[Richard Fisher]

https://www.golfmonthly.com/courses/top-100-courses/top-100-golf-courses-uk-and-ireland-202324


I always had a soft spot for Golf Monthly, the most 'serious' of GB golf magazines in the old days with an imagined readership of keen 6-handicap golfers in the North of England and Central Scotland, for whom a golf holiday meant 72 windswept holes at the British seaside in March or October (rather than a trip to Portugal or Florida). Very different to the old Golf World, or Today's Golfer, which is probably now the most high-profile of the various British magazine-based rankings. The GCA audience will find any list which places Old Head way above (say) RCP Deal or Rye a tad questionable, but there are some interesting survivors in here too, reflecting that good golfer emphasis...

[Ally Mcintosh]

It was always my least favourite of the main GB&I rankings though…

[Ben Stephens]

This is not a bad list IMO - there are different views and rules interpreting the ratings. Most of them are solid and challenging courses. Would have had Porthcawl as a top 20 but 21st is not too bad.

[JohnVDB]

The lead article says Royal Dornoch was designed by Donald Ross. Then the full review says it was Old Tom and George Duncan.


Ross was born in Dornoch and did have some input on reworking the first hole and maybe some others, but he certainly didn’t design the course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Some surprises, like always. The biggest surprise is Rye at 65. I'd have it much higher.

[Mark Chaplin]

Tommy US based rankings always have Rye higher than UK based rankings, same with Woking and St Enodoc.

[Keith Phillips]

No Loch Lomond?

[Ally Mcintosh]

No Loch Lomond?

No private golf clubs.


Always found the Irish rankings at odds with better knowledge. But I know Pat Ruddy (for one) would disagree with me. And who’s to say he’s wrong and I’m right?!

[Michael Morandi]

How is private golf club defined in GB&I?  I’m sure Muirfield and Sunningdale consider themselves private. Is the key difference between Loch Lomond and them the relatively easy access to unescorted guests that they provide?

[Ally Mcintosh]

How is private golf club defined in GB&I?  I’m sure Muirfield and Sunningdale consider themselves private. Is the key difference between Loch Lomond and them the relatively easy access to unescorted guests that they provide?

That’s correct, Michael: Sunningdale & Muirfield take unescorted guests (visitors). Clubs like Loch Lomond, Queenwood, Renaissance & Wisley only allow escorted guests (guests), a very rare breed in GB&I.

[Daryl David]

How is private golf club defined in GB&I?  I’m sure Muirfield and Sunningdale consider themselves private. Is the key difference between Loch Lomond and them the relatively easy access to unescorted guests that they provide?

That’s correct, Michael: Sunningdale & Muirfield take unescorted guests (visitors). Clubs like Loch Lomond, Queenwood, Renaissance & Wisley only allow escorted guests (guests), a very rare breed in GB&I.

 I have played two of the above unescorted. Just had to email ask politely.

[Ally Mcintosh]

How is private golf club defined in GB&I?  I’m sure Muirfield and Sunningdale consider themselves private. Is the key difference between Loch Lomond and them the relatively easy access to unescorted guests that they provide?

That’s correct, Michael: Sunningdale & Muirfield take unescorted guests (visitors). Clubs like Loch Lomond, Queenwood, Renaissance & Wisley only allow escorted guests (guests), a very rare breed in GB&I.

 I have played two of the above unescorted. Just had to email ask politely.

Nevertheless, that’s the differentiator. You can’t just ring up the above clubs and book a tee-time. They are member’s guests only as a model.

[Mark Pearce]

Hankley Common above Ganton?

[Thomas Dai]

Rankings like this are indicative not precise. They're all pretty damn decent and likely worth playing.
David Jones has taking 3-4 different rankings analysis and averaged them. Still indicative though.
atb

[David Jones]

Rankings like this are indicative not precise. They're all pretty damn decent and likely worth playing.
Last year someone, forget who, maybe the Cookie Jar guys (?), took 3-4 different rankings and averaged them. Still indicative though.
atb

Dai,

I used to do an average of the UK rankings but I just can't motivate myself to do it after this latest Golf Monthly one. I've never liked GM's list but I really dislike this particular iteration quite intensely.

The same happened with the World top 100 list when Golf Digest went totally bonkers!

[Thomas Dai]

Rankings like this are indicative not precise. They're all pretty damn decent and likely worth playing.
Last year someone, forget who, maybe the Cookie Jar guys (?), took 3-4 different rankings and averaged them. Still indicative though.
atb

Dai,
I used to do an average of the UK rankings but I just can't motivate myself to do it after this latest Golf Monthly one. I've never liked GM's list but I really dislike this particular iteration quite intensely.
The same happened with the World top 100 list when Golf Digest went totally bonkers!

Apologies for getting the authorship wrong David. Correction made to the above.
Atb

[David Jones]

Rankings like this are indicative not precise. They're all pretty damn decent and likely worth playing.
Last year someone, forget who, maybe the Cookie Jar guys (?), took 3-4 different rankings and averaged them. Still indicative though.
atb

Dai,
I used to do an average of the UK rankings but I just can't motivate myself to do it after this latest Golf Monthly one. I've never liked GM's list but I really dislike this particular iteration quite intensely.
The same happened with the World top 100 list when Golf Digest went totally bonkers!

