# GM Top 100 courses



## richart (Nov 21, 2016)

The latest rankings are in this months magazine. Good to see Murcar, Tandridge and Broadstone in there, but the likes of Loch Lomond, Wentworth, Bearwood Lakes and Centurion have been excluded as they are exclusive clubs.

Looks like GM are keen on Trumps courses. Turnberry is number 1 and Trump International in Aberdeen is 8th.

Let the discussions begin.

Oh and if you don't agree with any of the rankings blame Drive4Show.


----------



## IanG (Nov 21, 2016)

Is the list online anywhere yet ??


----------



## richart (Nov 21, 2016)

IanG said:



			Is the list online anywhere yet ??
		
Click to expand...

 Don't think so. I think it will be when the magazine hits the shops. I got my subscription copy today.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 21, 2016)

Interesting. I have Muirfield #1 and the Ailsa #2 on the list of courses I've played but that was before the changes at Turnberry so I can believe it's overtaken Muirfield now.

Could you list the top ten?


----------



## richart (Nov 21, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Interesting. I have Muirfield #1 and the Ailsa #2 on the list of courses I've played but that was before the changes at Turnberry so I can believe it's overtaken Muirfield now.

Could you list the top ten?
		
Click to expand...

 It does look stunning, but I still find it hard to believe it is better than Royal County Down.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 21, 2016)

richart said:



			It does look stunning, but I still find it hard to believe it is better than Royal County Down.
		
Click to expand...

Never had the pleasure of that one.


----------



## richart (Nov 21, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Never had the pleasure of that one.
		
Click to expand...

The best course I have played, but if I had one course to play my last round it would be the Old at St Andrews.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 21, 2016)

evening all 
the full 1-100 list will be released online on December 7 and we will be doing another live forum Q&A session plus a Facebook Live broadcast on the same day.
Until then it's magazine only - I'd ask readers to refrain from posting chunks of the list - i.e. 1-10 or indeed an image of the full list list online please
Subscribers will have it today/tomorrow. Goes on general sale on Thursday. Free 2017 calendar featuring some amazing images by Kevin Murray and a Â£25 YourGolfTravel voucher
Here endeth the sales pitch!


----------



## chrisd (Nov 21, 2016)

richart said:



			I got my subscription copy today.
		
Click to expand...

I guess Mike dropped it in your letterbox on his way home, not got mine!


----------



## Oxfordcomma (Nov 21, 2016)

Got my copy today and it has prompted me to log in for the first time since H4H to look for this thread. I realised I've played 3 of the top 10 and all of them were on forum meets! In fact, not all but the vast majority of the top 100 that I've visited were through the forum 

And having played it on this year's Aberdeenshire trip, pleased to see Cruden moving up the list. I'd go back to that one at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 22, 2016)

Oxfordcomma said:



			Got my copy today and it has prompted me to log in for the first time since H4H to look for this thread. I realised I've played 3 of the top 10 and all of them were on forum meets! In fact, not all but the vast majority of the top 100 that I've visited were through the forum 

And having played it on this year's Aberdeenshire trip, pleased to see Cruden moving up the list. I'd go back to that one at the drop of a hat.
		
Click to expand...

I hear you, Ben.

I have a few above Cruden (not many) as "better" courses, but in terms of rattling good fun, I think Cruden might be my fave.


----------



## Junior (Nov 22, 2016)

Pah, Hillside above Formby.....people are blinded by sand dunes I tell ya.


----------



## Qwerty (Nov 22, 2016)

Junior said:



			Pah, Hillside above Formby.....people are blinded by sand dunes I tell ya.
		
Click to expand...

39 places above S&A too, scandalous!


----------



## TamG123 (Nov 22, 2016)

I haven't had the chance or the money to play some of the top 10 courses but I do like to see how each course is ranked every two years from GM. I must say it did surprise me to see Muirfield at No 2 but that is the opinion of the assessors. I would love to have the chance to play Trump Turnberry, just need to get saving! 

On a personal note, being an ex-junior member of Cruden Bay, I was delighted it had moved up 13 places! I visited the course recently (only a flying visit to show my wife the trophy I won as a junior ) and even just looking at the course from the clubhouse I could tell the course was in amazing condition (Two weeks ago, although they will be on winter greens and mat play now). I am now desperate to go and play it again!


