News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #75 on: December 29, 2013, 06:12:51 PM »
Sean, I have no issue with your point of view. What you suggest is reasonably consistent with my own views. I do feel that you might be over stating the potential benefit of planned group visits for raters. I think the GA magazine panel have demonstrated a hitherto unseen imperviousness to peripheral factors when compiling their rankings.

My earlier contributions to this thread address the notion that GA magazine rankers are on a gravy train, and that Ellerston can't practically be visited incognito. Yet the course should still be considered.

MM
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2013, 07:38:30 PM »
I have RMW, KH, BD, Ellerston and BDLF rounding out my Top5. Sad to see NSW GC drop but I think there is a clear gap to it and the rest of Aust. top courses now.

IMO - good to see a course like Healesville break into the Top50

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #77 on: December 29, 2013, 09:53:51 PM »
I am saying everybody likes to be treated well, play for free and enjoy great conditions.

I think that is an American point of view that is not really applicable to Australia. Australian's are far less likely to care about being treated well and are far more likely to feel uncomfortable if they are not paying their own way.

In Australia there are few issues with accessing golf courses so being on a ratings panel is of limited use for that, and comped golf is not really part of the industry so there is no industry wide expectation that anyone on a rating panel would be comped (although some courses do).  

Knowing plenty of US and UK based raters, I know where you are coming from, but I think your opinions are in the wrong thread.  
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2013, 01:50:14 AM »
I think the GA magazine panel have demonstrated a hitherto unseen imperviousness to peripheral factors when compiling their rankings.
What is your basis for this?

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2013, 02:24:37 AM »
Chris, I'd invite you to consider just how much of their own money the majority of raters have spent undertaking their task during the last two years, how little by way of complimentary golf, or other privilege they have received, and where Ellerston would have ranked should it have been considered by other groups. The panel comprises no architects, and few within the golf industry. There are many architecture junkies on the current panel, and they shift the focus towards this, relative to the rankings compiled in years gone by. They have taken time from their own careers on many occasions, to follow a passion, and likely generate the best Australian rankings list yet. There's very few questionable rankings, and several courses where the experience is almost Spartan are in their appropriate, and lofty position ( St A Beach the obvious example ). Similarly, Clubs offering a lavish experience with a ho hum course have not gained disproportionately high rankings.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 04:24:17 AM by Matthew Mollica »
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2013, 03:14:49 AM »
Chris, I'd invite you to consider just how much of their own money the majority of raters have spent undertaking their task during the last two years, how little by way of complimentary golf, or other privilege they have received
I have no idea about what I should be considering. Has any of this been publicly outlined?

Quote
and where Ellerston would have ranked should it have been considered by other groups.
Surely you are taking the piss!


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2013, 05:01:22 AM »
I think that is an American point of view that is not really applicable to Australia. Australian's are far less likely to care about being treated well and are far more likely to feel uncomfortable if they are not paying their own way.

In Australia there are few issues with accessing golf courses so being on a ratings panel is of limited use for that, and comped golf is not really part of the industry so there is no industry wide expectation that anyone on a rating panel would be comped (although some courses do).  

Knowing plenty of US and UK based raters, I know where you are coming from, but I think your opinions are in the wrong thread.


David

Thats fair enough.  From earlier comments I thought you were suggesting that it doesn't matter either way in terms of comping, being treated well and announced visits so far as rankings goes.  Though I find it hard to believe that most Aussies would not like to be treated well or play for free.  Whats in the coffee over there  :D?

I will mark this down in my little black golfing book; Aussies enjoy being treated like dirt and paying twice over for it  ;).

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2014, 05:00:28 PM »


Despite its significant shortcomings, NSWGC is rightly within the 10 best courses in the country -- but whenever I'm out there I can't help but think a few times during the round and afterwards what it could be with the right work carried out.

