[Ally Mcintosh]

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...

I too agree. In fact, I tried to persuade the Irish Golfer rankings to go along this line, firstly because it makes sense. But secondly because it actually gives you something meaningful to talk about when a course jumps from one bracket to another….. talking about courses going up and down 5 or 6 places in the 70’s or 80’s is utterly meaningless.

[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.

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


Ciao

Features that were generally eradicated by the Golden Age architects… perhaps Melvyn was right all along!


I get where you’re coming from, Sean. I don’t necessarily disagree.

[Sean_A]

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...

My recommendations are basically modelled after the Michelin Guide.

3*  Don't miss for any reason
2*   Worth planning a trip around this course
1*   Worth a one night detour
R     Worth a day trip of driving up to the time a round takes to play plus bar time (about 5 hours)
r      Good trip filler or solid local course
NR  Courses that are good, but far overpriced. Sometimes the course is just bad and your time was better spent doing something else. With the crazy green fees, I see more courses getting NRed in the future.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

One of the interesting things about Michelin is that simply being in the Guide is a recommendation. They ignore the vast majority of restaurants. Hence they can keep the rating system nice and simple. It's a good methodology imo, though I don't suppose it is the absolute best from a PR point of view in this day and age. Witness the plethora of online arguments about a point or two on 100 point scales such as Robert Parker's in win, or top 100 rankings in golf...

[Tom_Doak]

One of the interesting things about Michelin is that simply being in the Guide is a recommendation. They ignore the vast majority of restaurants. Hence they can keep the rating system nice and simple. It's a good methodology imo, though I don't suppose it is the absolute best from a PR point of view in this day and age. Witness the plethora of online arguments about a point or two on 100 point scales such as Robert Parker's in win, or top 100 rankings in golf...

Well that is by far the less controversial way to do it, as people just assume you didn't see a certain course, instead of having to explain what you didn't like about it.  [I might have done the same for The Confidential Guide the first time through, but after that, it was impossible to retrace my steps!]


The Michelin approach also allows you to include somewhat lesser courses in the parts of the world that are less well endowed with great golf, without making too strong of a statement in their favor . . . you're just saying these are the best options that exist, even if they are really only a 5 on my scale.


In the end, even the Michelin guide has led to restaurants around the world aiming for a certain aesthetic and type of menu, because that's what wins Michelin stars, because in the end, there is too much ego and reputation and money at stake in getting those stars.  There is not enough room for courses to aim at different goals or live under different financial standards, and be recognized as being good for what they are.  For that, you need to read a review, not a ranking.

[James Reader]

Half of the “scoring” in the Golf Monthly ranking is based on Conditioning & Presentation (30%), Visitor Experience (10%) and Facilities (10%).  It’s perhaps not surprising that it produces a list that doesn’t gain much favour on a golf course architecture site.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Half of the “scoring” in the Golf Monthly ranking is based on Conditioning & Presentation (30%), Visitor Experience (10%) and Facilities (10%).  It’s perhaps not surprising that it produces a list that doesn’t gain much favour on a golf course architecture site.

Yeah but those things are completely made-up as a cover in any ranking I’ve been involved in. The GM list makes even less sense if they actually followed those percentages.

[Tom_Doak]

Half of the “scoring” in the Golf Monthly ranking is based on Conditioning & Presentation (30%), Visitor Experience (10%) and Facilities (10%).  It’s perhaps not surprising that it produces a list that doesn’t gain much favour on a golf course architecture site.

Yeah but those things are completely made-up as a cover in any ranking I’ve been involved in. The GM list makes even less sense if they actually followed those percentages.

What do you mean by completely made up?


They don't take scores from the panelists on those things?  Or, those things are supposed to be factored in by panelists, but nobody bothers to know if they are or not?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Half of the “scoring” in the Golf Monthly ranking is based on Conditioning & Presentation (30%), Visitor Experience (10%) and Facilities (10%).  It’s perhaps not surprising that it produces a list that doesn’t gain much favour on a golf course architecture site.

Yeah but those things are completely made-up as a cover in any ranking I’ve been involved in. The GM list makes even less sense if they actually followed those percentages.

What do you mean by completely made up?


They don't take scores from the panelists on those things?  Or, those things are supposed to be factored in by panelists, but nobody bothers to know if they are or not?

