[jeffwarne]

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

[Mark Saltzman]

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?

[Jim McCann]

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.

[Sven Nilsen]

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 Nilsen]

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

[Mark Saltzman]

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.

[Andy Troeger]

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.

[William_G]

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???

[Sven Nilsen]

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

[Ulrich Mayring]

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

[Frank Pont]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[Adrian_Stiff]

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.

[Scott Warren]

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.

[Mark Chaplin]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[Jud_T]

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...

[Scott Warren]

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.

[Adrian_Stiff]

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.

[Jim McCann]

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.          

[Sean_A]

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

[Adrian_Stiff]

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!

[Ross Tuddenham]

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?

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()