[mike_malone]

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/ncgtop100s/best-golf-courses-in-britain-and-ireland/best-golf-courses-in-england/page/10/

[Jeff Schley]

Awesome to know Sean is one of a small group of 14.  I liked this quote, "Thirdly, we only considered the golf courses – not the clubhouses nor practice facilities nor any of the other things that make up a great golf club. Not because we don’t think such things aren’t important, it’s just that our expertise only extends to the playing experience."

[Duncan Cheslett]

I searched the lower third or so of the list for a mention of Cavendish to no avail, and had resigned myself to us having been overlooked...




... only to find us at no 55! 


It is good to see true connoisseurs of golf courses like Sean Arble and Ed Battye on panels such this one!

[Sean_A]

This list is a few years old. I think they have only just sorted the new website which makes it fairly easy to find lists etc.

I am still surprised Painswick and Cleeve Cloud made the list. This is a testament to the open minded Dan and Tom. One of their goals was a completely new look at the rankings and I think they are well on their way.

Jeff.. I must admit I found the expertise comment humorous.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean -
not to flatter you or overstate the importance on this one (of many) lists; but the moment I read through the rankings and saw some of the (unexpected) courses featured there, I was happy to realize the influence that you have, at least in regard to the ratings at nationalclubgolfer.com, and heartened to think that, over time, others like you on this and other rating/ranking lists can indeed  influence the 'conversation' about quality golf/gca.     
P

[James Reader]

The other name that stood out for me as unusual for such as list is Piltdown.  Is that your influence as well Sean?

[Mark_Fine]

Congrats Sean!  I am sure you will add a lot of insight and expertise.  I browsed through the current list (which you said and I agree needs updating).  I am probably not a good one to judge as I have only played about half of the 100 courses mentioned, but of those I have played, I would beg to differ with their position in the current rankings.  But it doesn't matter as these lists are all good fun and no matter how strict the "ranking criteria" they end up being very subjective and come down to the breath and knowledge of different courses that the individual panelists have seen and studied. 


Good luck with it and have some fun.


Mark

[Adrian_Stiff]

One of the worst, if not THE WORST top 100 I have seen.


Bearwood Lakes & The Centurion not in the top 100?


how are those not in when some of that shite is in there..."it is modern"....well how come The Belfry is there.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I saw a video a week or so ago featuring Sean and the rest of the panel explaining how this list was put together. The link to it was either on here or via the NCG Facebook feed - I can't remember which.

At that time the list itself was unavailable on the NCG website - I kind of assumed because it hadn't yet been published.

Suddenly it is up there - leading me to believe that it is a brand new project. Yet Sean tells us that it is a few years old...


I'm puzzled.  I've never seen this these rankings before and no-one at Cavendish has ever previously heard of us being ranked as high as #55 in England. Golf World has us consistently in the 90s. Top 100 Golf Courses has us nowhere other than #1 in Derbyshire.  This illustrates the inconsistency of these lists.


Whatever, we'll go with it!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I dunno Duncan,


55 is about Top 2%. 90 is in the Top 3%. That seems pretty close for a level of tolerance to me.


I used to have the same argument with spectators in Ireland who couldn’t believe how a course could go up or down 10 places.


But it’s pretty easy to steer some lists if you want to. Sean’s clearly picked a few of his favourite courses that others have as outliers and gone to town on selling them. I am not unfamiliar with that approach.

[Sean_A]

I dunno Duncan,

55 is about Top 2%. 90 is in the Top 3%. That seems pretty close for a level of tolerance to me.

I used to have the same argument with spectators in Ireland who couldn’t believe how a course could go up or down 10 places.

But it’s pretty easy to steer some lists if you want to. Sean’s clearly picked a few of his favourite courses that others have as outliers and gone to town on selling them. I am not unfamiliar with that approach.

Top 100 in England is about top 5%. 

Top 100 in Scotland is about top 18%.

Top 100 in Ireland is about top 25%. 

