume at least a couple of courses would get a gig ahead of it.  Easily superior to Moonah Legends, Dunes, Kooyonga and National Old.

[Scott Warren]

Kyle,

My numbers played in the top 10 (7) and top 40 (16) aren't quite as high as yours, but on those two counts, I agree largely.

Barnbougle Dunes is easily the second best course in Aus and might, maybe, be a better course than RM West. But for me, KH sits ahead of Barny Farm.

But yeah, StAB ahead of Metro is a no-brainer.

[Ben Jarvis]

Kyle,

My numbers played in the top 10 (7) and top 40 (16) aren't quite as high as yours, but on those two counts, I agree largely.

Barnbougle Dunes is easily the second best course in Aus and might, maybe, be a better course than RM West. But for me, KH sits ahead of Barny Farm.

But yeah, StAB ahead of Metro is a no-brainer.

Scott,

I'm up to 24 of the top-30 and all of the top-10. I think the top-10 is about right and have Royal Melbourne West a clear number 1 but certainly not streaks ahead of Kingston Heath or Barnbougle Dunes.

And yes, I'd have to go with St. Andrews Beach over Metro also, while Woodlands is in a deserving 12th spot.

My biggest surprise - how can Royal Sydney be ahead of 13th Beach (Beach), Moonah Links (Legends) and The Dunes?

[Brett_Morrissy]

KP/MF/DE/JB, or Clayts

Are any of you guys able to explain in a straight forward manner how votes are tallied, once all raters have, suky the number of courses played vary greatly, so how are the stats compiled?

I understand that you rate all the courses you've played in the previous two year period, but as Fergus says, he hasn't played in Perth(recently?), as an example, so how do the WA courses stand a chance of getting fairly assessed for instance, how are the courses weighted. If everyone has played RM West and only 5 of the 20 have played Port Fairy, then what chance does it have to fairly assessed?

[Mark_F]

KP/MF/DE/JB, or Clayts

Are any of you guys able to explain in a straight forward manner how votes are tallied, once all raters have, suky the number of courses played vary greatly, so how are the stats compiled?

I understand that you rate all the courses you've played in the previous two year period, but as Fergus says, he hasn't played in Perth(recently?), as an example, so how do the WA courses stand a chance of getting fairly assessed for instance, how are the courses weighted. If everyone has played RM West and only 5 of the 20 have played Port Fairy, then what chance does it have to fairly assessed?

Brett,

Courses are awarded points in three categories, then totaled.  I guess a course that is played less could theoretically have a lesser average point score simply because there isn't a wide enough spread, but then it could also have a higher total too.  However, I assume the lowest and/or highest votes for each course are dropped out of the ultimate totals.

For instance, I rated National Ocean 27 points out of 100.  Its average rank was 69, so clearly either my rank was discarded, or Matt Mollica, and David Elvins think a whole lot more of the course than they let on.

[Kyle Henderson]

For instance, I rated National Ocean 27 points out of 100.  It's average rank was 69, so clearly either my rank was discarded, or Matt Mollica, and David Elvins think a whole lot more of the course than they let on.

LOL!

[Anthony Butler]

Having played the entire top 20 other than BD, LF and StAB, I'd have to say the list feels about right to me other than Woodlands. I can't rank it above the Commonwealth... unless it has undergone some improvements I've missed here on GCA. The newness of BD and LF, plus the fact they are reasonably priced public access courses, has obviously helped overcome their relative isolation from the mainland capital cities.

It will be interesting to see if their prominence on the Australian list is reflected in the next round of World lists. BD has ranked traditionally just below NSWGC on the World lists and LF has not been open long enough to make any lists. Based on what I've heard about the green renovations at NSWGC, it will stay in the Top 40, so LF should appear somewhere in the Top 50, otherwise things are seriously out of alignment Down Under.

[Scott Warren]

Anthony,

Barnbougle Lost Farm debuted on the most recent Golf Magazine World Top 100 List at #82.

The Australian entries on the list were:

#13 Royal Melbourne (West)
#27 Kingston Heath
#34 New South Wales
#41 Barnbougle Dunes
#82 Barnbougle Lost Farm
#85 Royal Adelaide

[Mark_F]

For instance, I rated National Ocean 27 points out of 100.  It's average rank was 69, so clearly either my rank was discarded, or Matt Mollica, and David Elvins think a whole lot more of the course than they let on.

LOL!

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony,

Barnbougle Lost Farm debuted on the most recent Golf Magazine World Top 100 List at #82.

The Australian entries on the list were:

#13 Royal Melbourne (West)
#27 Kingston Heath
#34 New South Wales
#41 Barnbougle Dunes
#82 Barnbougle Lost Farm
#85 Royal Adelaide

I'm not in a position to compare the merits of the two courses.... but how does a course 48 places lower on the Global List get placed above that course on the local list? In the same publication? Whatever the reason, it speaks to some serious differences of opinion amongst the respective raters. The only playing factor I can think of is NSWGC had various greens out of commission for 6 months of the year.

