[Ben Jarvis]

Yes, another biennial list of Australia's top-100 golf courses. This time, it's Golf Digest's time.

Here is a link to an article on Darius Oliver's website, Planet Golf - http://planetgolf.com.au/index.php?id=1607. It is here that you will also find the top-100 list.

A couple of notable observations...

1. This is the first time Australian Golf Digest has ranked the West and East courses at Royal Melbourne separately.
2. Royal Melbourne (West) sits atop the mantle piece once again and I for one can't imagine it leaving there anytime soon.
3. Although dropping back to no. 2, Kingston Heath improved its points average - further emphasising just how much improved RMW is since 2010.
3. Barnbougle Lost Farm debuts at no. 6.
4. Royal Adelaide dropped from no. 9 to 13 - the first time its out of the top-10 for a very long time.

[Mark_F]

Australian Golf Digest takes the responsibility of producing this list very seriously.

We don’t pretend for one moment that our ranking model is completely flawless, but it is the best system in this country and our list is clearly the most influential produced by an Australian magazine.

What a crock of crap.

If AGD's list is the most influential in the country, then there is no wonder so many of Australia's courses fall over themselves to ruin their layouts.

[Scott Warren]

The numerous digs at the Golf Australia list in that article are unfortunate and unneccesary, IMO.

If Golf Digest is genuinely proud of the list its panellists have produced, there's no need to insist upon the fact that it's better than GA's.

And for that matter, being influential is quite unrelated to being authoritative.

For mine -- with no link at all to either magazine or list -- the GA list is far and away superior in its recognition of the country's best courses.

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott,

I agree. The digs at Golf Australia - which produced a more accurate list in my opinion - are completely off base.
The suggestion that the GA list is incomplete because Elleston is it was not ranked is very debatable.
14 people saw a course almost no one can see or play. We have to believe 14 people that this is the 3rd best course in the country - and there can be no debate.
That more than half of them think it better or equal to Royal Melbourne does say something about what they see as important.Obviously walkability isn't high on their list and architecturally that is a comment on the routing.
Making it walkable wasn't part of the brief but it makes routing easier if you can just drive the golfer from one hole to another without worrying how far away it is.

Which is not to say it is not a tremendous course - it is.

[Mark_F]

Making it walkable wasn't part of the brief but it makes routing easier if you can just drive the golfer from one hole to another without worrying how far away it is.

Which is not to say it is not a tremendous course - it is.

Mike,

Surely it is also pretty easy to design a one dimensional course that only low handicappers can play?

[Mark Chaplin]

Personally I do not see a place on a list for a totally private course.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

The brief was to make it hard so they did.
Clearly the judges were impressed by hard - but at least they put arguably the 'easiest' course in the country at #1.
I suppose the 8 who ranked Elleston equal or superior to RMW think hard is more admirable than playable.


Mark
I agree - and to suggest the 'other' list is incomplete because it's not there is a crock.

[Ben Jarvis]

I forgot to comment on the ranking of St Andrews Beach.

Are there really 27 golf courses in this country that are better than St Andrews Beach? I think not.

[Mark Chaplin]

IMO including Ellerston is like having a "top 10 cruise ships" ranking and including Roman Abramovich's little floating vodka palace!

[Kevin Pallier]

A couple of notable observations...

1. This is the first time Australian Golf Digest has ranked the West and East courses at Royal Melbourne separately.

Ben

That's not quite right - they were ranked separately last time. RMW at #3 and RME at #8.

For mine, the two Peninsula course are ranked way too low as is SAB and Commonwealth at #31 ?

[David_Elvins]

The numerous digs at the Golf Australia list in that article are unfortunate and unneccesary, IMO.

If Golf Digest is genuinely proud of the list its panellists have produced, there's no need to insist upon the fact that it's better than GA's.

And for that matter, being influential is quite unrelated to being authoritative.

For mine -- with no link at all to either magazine or list -- the GA list is far and away superior in its recognition of the country's best courses.

I don't quite agree with that.  Darius has every right to point out why his list is the best, just as the Golf Australia List article had a dig at Golf Digest for dropping Royal Melbourne to number three in the country.  

On the point of Ellerston, I htink Darius makes a good point.  If it is a golf course and it is in Australia, it should be rated.  

Some of his other points are less convincing.  For example he claims that the Golf Digest Panel is more active.  But he also then states that each of the top 100 courses has been seen by an average of 15 raters.  Now anyone can do the maths from this to work out that each rater is seeing an average of about 33 courses.  In my opinion, this is definitely not active, in fact I reckon it is pretty poor that the AVERAGE rater on their panel would get to only 33 courses.   There is also no way this is a more actvive panel than the golf australia panel, where most of the panel take their job seriously enough to see 60+ courses every couple of years.  