Top 100 in USA is well under 1%. 

Ally

I don't think I had any more influence than any other panelist and certainly not more than the editor.  So far as I can tell Cleeve Cloud is on the list because of me, but the two head honchos from NCG played the course and agreed it was top 100.  Maybe courses such as Cavendish scored higher than expected because of me, but imo Cavendish is likely better than #55 in England.

If it makes you feel any better Adrian, Bearwood Lakes would make my top 100 England. 

Much of the disparity in UK rankings basically comes down to course length.  If 6800+ and/or championship (or so called championship) pedigree is important to a ranker then that changes the complexity of the rankings.  To be fair to Dan & Tom at NCG, they did a decent job of trying to balance this issue.  As you likely know, if anything, I am skeptical of longer courses mainly because I think they tend to sacrifice variety in favour of length.  To me this is an absolute no no.  That said, the true championship courses and the odd Notts etc tend to pull off length better than newer courses.  I am not quite sure why that is other than often times the older courses are built on better land.   

One thing very interesting is that Cavendish & Kington out right next to each other.  These two were next to each other courses in my ranking for NCG using their criteria.  Using my own criteria Kington creates a gap because of much better turf and drainage.  I think turf and drainage are terriby overlooked criteria.

Happy Hockey

[Niall C]

So, where in the rankings is Forfar ?


Niall

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ally

I don't think I had any more influence than any other panelist and certainly not more than the editor.  So far as I can tell Cleeve Cloud is on the list because of me, but the two head honchos from NCG played the course and agreed it was top 100.  Maybe courses such as Cavendish scored higher than expected because of me, but imo Cavendish is likely better than #55 in England.

If it makes you feel any better Adrian, Bearwood Lakes would make my top 100 England. 

Much of the disparity in UK rankings basically comes down to course length.  If 6800+ and/or championship (or so called championship) pedigree is important to a ranker then that changes the complexity of the rankings.  To be fair to Dan & Tom at NCG, they did a decent job of trying to balance this issue.  As you likely know, if anything, I am skeptical of longer courses mainly because I think they tend to sacrifice variety in favour of length.  To me this is an absolute no no.  That said, the true championship courses and the odd Notts etc tend to pull off length better than newer courses.  I am not quite sure why that is other than often times the older courses are built on better land.   

One thing very interesting is that Cavendish & Kington out right next to each other.  These two were next to each other courses in my ranking for NCG using their criteria.  Using my own criteria Kington creates a gap because of much better turf and drainage.  I think turf and drainage are terriby overlooked criteria.

Ciao

Sean,


You mention variety, turf and drainage as important criteria. I agree entirely.


Better players seem to value length far more than do average players. I can imagine that if a big part of your game is to smash the ball 320 yards it could get a little frustrating to have to hit irons off multiple tees and to have wedges into most greens.

I don't see how this is a factor in determining the "quality" of a course, though.


Interestingly, six of the twelve par 4s at Cavendish are over 400 yards.  That is more than almost any other inland course within the NW region.


So much for being a "short" course!

[Peter Pallotta]

From the cheap seats, another vote for the importance of turf & drainage.
I suppose if I were a rater, a new one without much credibility and trying to prove myself, I’d not focus too much on turf and drainage — especially when it came to the old classics; I wouldn’t want to seem churlish or unsophisticated in not ‘recognizing’ the architecture or ‘appreciating’ the greatness of the course (despite the 2nd rate turf or poor drainage).
But as a regular golfer unconcerned with my standing as a rater (and currently polling at less then 1% in that regard) I can say that there are few elements that impact my golf experience (for better or worse) than turf and drainage.
I’m often told that I can’t & shouldn’t separate out the ‘architecture’ from the ‘course’, but this often comes from the very same folks who then turn around and separate the course from its turf and drainage!
I can’t see how one can do that. The golf course, as it is found day in and day out, *is* the golf course. There is no other; the course judged *as if* it had better drainage or healthier turf (or fewer trees or shorter & less confining rough etc) is just a figment of our imagination, and doesn’t actually exist.
P

[Tommy Williamsen]

      Sean, I am pleased to see Royal North Devon at 33, Beau Desert at 41, and Delamere Forest at 44. I don’t think they get the accolades they deserve.
 