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 22, 2016)

Junior said:



			Pah, Hillside above Formby.....people are blinded by sand dunes I tell ya.
		
Click to expand...




Qwerty said:



			39 places above S&A too, scandalous!  

Click to expand...

:whoo:


----------



## Val (Nov 22, 2016)

Junior said:



			Pah, Hillside above Formby.....people are blinded by sand dunes I tell ya.
		
Click to expand...

I hear you buddy.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Nov 22, 2016)

Interesting that Tandridge has made it in, and I'm not surprised given how highly it is thought of by Mike in particular (I hope I'm not misremembering?). However, I played it in July and played Crowborough Beacon a week later, and I must say I preferred Crowborough.

Perhaps it's because I played Tandridge the wrong way round (back 9 first) and therefore had the highlights too soon in my round.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 22, 2016)

I think I need to play both Hillside and Formby again to decide. I have played Hillside a number of time but Formby only once so I have them level at present.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 22, 2016)

Canary_Yellow said:



			Interesting that Tandridge has made it in, and I'm not surprised given how highly it is thought of by Mike in particular (I hope I'm not misremembering?). However, I played it in July and played Crowborough Beacon a week later, and I must say I preferred Crowborough.

Perhaps it's because I played Tandridge the wrong way round (back 9 first) and therefore had the highlights too soon in my round.
		
Click to expand...


I'm not 100% but I don't think Mike can have an input? Is this whole thing not done but some what independents giving reviews?


----------



## fundy (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex1975 said:



			I'm not 100% but I don't think Mike can have an input? Is this whole thing not done but some what independents giving reviews?
		
Click to expand...

theres a panel of reviewers and Mike is one of them


----------



## chrisd (Nov 22, 2016)

I'm not at all surprised that Tandridge got in, I played it twice this summer and I thought it was awesome. I think that Mike does contribute to the Top 100 but I think as only part of a fairly large team who rate the many courses


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 22, 2016)

fundy said:



			theres a panel of reviewers and Mike is one of them
		
Click to expand...

Ahh ok.... How many on the panel? Are some not GM people? 

Wonder what I was thinking of? Did you do some course reviews for some independent course guide?


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex1975 said:



			I'm not 100% but I don't think Mike can have an input? Is this whole thing not done but some what independents giving reviews?
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting Mike was doing anything untoward! Rather that it's held in very high esteem by Golf Monthly, including Mike. And as such, when Tandridge was being discussed, he would put forward a strong case for it. I'm sure last time the rankings were out it was mentioned that it was one that was knocking on the top 100 door.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex1975 said:



			I'm not 100% but I don't think Mike can have an input? Is this whole thing not done but some what independents giving reviews?
		
Click to expand...

There is a panel of about 20 people that review all of the top 100 courses plus another 40 'contender' courses that have the potential to get into the 100. Each course is played at least a couple of times by different people and they submit a review. These are then collated and reviewed by the 3 big cheeses who rank the courses based on the numerical scores and comments from each review. Each reviewer is free to play any of the 140 courses, they are not assigned by region. This means that you don't have the same people reviewing the same courses each time as there would then be personal preferences and bias. It is a very thorough process that has been tried and tested over a long period of time now.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 22, 2016)

Canary_Yellow said:



			I wasn't suggesting Mike was doing anything untoward! Rather that it's held in very high esteem by Golf Monthly, including Mike. And as such, when Tandridge was being discussed, he would put forward a strong case for it. I'm sure last time the rankings were out it was mentioned that it was one that was knocking on the top 100 door.
		
Click to expand...


Yep, I totally was not suggesting you were. I had it in my mind that GM had made a point of the top 100 being picked by independent reviews but I must have been thinking of something else.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Nov 22, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I'm not at all surprised that Tandridge got in, I played it twice this summer and I thought it was awesome. I think that Mike does contribute to the Top 100 but I think as only part of a fairly large team who rate the many courses
		
Click to expand...

I agree it's very good, and I enjoyed it very much, particularly at Â£38 on a beautiful summers evening.

However, I enjoyed Crowborough more. Perhaps it was simply a question of expectations and therefore Crowborough had more of a pleasant surprise factor.