He is probably correct that his panel is more diverse than the Golf Australia panel but when you here stories such as a magazine rater who has Barnbougle ranked outside the top 20  because the course doesnt have an ACR and encourages golfers to play an "Irish Drop" rule, you wonder whether diversity really is a good thing.  

At the end of the day, it is the strength of the list that is produced that matters, and on that regard, the Golf Digest list is defintely improving.  Both the Golf Australia list and the Golf Digest list get things generally right however there are clearly some anomolies on the Golf Digest list that cannot be explained away as being a matter of opinion.  Until they get these right, the list can make no claim to be authoritative.  

[Mark_F]

Some of his other points are less convincing.  For example he claims that the Golf Digest Panel is more active.  But he also then states that each of the top 100 courses has been seen by an average of 15 raters.  Now anyone can do the maths from this to work out that each rater is seeing an average of about 33 courses.

David,

That isn't quite correct.  It states in the magazine that 15 judges assessed each of the top 100 courses during the ranking cycle, which is a pretty dubious claim.

On the point of Ellerston, I think Darius makes a good point.  If it is a golf course and it is in Australia, it should be rated.  

Except that it isn't a golf course - it is somebody's backyard.  And that also means Capital should be rated, regardless of whether the owner wants them to or not.

It was funny reading the editorial in the magazine this morning.  Clearly AGD have a massive inferiority complex, since Steve Keipert wrote this gem:

"... while another makes the preposterous mistake of allowing its judging panel to be infiltrated, even dominated, by course architects - the very people whose work we are appraising."

Clearly, allowing Ross Perrett on the GA panel a few years ago was a serious credibility mistake, and even more clearly, GA needs to publish each architect's list, so readers can see for themselves whether there is any bias at play.

[David_Elvins]

[David,

That isn't quite correct.  It states in the magazine that 15 judges assessed each of the top 100 courses during the ranking cycle, which is a pretty dubious claim.

Mark,

Darius wrote "On average 15 judges assessed each of our Top 100 courses during the two-year ranking cycle".  

With 45 judges that means they saw on average 33 each (+ I assume a couple more that didnt make the top 100).  

33 seems like quite a low number to me.  Especailly when you consider that there would be quite a few judges seeing 50+ courses a year.  It means that some must be seeing less than 20.  I would not call this active. 

[Kevin Pallier]

Except that it isn't a golf course - it is somebody's backyard.  And that also means Capital should be rated, regardless of whether the owner wants them to or not.

Mark

I know you are trying to stir the pot - but c'mon Ellerston is a golf course and thus should be rated by those who are lucky to play it.

I find it interesting that the private Capital golf course asks not to be rated by both magazines and yet they continue to oblige - why ? What's Capital got to hide ? It controls who accesses it's course ?

[Mark_F]

Mark

I know you are trying to stir the pot - but c'mon Ellerston is a golf course and thus should be rated by those who are lucky to play it.

I find it interesting that the private Capital golf course asks not to be rated by both magazines and yet they continue to oblige - why ? What's Capital got to hide ? It controls who accesses it's course ?

Kevin,

I am serious.  Ellerston is not a golf course.  It is somebody's backyard.  Does it have a course rating of any kind?  If the only rounds it played in two years were the owner and one visiting group of raters, is that still okay?  What would constitute unacceptable conditioning at Ellerston?  If RM loses top spot with 30,000 rounds a year, then Ellerston shouldn't get a single mark for conditioning if there is a lone pitchmark in one single green.

You know Capital has much to hide.    It is interesting that Capital always considered themselves to be the most difficult to access and exclusive golf course in Australia, because they too considered Ellerston to be a course that doesn't really exist. 

But since Capital does exist, it should be ranked, regardless of the owner's wishes, as it too is a golf course in Australia.  There are enough who have seen it that could rank it  No ranking list in Australia is complete without Capital. 

[Kevin Pallier]

Mark

A quick definition I found

"A golf course comprises a series of holes, each consisting of a teeing ground, a fairway, the rough and other hazards, and a green with a flagstick ("pin") and hole ("cup"), all designed for the game of golf". I believe it has at least 18 decent holes and teeing grounds of pretty decent scale and length designed for the game of golf.