Alwoodley at 15 and Hillside 17 seem a bit high.
 
St Enodoc 25, Rye 27, Little Aston 65, and Prestbury 74 seem a bit low.
 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Alwoodley at 15 and Hillside 17 seem a bit high.
 

The publisher and editor of National Club Golfer are both members of Alwoodley. I am sure this has no bearing on the club's lofty position. Top 100 Golf Courses of the World has Alwoodley at #14 in England.


I'd agree that Hillside is a bit high. It does though, have a mega reputation among golfers in northern England as having "the best back nine in the country".

[Tommy Williamsen]

Duncan, I am tickled to see Cavendish get its due recognition. With Rye it might be one of the best courses under 6000 yards.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Alwoodley at 15 and Hillside 17 seem a bit high.
 

The publisher and editor of National Club Golfer are both members of Alwoodley. I am sure this has no bearing on the club's lofty position. Top 100 Golf Courses of the World has Alwoodley at #14 in England.


I'd agree that Hillside is a bit high. It does though, have a mega reputation among golfers in northern England as having "the best back nine in the country".

It is hard to see Alwoodley ranked higher than either Rye or Saint. Enodoc.

[Duncan Cheslett]

It is hard to see Alwoodley ranked higher than either Rye or Saint. Enodoc.

It is even harder to see West Lancs ranked higher than either Rye or St Enodoc!

Or Alwoodley ranked higher than Notts(Hollinwell).

I would suggest that Southport & Ainsdale is punching above its weight, also. We've already mentioned Hillside.

And is Birkdale really the undisputed #1 in England?

[Thomas Dai]

This is a rather strange list in some ways but it's nice to see a rise in appreciation for some interesting and unique courses of a more rural and rustic nature.
atb

[Tony_Muldoon]

And is Birkdale really the undisputed #1 in England?

This is becoming a bit like Boxing.  With multiple 'Authorities' we have several undisputed champions all at the same time.




or more concisely.


No.

[Sam Andrews]

Duncan, I am tickled to see Cavendish get its due recognition. With Rye it might be one of the best courses under 6000 yards.

Except that Rye isn't under 6000 yards

[Adrian_Stiff]

And is Birkdale really the undisputed #1 in England?

This is becoming a bit like Boxing.  With multiple 'Authorities' we have several undisputed champions all at the same time.




or more concisely.


No.

Yes I agree Tony, anything subjective is bound to cause 'discussion'. 28 years I formed The Independent World Boxing Rankings in order to sort out the problems with multiple champions and people buying places in the rankings. As soon as we officially launched in 1993 some countries gave us a very cold shoulder, Great Britain being the worst one. I worked with John McClain on the Ali act and the Association of Boxing Commissions to find a path to rate boxers and a criteria to stay ranked.


The situation has never improved and whilst there are four major bodies plus perhaps the best of them all 'the 5th' IBO some like the WBA even have multiple world champions at the same weight.. Super champion, Ordinary and interim. Complete joke and some fighters compete for world titles not ranked in an independent top 100.


The way I formed the rankings was fairly simple, if I beat you I was ranked over you, If someone beat me they were ranked above me...fairly sensible you would think. Anyway my point was the rankings involved purely objective points of view. People bought subscriptions and TV companies okayed fights from it but it really showed up a lot things promoters don't want.


www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200.


Moving on I tried above 15 years ago to form an objective ranking for golf courses, using the same sort of framework for boxing. I am pretty sure that virtually no one on this site would agree with my formula for allotting points which of course becomes subjective, although the top 50 did come out fairly similar to Golf Worlds (GBv).