I’ve been on two panels, one which didn’t even take the scores on each category they put out there, the other which just ignored the answers and ranked it using an overall methodology…


…but it was wrong of me to suggest the GM rankings act in that way. Because I don’t know that. But as I said above, if they do put 50% on non-design elements, I think their rankings make even less sense.

[Sean_A]

Half of the “scoring” in the Golf Monthly ranking is based on Conditioning & Presentation (30%), Visitor Experience (10%) and Facilities (10%).  It’s perhaps not surprising that it produces a list that doesn’t gain much favour on a golf course architecture site.

Yeah but those things are completely made-up as a cover in any ranking I’ve been involved in. The GM list makes even less sense if they actually followed those percentages.

What do you mean by completely made up?


They don't take scores from the panelists on those things?  Or, those things are supposed to be factored in by panelists, but nobody bothers to know if they are or not?

I’ve been on two panels, one which didn’t even take the scores on each category they put out there, the other which just ignored the answers and ranked it using an overall methodology…


…but it was wrong of me to suggest the GM rankings act in that way. Because I don’t know that. But as I said above, if they do put 50% on non-design elements, I think their rankings make even less sense.

I took your comment to mean raters have their minds made up before going through the rating on paper. They massage the paper rating to match their impression. In this way, the numbers are made up and I have to believe loads of raters do this. How many raters would come up with a score and think, hey, I don't like how this turned out and then boosted or decreased the numbers to fit their impression? I recall sticking strictly to the rating criteria for one panel and coming up with a radically different ranking than I would have without the shackles of the criteria.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Carne, Tom MacKenzie?




The Old Peugeot Guide in effect used the grouping method some on here favour. In practice there were about 5 points differences they used. Courses scored between 14 & 19.  But even then, there were some shocking outliers IMO. What can you really expect  from an anonymous 'expert' giving their opinion? Group think doesn't seen to work any better.


With the Michelin Guide. I've had some wonderful meals and others who's inclusion left me scratching my head as to what I've  really just shelled out a lot of money for.  Funnily in a way that I think Sean would approve of, I've never yet been disappointed, and frequently very pleasantly surprised, by the Restaurants they give a knife and fork rating to. i.e. for some reason they don't get onto the starred list but are reliably worth a visit. They also only seem to get that rank if their pricing is 'reasonable'.. But who still looks at the Michelin Guide now its all on line (I presume - haven't seen one in years).


At least with the Confidential Guide you know what Tom likes, so to an extent what to expect. When he goes against your opinion you have something to really think about.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Carne, Tom MacKenzie?

Yeah well I thought I’d not bother mentioning that but they also credited it to Tom Simpson. I wonder which one is Eddie Hackett and which one is me?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Carne, Tom MacKenzie?

Yeah well I thought I’d not bother mentioning that but they also credited it to Tom Simpson. I wonder which one is Eddie Hackett and which one is me?

Well I think I'd recognise you.

 I've met 2 of the 4 names and you are the one who deserves hearty congratulations for a great improvement to one of these courses.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Found the 1994 Golf World GB&I rankings. Here are the Irish entries with their GB&I number in brackets:


1. Portrush (3)
2. RCD (4)
3. Portmarnock (7)
4. Ballybunion Old (8
5. Waterville (21)
6. County Louth (23)
7. County Sligo (24)
8. Mount Juliet (27)
9. Portstewart (38)
10. Lahinch (39)
11. Ballybunion Cashen (45)
12. Killarney Killeen (50)
13. Royal Dublin (60)
14. Enniscrone (68)
15. Killarney Mahony’s Point (69)
16. The Island (76)
17. Donegal (79)
18. K-Club (93)
19. Tralee (98)


Out of the rest of the list, some of the big differences:


- Sunningdale not so highly thought of with its two courses at 16 & 31
- Hollinwell at 19
- Royal St Georges Top 10, Royal Dornoch not
- Brancaster 22
- Wisley 37
- East Sussex 40
- Woburn 47
- Blairgowrie 49
- Seaton Carew 52
- Isle of Purbeck 57
- Parkstone 58
- Liphook 59
- West Sussex 62
- St George’s Hill 64
- Hayling 69
- North Berwick 73
- La Moye 89
- Brancepeth Castle 92

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()