Scott,
This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at earlier in this thread. So NSWGC have had a crack at improving the golf course, and no matter what the reasons for this from the club committees, an underlying goal will be to improve its ranking. So, the changes they have made IYO have not improved it, so they wasted their cash? ..and so they have also wasted the opportunity - which for me is the key (as most clubs cannot afford to continually tinker and change, not should they), which leaves NSWGC languishing because you have mentioned above 'what could have been' if they chose to change what you feel they should. Many golfers may well think this as they play rounds at their respective clubs, some get to have a say as part of relevant committees, as get to have a greater say as raters for the golf mags. BUT, it does not change the fact that without continual changes which are hopefully well received and genuine improvement type changes, then the course will always continue a slide out of top 5 or top 10 or top 20, top 50, etc. BECAUSE there will always be a new kid on the block, or an old one with a new reno, I am sure Bonnie D has aspirations once all works are complete. There is potentially two new courses on King Island that will potentially drop many other courses back a notch or two. The courses that have resident architects engaged do so to attempt to protect their position and protect the course from changes by committee - a wise move, yes? The issue with any consultant or architect, is it still their opinion, but unlike a club bringing in a consultancy chef to provide menu direction or ideas - these can often be trend of fashion based, which we know do not suit golf hole upgrades or restorations...frilly bunkers anyone?

So, for me, a club member, and a golfer in a district with many golf courses, the money required to do this is not bottomless, and now even less so, hence my feeling that this system is flawed - the 1 to 100. I know the ranking and lists has been discussed ad nauseam here, but like it is impossible to name the best ever painting, sculpture, restaurants, song, album, movie or sporting event, because they all mean different things to the different lovers of the sport, music, art, etc.

For me, the much healthier approach, from the POV of the clubs and courses survival here in Australia (there of course needs some culling of the truly poor, and these will find their natural end) is either that of Tom Doak's CG system or that of David & Margaret on the Movie Show or Darius Oliver's Golf Club Atlas. These approaches allow for multiple "bests", all of great quality, design, layout to be listed as equal for the punter trying to figure where to spend their hard earned.

The other key element that I think is missing from all this, and has raised its head in the Ellerston discussion, is that of the experience. I for one find it very difficult, and in fact do not enjoy trying to separate 'the experience', as it just adds to the assessment as a whole. It is like the ones that cannot provide a good to great experience, don't think this should be included as it isn't fair, should there be Special Distinctions? 5 stars to the 5(?) best courses, and so on, but potential for say a Lost Farm to perhaps only have 4 stars or 2 flags or 8.5/10 - but gets a @ for a special place - because if the mags are genuine about providing a true indication to punters about where they should go - then this should be provided. I assume somewhere else this is being done. I know the the Good Food Guides here in Aust award lifetime achievement and those sorts of things for the restaurants or chefs that have continually been at the top of their game and "deserve" a visit.

I cannot help enjoy a film better at the Kino in Collins St, than at the nearest Hoyts/Village/Reading Multiplex cinema. The same applies to art in a gallery, a live gig, or the memories of the place you first heard that song....and golf courses, only because, we are talking about helping punters "choose"where to spend their cash - so each rating or ranking should come with a warning label, ...that most of the[our magazine's] raters are able to separate the experience from the actual golf course routing and holes, but you as the punter will not...so make sure you get the house special, and sit out on the patio as the sun goes down and wonder why you didn't go there earlier.

I for one, think the assessment of RMGC is tainted because of the cars and hoons near some of the tees, it doesn't enjoy the tranquility associated with some of the others in the top 10 for example, neither does the close proximity of the Moorabbin airport do any favours to some of it's neighbours, the Pacific ocean view as you peak the 5th at NSW adds notches and well... Barnbougle is just the epitome of special experience in Australia IMHO.

sorry to go on... ;)

Brett, really good post and I'm inclined to agree with most of it.

I like the idea of ranking courses in tiers, but you can sort of do the same thing with the Aussie rankings but grouping 1-5, 6-15, 16-30, 31-60 and 61-100. To me, moving a spot here or there is nice, but it's breaking from one of those groupings into the next that is a major achievement.

Here's the thing about rankings - the perception if a course moves down the list is that it's not as good as it used to be, but with new courses debuting and older courses revamping, a course could get a score of 91.5 this time and finish 9th, say, and then in two years' time it scores 91.5 again, but is 13th because other courses did work or somewhere new opened. It's still a "9" or whatever number/letter you attribute to that score...

Re: tinkering, it's true most clubs don't have endless cash to tinker, but the good news in NSWGC's case I suppose is that it still has the land it has and can still do the holes that are really crying out for change and can easily re-do the likes of 18, which hasn't turned out the way we all hoped it might.

Funnily enough, between Christmas and New Year I played NSWGC with some mates - one of whom had never played it and another hadn't been there for 7-8 years. One hardly plays any golf (1-2 times a year) and the other plays a fair bit but isn't an architecture geek. Both walked onto the 18th tee and - unprompted by me - remarked aloud how terrible the hole looked - both that the bunkers that are there look BAD and that they are completely out of kilter with the rest of the course.