In truth, playing a course only once is not really the way to truly judge its merits.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Nov 22, 2016)

Alex1975 said:



			Yep, I totally was not suggesting you were. I had it in my mind that GM had made a point of the top 100 being picked by independent reviews but I must have been thinking of something else.
		
Click to expand...

I think the panel is probably sufficiently large and varied that the end result is that it's independent?


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 22, 2016)

drive4show said:



			There is a panel of about 20 people that review all of the top 100 courses plus another 40 'contender' courses that have the potential to get into the 100. Each course is played at least a couple of times by different people and they submit a review. These are then collated and reviewed by the 3 big cheeses who rank the courses based on the numerical scores and comments from each review. Each reviewer is free to play any of the 140 courses, they are not assigned by region. This means that you don't have the same people reviewing the same courses each time as there would then be personal preferences and bias. It is a very thorough process that has been tried and tested over a long period of time now.
		
Click to expand...


Thanks.....


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 22, 2016)

Bigfoot said:



			I think I need to play both Hillside and Formby again to decide. I have played Hillside a number of time but Formby only once so I have them level at present.
		
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs between those 2 really, both great courses.  

Formby better though


----------



## Qwerty (Nov 22, 2016)

Purely from the layout etc I can't see where Formby and Hillside have the edge over S&A.

For me The only aspect of the course that would peg it back against the other 2 is the few holes on back 9 when your alongside the road & houses. Although this doesn't seem to do Royal Lytham any harm in the rankings and that big wall next to the train track on the 1st at Hillside is a bit of an eyesore too.

Personally I'd say S&A is probably the most interesting/engaging course of the 3.
To have it only a few places above Trevose is bananas!!


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 22, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			Purely from the layout etc I can't see where Formby and Hillside have the edge over S&A.

For me The only aspect of the course that would peg it back against the other 2 is the few holes on back 9 when your alongside the road & houses. Although this doesn't seem to do Royal Lytham any harm in the rankings and that big wall next to the train track on the 1st at Hillside is a bit of an eyesore too.

For me though I'd say S&A is probably the most interesting/engaging course of the 3.
		
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that there is the degree of separation between S&A and the other two, wonder what the reasons are?  

One of my favourites S&A, absolutely love playing there, not a bad stretch of courses over the water is it!?


----------



## Qwerty (Nov 22, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			I'm surprised that there is the degree of separation between S&A and the other two, wonder what the reasons are?
		
Click to expand...

It could be something simple yet quite significant like a lack of beans with the Full English, or cutting the toast diagonally :angry:

Tbh I'd mark it down if that was the case


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 22, 2016)

richart said:



			The latest rankings are in this months magazine. Good to see Murcar, Tandridge and Broadstone in there, but the likes of Loch Lomond, Wentworth, Bearwood Lakes and Centurion have been excluded as they are exclusive clubs.

Looks like GM are keen on Trumps courses. Turnberry is number 1 and Trump International in Aberdeen is 8th.

Let the discussions begin.

Oh and if you don't agree with any of the rankings blame Drive4Show.
		
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that courses are being removed due to being exclusive to be honest. I dont think that how it should be. Its supposed to be the best course, the stipulations around playing the course should be irrelevant. 

certainly devalues the list a bit IMO. If it was called 'top 100 courses you can play easily' fair enough. but its not


----------



## Junior (Nov 22, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



:whoo:
		
Click to expand...


S&A is better than Hillside........ stick that in your pipe and smoke it sand-dune lovers :whoo::rofl:


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 22, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			I'm surprised that courses are being removed due to being exclusive to be honest. I dont think that how it should be. Its supposed to be the best course, the stipulations around playing the course should be irrelevant. 

certainly devalues the list a bit IMO. If it was called 'top 100 courses you can play easily' fair enough. but its not
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes these courses ask to be excluded as they feel they do not require the publicity.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 22, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Sometimes these courses ask to be excluded as they feel they do not require the publicity.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I remember Skibo asking not to be included last time.


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 22, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Sometimes these courses ask to be excluded as they feel they do not require the publicity.
		
Click to expand...