The above doesn't say anything about access ? Just becasue its hard to get through the gates doesn't mean you cant count it

By any definition it's a golf course situated in the Packer family's backyard 

[Bruce Hardie]

I don't  think anyone has yet solved the issue of ranking the unseen course.

With the average ranker seeing about 1/3 of those that made the list the results will be massively skewed towards those that the panel can get to. Populations being what they are, no wonder supposed mediocrities within a couple of hours of Sydney get plenty of votes. Second tier Vic clubs within easy access from Melbourne probably get skewed a bit too. (Curlewis? really?)

It's a tough problem to solve, but one that has been very much on my mind lately.

[David Kelly]

Obviously you can't rank a course based on photos but after looking at the photo album of Ellerston that a number of us saw at YY last February there was nothing that I saw that stood out as being obviously a Top 5 course in Australia. It might be but there was nothing in the pictures that made it readily apparent.  Actually I was underwhelmed by what I saw.

[Kevin Pallier]

I thought an interesting comparison would be the AGD Top50 v Golf Australia's list.

Below is the over / unders ie: AGD v GA

eg: Barnbougle Dunes AGD has it at 4 / GA at 3 etc

Royal Melbourne (West)   0
Kingston Heath   0
Ellerston   -
Barnbougle Dunes   -1
New South Wales GC   0
Lost Farm   -2
The National (Moonah)   0
Royal Melbourne (East)   -2
Victoria   -1
Metropolitan   -1
Lake Karrinyup   3
The National (Old)   6
Royal Adelaide   -3
The Lakes   -1
Moonah Links (Legends)   9
The Dunes   9
The Australian   14
Joondalup (Quarry / Dunes) 15
Woodlands   -7
Newcastle   -4
Royal Sydney   0
Barwon Heads   -2
The Golf Club Kennedy Bay   -8
13th Beach (Beach)   -2
Brookwater   11
Kooyonga   -3
Magenta Shores   0
St. Andrews Beach (Gunnamatta)   -17
Royal Queensland   -3
Peninsula (North)   -13
Commonwealth   -12
The Cut   2
Moonah Links (Open)   8
Yarra Yarra   3
Hope Island   13
The National (Ocean)   -1
Royal Canberra   5
Huntingdale   2
Hamilton Island   -1
Glenelg   -11
Peninsula (South)   -13
Elanora   -3
The Grand   8
Portsea   -12
Hyatt Regency Coolum   22
Terrey Hills   4
Grange (West)   -17
Bonville   16
The Glades   -6
The Vintage   -4

[Brett_Morrissy]

KP
What do you put the big 17 position difference for St Andrews Beach down to, assume becuase it was closed for that extended period?

[Kevin Pallier]

Brett

I have no idea....maybe some are disgruntled ex SAB members ?

I would love to see a rating out of 10 per course for the AGD list v that of the GA list

[Mark_F]

I have no idea....maybe some are disgruntled ex SAB members ?

I would love to see a rating out of 10 per course for the AGD list v that of the GA list

You are being a bit of a troublemaker with this ranking list Kevin.   First you defend the indefensible with Ellerston, and now this.

I am not sure there were enough St Ab members to affect any kind of numerical ranking.  The simple fact is that most magazine rankers wouldn't have a clue, and favour either difficult and aesthetically pleasing courses like Nat Moonah and Metropolitan, or vote for something that TWP had a hand in, eg. Moonah Legends/Open.   

Any list which has National Ocean ahead of Grange West has clearly been compiled by people who were lobotomised with gardening shears.  Putting RM West back to Number One in no way absolves them of the fact that they aren't qualified to produce a list in the first place.

[Joe Byrnes]

I'm a newbie so please go easy on me!!

I kind of agree that the architects shouldn't be the ones rating the courses, it seems like the fox guarding the chickens to me.

JB

[Mike_Clayton]

Joe,
Arguably that is right - except that the list done by the panel that included architects is way more accurate that the one that didn't.

[Sean_A]

I find it interesting that there is a certain segment of raters who believe their opinion of course quality and thus ranking is the truth, more accurate, more however you want to label it.  While the opinions of these folks may be more considered and backed with more experience, this in no way implies truth.  We have to remember that course ratings are inherently subjective and that is an issue which can never be overcome no matter how many formulas and "safe guards" are applied.  Just as the huge reputations of long standing famous clubs will never be completely overcome.  Its all part and parcel of the flawed system.  I don't much see the point of rankings except to expose readers to courses and make money for the publications.  This is why it is imperative to list all the courses considered which garnered votes.  The actually order listing is at best inconsequential (again except to make money, but this time for clubs/owners) and at worst meaningless. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()