Was anything else mentioned?

 

[Mike_Clayton]

Anthony,

It isn't the same publication - Golf Australia v Golf Magazine US.There is no relationship between the two.
Lost Farm is new and with fewer views presumably than NSW, a course has been a favourite of overseas raters for years. And the local raters have Barnbougle above NSW as well. My view is the local raters are closer to the mark because they are more familiar with both.
I doubt having the greens out of commission at NSW had anything to do with where any of the local raters placed the course. They are all smart enough to look beyond something so temporary and irrelevant.
In 2010 GA still had Royal Melbourne West at 1 despite the issues with the condition of the golf course. Golf Digest moved it down to 3 simply because of the condition and presumably will now move it back up since the condition now is perfect.

[David_Elvins]

Anthony,

The global list will always move slower than the local list as it has more panelists and a longer time frame in which courses can be viewed.

Who knows how nsw got to be no 2 in Australia or no 30 in the world but the Australian raters have a much better ability to correct the anomaly quickly due to smaller panel that plays the course more often. 

We have seen international visitors on this website question why the course is in the world top 100 so no doubt there is momentum pulling it down the list, it will just take a while due to the size of the panel and less visits from international raters.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Anyone care to list the criteria, are you allowed to disclose that?

Even with Mark's explanation, I am still struggling to see how quality course which is out of the way, can possibly be treated equally, unless there is some complex spreadsheet algorithm to even things out?

I know it is great discussion fodder for those of us that enjoy the assessment of courses, but for the clubs that are perhaps in the country, doing a sound job of presenting their course at its best, and has good routing structure, and that perhaps don't get the visits to review that they should, these ratings have a significant impact. Or for those clubs that are in amongst the "big guns", a few years of big drops in rankings, will be well felt in visitors and membership numbers, ...well i suppose it can be argued, that if they are in these areas, they need to improve to lift their rankings, or risk long term decline.

I am wondering if the "golden" Top 10, is now past it's used by date, that with all the good quality newer modern courses AND newly updated by renovation or restoration, that the Top 25 should now be considered of appropriate quality, interest and architecture to warrant a visit by all those that love golf and it's design?

[Mike_Clayton]

Brett.
It depends on your definition of quality - but how many courses are there in Australia that are 'quality' and out of the way?
Barnbougle obviously and Port Fairy.
I have not seen the far away resorts in Queensland like Paradise Palms and Laguna Quays for a long time - and they are always going to struggle to attract many raters because it's expensive and time consuming to get there and they are not so good that people from the south of the country are going to see them. Maybe that hurts them.
It seems there isn't much out of the way in Western Australia - Albany maybe - nor South Australia. NSW?? Orange maybe - and from what I saw of Ocean Shores it isn't being hard done by.
I suspect a decent number of raters have seen Horsham post the fire - I have not, but assume it is still a top 60 course and maybe better.
There are no hidden secrets in Tasmania.
The Murray is something I have not seen in ages but is there anything up there better than Rosebud? Rosebud is hardly done by not making the 100 but the way they arrange the 36 holes into 4(??) separate courses is confusing and to their detriment if they see it as important that they are included in the ratings.

In your opinion, which well presented and well routed courses courses are not listed?
The 25th course is unquestionably miles better than the 25th course in 1980. The Dunes and Royal Queensland would both have been in the top 10 in 1980.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mike,

I do not regard my opinion of highly enough to make judgements on what is quality and what courses have good routing structure, particularly to throw at a list, not my place to do that. As far as quality goes, I know what I like personally, but that is certainly not the same as many of the golfers that look to the rankings for guidance on where they should play or join.

The places I had in mind with my comment, (we all probably know which they are) are some of those you mention, first to mind was Port Fairy, or Horsham, perhaps somewhere like Curlewis, or as you said, courses in Far North Qld, course(s)? at Yeppoon, Hunter Valley, Bonville, Kalgoolie, Ballarat, Warrnambool, etc, ..Ii cannot say if they are presented well or not, and only know of some of the routings, but naming the courses is not the same as saying they belong in the top 100, nothing like that at all, but more about the process or criteria.

These courses are a little out of the way, does the system make allowances for that? If four panelists go to Port Fairy in the past 2 years and 20 go to Huntingdale or Healesville, OR if 5 raters go to 13th Beach and all play the Beach course, but only one sees the Creek course...how are they treated, as I said previously, if this process is confidential, that is fine, am just curious. Is it just something the panel discusses together and sort out what is worth seeing and what is not?

Mike, at the end of the day, the rankings are what they are, and that is fine, ...perhaps the point about the top 25 is much more relevant and interesting, and certainly the bigger lists like USA or World, should look at going to top 200 also?

Happy New Year   !