If thats the case, then fair enough


----------



## MikeH (Nov 22, 2016)

its true some exclusive clubs say they dont want to be included in the top 100 rankings but our decision was based on reader feedback.

there is a piece in the issue explaining the rationale but in a nutshell we have over the years had more and more feedback saying the list should only be courses you can play and almost to a man the people who took part in our focus groups in september said we shouldn't include them

we have listened to that feedback and acted on it


----------



## Val (Nov 22, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			I'm surprised that there is the degree of separation between S&A and the other two, wonder what the reasons are?  

One of my favourites S&A, absolutely love playing there, not a bad stretch of courses over the water is it!? 

Click to expand...

I really need to get the finger out and play S&A, especially as I get it on reciprocal.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Nov 22, 2016)

Val said:



			I really need to get the finger out and play S&A, especially as I get it on reciprocal.
		
Click to expand...

B&B on Silloth's reciprocal, just a shame it's at the other end if the country!


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 22, 2016)

Val said:



			I really need to get the finger out and play S&A, especially as I get it on reciprocal.
		
Click to expand...


Rick Shields has just done a blog at S&A and it looks beautiful!


----------



## bluewolf (Nov 22, 2016)

Not had chance to look at the full list yet, but was surprised the Trump Aberdeen had moved up. It will be a great course in 10 years, but currently it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. The greens are average at best and the whole course just doesn't quite feel like it fits the scenery yet. It's like a publicity photo of Madonna. Looks great until you get up close and personal. 

Oh, and S&A is better than Hillside. Wallasey (which I'm playing again on Thursday) should be higher too. Still, you know what they say about opinions.


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Nov 22, 2016)

Junior said:



			Pah, Hillside above Formby.....people are blinded by sand dunes I tell ya.
		
Click to expand...




Qwerty said:



			39 places above S&A too, scandalous!  

Click to expand...




Liverbirdie said:



:whoo:
		
Click to expand...

ah the old hillside vs formby debate.

Peter you are still wrong and now we can include the GM reviewers in that bracket as well 


its Formby, S&A then Hillside every time, it's no contest.


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 22, 2016)

Lincoln Quaker said:



			its Formby, S&A then Hillside every time, it's no contest.
		
Click to expand...

Is my preference aswell :thup:

Can't see them getting it right now though


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 22, 2016)

Val said:



			I really need to get the finger out and play S&A, especially as I get it on reciprocal.
		
Click to expand...

My reciprocal aswell plus Pete to host and we still didn't arrange it this year did we!? I played it a couple of times this year though and like it more and more every time. 

Definitely get a game sorted there :thup:


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 22, 2016)

MikeH said:



			its true some exclusive clubs say they dont want to be included in the top 100 rankings but our decision was based on reader feedback.

there is a piece in the issue explaining the rationale but in a nutshell we have over the years had more and more feedback saying the list should only be courses you can play and almost to a man the people who took part in our focus groups in september said we shouldn't include them

we have listened to that feedback and acted on it
		
Click to expand...

Which courses are excluded?


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 22, 2016)

Do GM do a top 100 in England only list or is it just U.K.?


----------



## richart (Nov 22, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			Which courses are excluded?
		
Click to expand...

My opening post has the major ones.:thup:


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 22, 2016)

richart said:



			My opening post has the major ones.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes.

What about places like wisely, archerfield, renaissance and queenwood? Sorry I don't have the list in front of me


----------



## Bazzatron (Nov 22, 2016)

Why would some clubs not want to be included in the top 100?


----------



## Val (Nov 22, 2016)

saving_par said:



			B&B on Silloth's reciprocal, just a shame it's at the other end if the country!
		
Click to expand...

I have, (think I still have) B&B too.


----------



## Val (Nov 22, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			Ah yes.

What about places like wisely, archerfield, renaissance and queenwood? Sorry I don't have the list in front of me
		
Click to expand...

Archefield missed out last time and for the reasons it missed out I'd suggest it might do again this year. The Fidras greens weren't great this year


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 22, 2016)

Bazzatron said:



			Why would some clubs not want to be included in the top 100?
		
Click to expand...

I have a feeling some believe they should be higher than they get rated and they are not happy with that - Queenwood for example are prob the most exclusive club in the country and expect to be in the Top 10 but prob don't make it


----------



## Val (Nov 22, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			My reciprocal aswell plus Pete to host and we still didn't arrange it this year did we!? I played it a couple of times this year though and like it more and more every time. 

Definitely get a game sorted there :thup:
		
Click to expand...