Apologies for getting the authorship wrong David. Correction made to the above.
Atb

Dai, you were right to reference The Cookie Jar as they did a nice piece on this with a widget aggregating the UK rankings a couple of years ago - https://cookiejargolf.com/the-rank-of-ranks/

[Jerry Kluger]

Gullane #1 at 64 and Cruden Bay at 66 really kill any credibility. 


I had a chance to play Turnberry 2 years ago with a longtime member who was a very good player and he raved about all of the changes that had been made since Trump's ownership as he walked me back to the championship tees to see the holes.  It would no doubt be perhaps the best venue for the Open Championship and I am hoping that he does sell his courses so the world can see how great it would be.

[Ben Stephens]

Hankley Common above Ganton?

I know!     however Hankley now looks much better with course improvements by Martin Ebert however has the bones improved probably not as they are still the same holes its more cosmetic - most of us at that BUDA thought Liphook was better. Has M+E been working at your home course??


Most rankings seem to have a similar top 20 courses - its the middle ground that there is so much variation in the different rankings. We all have personal likes and dislikes. For me Hollinwell is a better all round golf course than both Woodhall Spa and Ganton who are both very good in their regard it seems that they are picked ahead of Hollinwell due to their bunkering - there are other aspects of Hollinwell that is better than Woodhall and Ganton - its routing, variety of holes, better greens and landscaping.


I prefer Carnoustie to St Andrews as its more challenging however St Andrews has variety of options and more strategic/playable for most.


Variety is the spice of life. Golf Monthly rankings is probably what most golfers think - GCA members think differently and prefer quirkiness where most golfers dont.


Most golfers would say never heard of St Patricks and is it worth 200 euros to play?? GCA members would say yes.

[Richard Fisher]

Agreed Ben: I like Hankley, but have never quite understood its very elevated position, certainly compared to Ganton or Alwoodley or Hollinwell. But then, as you say, variety is the spice of life! Interesting how widely different is Woking's position in GM relative to the TG/GW rankings (and indeed to the other two Ws).
Always worth remembering that in the end the purpose of golf course rankings in magazines is to drive readership of the magazine (rather like the purpose of book reviews in newspapers is to sell newspapers, not books). I always thought that GW jumped the shark in the bad old days with their coverage of Trump's Aberdonian venture, and it's good that the new regime there has brought some engaging wisdom (and lots of quirk) back to the TG/GW rankings.
One tradition that seems to me worth reviving is that (as GW did in the very early days) of simply banding cohorts of courses into tens, but then we probably wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions on GCA.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Richard,


I think the Trump Aberdeen coverage was in the current regime’s early days.


The first Golf World ranking was just a Top-25, not numbered. There were a couple in there that no longer make the 100.


Two years later, it was a Top-50, bracketed in to A,B,C,D & E.


What I remember is that my now home course was in the A bracket and always sat around 7 or 8 for the first 10 or more years of the ranking.


Someone posted those early rankings a while ago. We should see if we can dig them out.

[Sean_A]

Agreed Ben: I like Hankley, but have never quite understood its very elevated position, certainly compared to Ganton or Alwoodley or Hollinwell. But then, as you say, variety is the spice of life! Interesting how widely different is Woking's position in GM relative to the TG/GW rankings (and indeed to the other two Ws).
Always worth remembering that in the end the purpose of golf course rankings in magazines is to drive readership of the magazine (rather like the purpose of book reviews in newspapers is to sell newspapers, not books). I always thought that GW jumped the shark in the bad old days with their coverage of Trump's Aberdonian venture, and it's good that the new regime there has brought some engaging wisdom (and lots of quirk) back to the TG/GW rankings.
One tradition that seems to me worth reviving is that (as GW did in the very early days) of simply banding cohorts of courses into tens, but then we probably wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions on GCA.

I have always thought it better to use quality groupings rather numbering. The group could be any size. In fact, further down the line I would expect larger groups. Near the top the group may only be quite small. It's just a way of saying some or many courses are of similar quality and to distinguish them by numbers is not an accurate reflection of reality.

BTW...I never liked Golf World rankings. There always seemed to be a bias toward championship and championship wannabe courses and against courses with character.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here again with the implication that “championship” courses are opposite to courses with “character”.


The real truth of the matter is that the makeup of panelists has changed over the years in all magazines, from architects, administrators and good golfers to self-appointed connoisseurs of good golf course architecture…. In many ways, you could argue that it’s gone from a mass view to a niche view, albeit one that is coming more widespread as the niche are the ones writing all the articles.


I like to think I straddle both camps but will always fight the sub-text of championship = challenge = less fun = less character.

[Sean_A]

Here again with the implication that “championship” courses are opposite to courses with “character”.


The real truth of the matter is that the makeup of panelists has changed over the years in all magazines, from architects, administrators and good golfers to self-appointed connoisseurs of good golf course architecture…. In many ways, you could argue that it’s gone from a mass view to a niche view, albeit one that is coming more widespread as the niche are the ones writing all the articles.


I like to think I straddle both camps but will always fight the sub-text of championship = challenge = less fun = less character.

I chose "character" as a way of saying old fashioned...blind holes, cross bunkers etc.


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I have always thought it better to use quality groupings rather numbering. The group could be any size. In fact, further down the line I would expect larger groups. Near the top the group may only be quite small. It's just a way of saying some or many courses are of similar quality and to distinguish them by numbers is not an accurate reflection of reality.

I agree, and think a golfing Michelin Guide would be a good venture. Which is kinda what the Confidential Guide is, I suppose...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()