I gave points to courses that had staged the Open Golf Championship, The Amateur Championship, Professional Events, Ryder Cup, Walker Cup right down to County Championship which was my basement (based on the fact that better events go to better courses). I gave points for golf courses charging certain prices for green fees (based on the fact they are more likely to be good). I deducted points for courses under 6800 yards on a sliding scale (better courses are c7000 yards). I also factored in the opinions of all the golf rankings I could find from the various magazines. Golf World also rank a Top 1000 GB & I where they awarded stars and I factored that.


I just did it for GB & I. I always look at it and think it came out fairer than most magazine ratings but it was weighted a bit the more modern courses. It worked quite well for County Rankings also IMO but I guess others may say differently and some of my criteria for objective evaluation is likely to be viewed as rubbish.

[John Mayhugh]

I gave points to courses that had staged the Open Golf Championship, The Amateur Championship, Professional Events, Ryder Cup, Walker Cup right down to County Championship which was my basement (based on the fact that better events go to better courses). I gave points for golf courses charging certain prices for green fees (based on the fact they are more likely to be good). I deducted points for courses under 6800 yards on a sliding scale (better courses are c7000 yards). I also factored in the opinions of all the golf rankings I could find from the various magazines. Golf World also rank a Top 1000 GB & I where they awarded stars and I factored that.

I just did it for GB & I. I always look at it and think it came out fairer than most magazine ratings but it was weighted a bit the more modern courses. It worked quite well for County Rankings also IMO but I guess others may say differently and some of my criteria for objective evaluation is likely to be viewed as rubbish.

Better events go to better courses
Certain prices for green fees (assume higher) means more likely to be good
Better courses are c7000 yards

I don't believe I'll be asking for your rankings to plan my next trip.

[Sean_A]

It is hard to see Alwoodley ranked higher than either Rye or Saint. Enodoc.

It is even harder to see West Lancs ranked higher than either Rye or St Enodoc!

Or Alwoodley ranked higher than Notts(Hollinwell).

I would suggest that Southport & Ainsdale is punching above its weight, also. We've already mentioned Hillside.

And is Birkdale really the undisputed #1 in England?

Whenever I see a ranking I line it up against the very concensus top 100 courses that I know well. In England the courses I know well include

7. Deal
8. Burnham
9. Saunton East
11. Formby
13. WHO
15. Alwoodley
19. St Georges Hill
22. Notts
25. St Enodoc
27. Rye
28. Hunstanton
31. Woking
62. Wallasey
92. Princes

I also look at other courses I know well which can be borderline top100:

41. Beau Desert
51. New Zealand
65. Little Aston
95. Huntercombe

And I look at courses which I think should be top 100

54. Kington
55. Cavendish

I give over the top 6 ranked courses because I don't know them well enough to worry about it.  Using the NCG criteria for courses I know well what looks out of whack for my eye test is

Burnham too high at 8...probably makes top 25.
St Enodoc too low at 25...I think it is a shoe in top 10.
Rye too low at 27...again, shoe in top 10. 

Using NCG criteria my shoe in top 10 are below...only two of which agree with the ranking.   

Sunny Old
St Enodoc
Sandwich
Rye
Formby
Swinley Forest

Sunny Old separated itself as the clear #1 which is interesting because in my personal best ranking there is no space between it and Sandwich as the best course in England. 

I also had a very odd ranking for Perranporth using the NCG criteria, it came out with a shout for top 10!  In my personal best ranking it wouldn't sniff top 25 England. 

The one course which really stands out is Worlington.  I had it as top 10 based on two visits, so I don't know the course overly well. But there is a huge difference between 10 and 60.  The panel basically said Worlington is very borderline top 100 GB&I. 

All in all its an ok list and a good start.  Like any golf ranking list, it probably needs another 3-5 publications to be measurably improved.  I still think too many rankers rely on history and reputation to sway their opinions.  I am not sure how this sort of bias can be completely overcome. 

Happy Hockey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()