I didn't play much at all on the NW this year. I don't think I managed a full 18 at Wallasey and had to make do with 9 more often than not


----------



## Bazzatron (Nov 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have a feeling some believe they should be higher than they get rated and they are not happy with that - Queenwood for example are prob the most exclusive club in the country and expect to be in the Top 10 but prob don't make it
		
Click to expand...

Makes sense, just. Can't be number one so don't want to be in at all.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 22, 2016)

Some interesting courses in the next 100 and a few on there I'd easily swap into the top 100. Hindhead and Royal Wimbledon are two for me that deserve a place (albeit in the lower echelon) of the first 100


----------



## Paperboy (Nov 22, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			Purely from the layout etc I can't see where Formby and Hillside have the edge over S&A.

For me The only aspect of the course that would peg it back against the other 2 is the few holes on back 9 when your alongside the road & houses. Although this doesn't seem to do Royal Lytham any harm in the rankings and that big wall next to the train track on the 1st at Hillside is a bit of an eyesore too.

Personally I'd say S&A is probably the most interesting/engaging course of the 3.
To have it only a few places above Trevose is bananas!!
		
Click to expand...

Trevose is one of the most overrated golf courses I've ever played!


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 22, 2016)

Paperboy said:



			Trevose is one of the most overrated golf courses I've ever played!
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 22, 2016)

Lincoln Quaker said:



			ah the old hillside vs formby debate.

Peter you are still wrong and now we can include the GM reviewers in that bracket as well 


its Formby, S&A then Hillside every time, it's no contest.
		
Click to expand...

From memory when it was debated on here it was pretty evenly split between people who preferred Hillside or Formby.

It seemed to be the better players, and ones who got O levels who liked Hillside more.:rofl:


----------



## 2blue (Nov 23, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			From memory when it was debated on here it was pretty evenly split between people who preferred Hillside or Formby.

It seemed to be the better players, and ones who got O levels who liked Hillside more.:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

No 11+ but got a few 0'Levels.... so as a late developer I'd go with Hillside...if only for the back 9.....  not bettered where ever I've been...  must mean something


----------



## 2blue (Nov 23, 2016)

Glad they got The Alwoodley & Moortown in the right order....   though the former IMHO should be closer to Ganton than it is. That is Ganton dropping really....  good but not that good.
For enjoyment & shear disbelief at what I was experiencing I'd put Swinley Forest ahead of Ganton.......  You can't bottle that....  an unpretentious experience... Ganton has a lot to learn


----------



## Junior (Nov 23, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			From memory when it was debated on here it was pretty evenly split between people who preferred Hillside or Formby.

It seemed to be the better players, and ones who got O levels who liked Hillside more.:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Whats an 'O' level ?  They were before my time


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Nov 23, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			From memory when it was debated on here it was pretty evenly split between people who preferred Hillside or Formby.

It seemed to be the better players, and ones who got O levels who liked Hillside more.:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

The ones with A levels preferred Formby


----------



## bluewolf (Nov 23, 2016)

Lincoln Quaker said:



			The ones with A levels preferred Formby 

Click to expand...

The ones with Degrees preferred S&A.....


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 23, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			The ones with Degrees preferred S&A.....
		
Click to expand...

Is yours in Pi - eating?


----------



## bluewolf (Nov 23, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Is yours in Pi - eating?

Click to expand...

Applied Hackery mate. Took a side course in the Chipping Yips.


----------



## Green Bay Hacker (Nov 23, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			It could be something simple yet quite significant like a lack of beans with the Full English, or cutting the toast diagonally :angry:

Tbh I'd mark it down if that was the case 

Click to expand...

That 18 hole breakfast at S&A is a monster though.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 23, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Applied Hackery mate. Took a side course in the Chipping Yips.
		
Click to expand...

Thought you had a PHD in that.....Pulling,Hooking,Duffing.

Anyway, even I would say that Formby is nicer than S and A.......I think.


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Nov 24, 2016)

Having looked at the list again a couple of thoughts occur.

Despite it being the top courses, I think views are taken into account as against just the course.

After the top 10 the actual positions are fairly meaningless - why not just put them into groups of 10?


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 24, 2016)

where is Burnham ranked this year?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 24, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			where is Burnham ranked this year?
		