Re: experience, I agree it is a big part of a day out doing anything, going to a pub or restaurant, but it's so individual as to be completely meaningless were we to try to measure it.

You and I will have completely different experiences doing the same thing for a multitude of reasons, so all we can really do is rank the basis for having that experience, in this case the golf course.

If you get NSWGC on a sunny day with firm ground and a one-club wind and you shoot 73, and I get it in a drizzle with four-club wind and greens that were cored a fortnight earlier and still aren't quite up to speed... we will have had entirely different experiences, but the fact is the course is exactly the same for both of us.

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #83 on: May 23, 2017, 06:42:23 PM »
Having recently returned from a visit to Oz I wanted to bump this thread which was quite interesting and ask what the latest update was in terms of the rankings. Where are Cape Wickham and Ocean Dunes at or have they been ranked yet?


I guess my top 5 would be like this: RM, BD, KH, Ellerston, Cape Wickham....followed by a group with Lost Farm, NSW, Royal Adelaide, The National and Ocean Dunes.


Damn that's a very very strong top 10....even if some other courses fit in there perhaps like Capitol etc.


I'm not as big a fan of Lost Farm as most people seem to be. It's a nice second course at that resort though.


A couple questions for the locals. What impact has the changes in turf choice at Royal Melbourne had on it's ranking?


My take on Ellerston is that it's a fantastic course and the only minus is that it's not walkable in my opinion. Especially not when it's like 35 deg C. The course is tough yes, but hey, so is Pine Valley, Oakmont, Augusta etc etc to name a few. As Scott mentions above back tee drive on 7 is very tough and we had wind in the face, almost not doable for me.


Landing areas are indeed fair but hardly easy. Approaches are scary in many cases due to greens, and bunkering. The routing is very solid and all the holes are totally unique and thus easily memorable.



Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

RichMacafee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #84 on: May 23, 2017, 07:24:40 PM »
David,

There are two main rankings in Australia - Golf Digest and Golf Australia.

Cape Wickham has been rated (early 2016) by both and came in at #3 (GD) and #5 (GA). At the time those rankings lists were submitted, late 2015, the course was fully playable but still had some final areas that hadn't fully grown in. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up at #3 in both lists next time.

Ocean Dunes only had 9 holes open for play at the time so hasn't been rated yet. The next round of rankings will be published in January 2018, so it will be interesting. My guess is that it will come in around #8-10. I've only seen 9 holes so far, but think that may be a bit high.

I doubt Ellerston will be included this time around. I know GA hasn't been invited out there for over 3 years, but can't speak for GD?

Re: Royal Melb - it has been ranked once with the new fairway grass and stayed at #1. My personal opinion is that the course is worse off for the choice, and it's possible (but unlikely) that it will effect it's ranking
"The uglier a man's legs are, the better he plays golf. It's almost law" H.G.Wells.

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2017, 10:04:13 PM »
They only do those rankings every two years, and both mags do them at about the same time - I think Feb 2018 is when they are due. So I guess the rating process is well underway

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #86 on: May 24, 2017, 05:32:00 PM »
Rich,David.






I've played Elleston but most have not and the only reason many have is because they are rankers. It's either that or they are friends of the owner or have been willing to lose significant amounts of money at the owners casino. In fairness, some have played as part of very generous charitable donations.
I'm not sure a course should be ranked at all when there can be almost no debate about its qualities and faults and we are asked to take the word of less than 50 people. No others course in any ranking list anywhere in the world is so closed off to golfers.




I understand the argument' 'it's a golf course so it should be ranked'.
And, if a golf course isn't walkable, is it a golf course at all?




Mark Pavy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2017, 01:29:38 AM »
Does anyone still read these magazines?


I'm far more interested in how my course is perceived and rated on Facebook.

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2017, 01:57:24 AM »
As a little aside.


Where should GWest in Scotland be ranked? It's a golf course, it's been finished for 10 years, it is prepared and presented daily for play, but has yet to open and gets a fraction of the play at Ellerston.


I ask as the owners at Ellerston could carry on exactly as they are but say the course is now closed, would it still be ranked?
Cave Nil Vino

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2017, 12:14:48 PM »
The course that is ranked #18 in Canada (Sagebrush) by Golf Digest has been closed for two years so it appears you don't have to be open to be highly ranked.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back