[Mike_Clayton]

Brett,

I don't know the answer to your question about how it is all finally tallied up. I just send my list in with the courses I have seen in the order I think is best. There is a fair spread of judges from around the country but because it is such a vast place it is obviously difficult for many to see something like Kalgoolie.
Curlewis is a good example - probably better than Rosebud - of a course few see that is hard done by not making the 100.
It would have more of a chance though if they redid 6 and 12 so they didn't dogleg at 400 yards!!
For a tremendous hole the 3rd there gets very little credit.
For me, whether I see a course depends so much on what others have suggested. Everyone bothers to go to Newcastle because of its reputation but there is very little else up around there that anybody suggests is worth the trip. If they are worthy the word leaks out pretty quickly.

[Kevin Pallier]

Brett

We were asked to rank courses this year based on a criteria of design, condition / presentation and "the experience" ie: memorability. Am not sure how Brendan then dealt with each of the submissions to get the final ranking.

The panel is spread thoughout the country and is I would have thought most are well travelled [well some like MM more than others  ;] I've spent a fair bit of time interstate over the past few years and try and constantly revisit my rankings.

I think it needs to be remembered that this was the first year that GA moved from a Top50 to a Top100 and I would have thought it would take a few years to weed out the anomalies particularly in the back half of the list.

Like you say the addition of the "newer" courses over the past 20 years has had an impact. 8 of the Top25 and interestingly 46 of the Top100 (nearly half) have been opened in that time !!

[Mike_Clayton]

Kevin.

That - and many of the traditional courses are much different than they were 20 years ago and mostly for the better.

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony,

Who knows how nsw got to be no 2 in Australia or no 30 in the world but the Australian raters have a much better ability to correct the anomaly quickly due to smaller panel that plays the course more often.  

There is momentum pulling it down the list, it will just take a while due to the size of the panel and less visits from international raters.

David, with all due respect, your contentions above are not supported by the facts... In 2011, NSW reached it's highest point in Golf Magazine's global rankings (#34). With the current management of the club actively focused on improving the golfing experience, there is nothing to suggest the club will be supplanted in the rankings by existing clubs... it will mostly likely only move down when a Pacific Dunes or Barnbougle Dunes opens to great acclaim. Although how many  ______ Dunes designed by ____ Doak do we need in the Top 40?

[Mike_Clayton]

Anthony,

I think David's point - and the relevant question - is that whilst 'the club are actively focused on improving the golf experience' will they actually improve the golf experience?
The golf experience at NSW has always been unsurpassed in Australia if the quality of the architecture is not seen as the sole measure. Royal Melbourne is unsurpassed if architecture is the measure.

The jury is still out on the question of whether the architecture is improved - and ultimately it is the architecture that determines where the course will sit in the rankings because the view and the wow experience is never going away.

[David_Elvins]

Anthony,

I believe the following elements of my post are factual:  

-Golf Australia magazine raters only rate courses they have played in the last two years.

-Golf Magazine Raters rate courses that they have played over a longer time frame.

-International visitors to this website have questioned how it is in the world's top 100.

However the tone of my post may have come out more glib than I intended it. Apologies for that.  NSW is a special place.  

It is important to understand, however, that the composition of these lists is heavily influenced by momentum and trends. In my opinion NSW's ranking has peaked in this decade partly due to the trend towards more natural ocean side courses and partly due to momentum created by group think.  

There are a few course I have played outside the world's top 100 that I would consider to be better than NSW.  Pasatiempo is one of them and there is a thread on here at the moment full of posters incredulous with its lack of recognition.  I say this not to slight NSW and suggest it is not worthy of a spot in the world's top 100 but as an example of how many great courses there are in the world and how much effect momentum and trends can have.  

I think the next trend in golf course rankings will be towards more strategic courses with interesting green complexes (influence of Doak, Coore, Pont etc) and this will have an adverse effect on NSW's rankings going forward.  

To assume that NSW's ranking will remain static is a big mistake IMO.  

Furthermore, to assume that the current work on the course will solidify  its position in the rankings is also an assumption that may be a mistake.  Most rankers that I know consider that the course has gone backwards in the last 5 years with the most recent work (completed since the rankings being compiled), being the most alarming.  

In my personal opinion, NSW is probably a world top 100 course but is far too high at the moment.  What this will likely do is create high expectations for visitors who will leave NSW disappointed that it did not meet there expectations and they will rank it too harshly, leading to a dramatic fall.    In the Australian rankings, I expect the rankers will also over-react in two years time and 'punish' the club for the quality of the ongoing changes to the course.  There will also be criticism from rankers across the board as to the lack strategy and interest in the greens.  

Of course, my other opinion is that rankings are relatively insignificant and what is most important is that NSW gets the ongoing work to the course right and considerably improves the presenetation of the course and attention to detail.  It has the bones of a great course and it iwould be a pity to see it well below its potential.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()