Click to expand...

Below Hayling


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 24, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Below Hayling  

Click to expand...


good joke.


----------



## njrose51 (Nov 24, 2016)

MikeH said:



			evening all 
the full 1-100 list will be released online on December 7 and we will be doing another live forum Q&A session plus a Facebook Live broadcast on the same day.
Until then it's magazine only - I'd ask readers to refrain from posting chunks of the list - i.e. 1-10 or indeed an image of the full list list online please
Subscribers will have it today/tomorrow. Goes on general sale on Thursday. Free 2017 calendar featuring some amazing images by Kevin Murray and a Â£25 YourGolfTravel voucher
Here endeth the sales pitch!
		
Click to expand...

Hi Mike, great feature and I'll happily play with you on any of the top ten courses - I'm not fussy! #slowplayday


----------



## DRW (Nov 24, 2016)

Amazing how many of the top 100 courses are links style courses. Will have to have an add up when I have five minutes in the evening to see the split.

Not almost played any of the courses in the list.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 24, 2016)

Pleased to see my club still in the top 100, Jacko G/Craw obviously wasn't on the panel:rofl:


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 24, 2016)

I've just seen the new list for the first time and have to say, I think the team have made a pretty good job. There will always be differences of opinion and I enjoy the healthy debate that ensues. I've not played Turnberry since it's revamp but I loved the old layout and by all accounts the changes are definitely improvements. I remember seeing it at #1 in the rankings some years ago so no great surprise it is back to the top.

Also delighted to see my own club back in the top 100 despite the issues this year with the greens that have now been resolved. With the ongoing renovation works I fully expect to see it rise up further.

Well down GM team   :thup:


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 24, 2016)

MikeH said:



			its true some exclusive clubs say they dont want to be included in the top 100 rankings but our decision was based on reader feedback.

there is a piece in the issue explaining the rationale but in a nutshell we have over the years had more and more feedback saying the list should only be courses you can play and almost to a man the people who took part in our focus groups in september said we shouldn't include them

we have listened to that feedback and acted on it
		
Click to expand...

Mike,

I haven't been on the forum for a while - I know I deserve to be flogged!

However, I wanted to let you know that in my opinion GM has without doubt done the right thing and not included those courses that want to be exclusive and not allow visitors to play. I look at it from a simple standpoint. If a club of the stature of Sunningdale can open it's gates and welcome visitors with open arms, why can't everyone else?

I get that if if a club wants to be 'exclusive' then fine. But, and it's a big but, isn't golf better than that? Surely we want to allow all of us who love this game that drives us mad the chance to play the best courses around the UK and Ireland and for that matter, the world.

Those in charge of some clubs with wonderful courses need to have a bit of a re-think. Stop being so bloody inward looking and let us all have the chance, if only once, to enjoy the thrill of playing the likes of Wentworth etc. I think the game would be better off if they did and showed that golf isn't so damned elitist.


----------



## richy (Nov 25, 2016)

It's crazy that the Colt at close house is on there.


----------



## moogie (Nov 25, 2016)

richy said:



			It's crazy that the Colt at close house is on there.
		
Click to expand...


Don't get it myself either,  not as the only entry from our region either....
Somebody must have visited on a hot summers day and been blown away by the condition,  views,  scenery.....
Not on a wet miserable day when plodge about and a few holes closed

As a course,  design / layout ,  the Colt isn't ( IMHO ) as good as Rockcliffe ,  slaley hall hunting,  or Goswick,  to name but 3


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			Mike,

I get that if if a club wants to be 'exclusive' then fine. But, and it's a big but, isn't golf better than that?
		
Click to expand...


Golf is not better than that. Its got so much history and tradition that some places feel its important to keep it to that, which is fine. Golf (like a lot of things that cost money) is elitist. No different to Saville Row, Mayfair gentlemen's club or top restaurants.

Thats not to say i agree with it or not...


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			Mike,

I haven't been on the forum for a while - I know I deserve to be flogged!

However, I wanted to let you know that in my opinion GM has without doubt done the right thing and not included those courses that want to be exclusive and not allow visitors to play. I look at it from a simple standpoint. If a club of the stature of Sunningdale can open it's gates and welcome visitors with open arms, why can't everyone else?

I get that if if a club wants to be 'exclusive' then fine. But, and it's a big but, isn't golf better than that? Surely we want to allow all of us who love this game that drives us mad the chance to play the best courses around the UK and Ireland and for that matter, the world.

Those in charge of some clubs with wonderful courses need to have a bit of a re-think. Stop being so bloody inward looking and let us all have the chance, if only once, to enjoy the thrill of playing the likes of Wentworth etc. I think the game would be better off if they did and showed that golf isn't so damned elitist.
		
Click to expand...

I think they are probably doing ok to be honest. 
I maintain they should be included - its top 100 courses in UK, not top 100 that are open to the general public. If you want that, go and read Todays Golfer!


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			Golf is not better than that. Its got so much history and tradition that some places feel its important to keep it to that, which is fine. Golf (like a lot of things that cost money) is elitist. No different to Saville Row, Mayfair gentlemen's club or top restaurants.

Thats not to say i agree with it or not...
		
Click to expand...

I hear what you say.

 That doesn't mean to say that those golf clubs that view themselves as being above those of us who don't have pots of money can't change their policy towards visitors. They obviously can set quotas per day for visitors so it doesn't get out of hand, but, I just don't get why they wouldn't want to open their doors and allow golfers the privilege of playing at their venue. It would just be refreshing to see some golf clubs shed that elitist image that they portray, however, I won't be holding my breath and that in my opinion is a shame.


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			I hear what you say.

 That doesn't mean to say that those golf clubs that view themselves as being above those of us who don't have pots of money can't change their policy towards visitors. They obviously can set quotas per day for visitors so it doesn't get out of hand, but, I just don't get why they wouldn't want to open their doors and allow golfers the privilege of playing at their venue. It would just be refreshing to see some golf clubs shed that elitist image that they portray, however, I won't be holding my breath and that in my opinion is a shame.
		
Click to expand...


Very simple answer is they don't need to and they don't want to. The great thing for us golfers is that there are still an overwhelming number of top quality courses we can play and are 'open'.

I agree with MendieGK, its a shame the exclusive clubs are not included in the list, but understand the stance GM have taken.


----------



## Junior (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			Mike,

I haven't been on the forum for a while - I know I deserve to be flogged!

However, I wanted to let you know that in my opinion GM has without doubt done the right thing and not included those courses that want to be exclusive and not allow visitors to play. I look at it from a simple standpoint. If a club of the stature of Sunningdale can open it's gates and welcome visitors with open arms, why can't everyone else?

I get that if if a club wants to be 'exclusive' then fine. But, and it's a big but, isn't golf better than that? Surely we want to allow all of us who love this game that drives us mad the chance to play the best courses around the UK and Ireland and for that matter, the world.

Those in charge of some clubs with wonderful courses need to have a bit of a re-think. Stop being so bloody inward looking and let us all have the chance, if only once, to enjoy the thrill of playing the likes of Wentworth etc. I think the game would be better off if they did and showed that golf isn't so damned elitist.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you.  Don't include them.  

That said, I bare no grudge against them.  If I was a member of such a club (and I never would want to, or will be) and paid ridiculous sums of money on the basis it was uber exclusive and not open to visitors, then I would not want it to be open to the public.  There is a market for such courses (Loch Lomond, Queenwood) and that is why they exist.


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			I think they are probably doing ok to be honest. 
I maintain they should be included - its top 100 courses in UK, not top 100 that are open to the general public. If you want that, go and read Todays Golfer!
		
Click to expand...

Well we'll just agree to disagree.

I never have, and I never will understand why any club would not allow visitors. Set numbers per day or stipulate when in the week visitors can play but don't install electric fences and guards at the gate armed with AK47's barring those who don't own a Bentley or a Ferrari from entering. I'd like to see a shift away from the elitist mentality but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

Junior said:



			I agree with you.  Don't include them.  

That said, I bare no grudge against them.  If I was a member of such a club (and I never would want to, or will be) and paid ridiculous sums of money on the basis it was uber exclusive and not open to visitors, then I would not want it to be open to the public.  There is a market for such courses (Loch Lomond, Queenwood) and that is why they exist.
		
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't hold any grudges and I can totally understand why these clubs adopt the policies on visitors that they do. You're quite right in that the great and good don't want to be seen within 100 yards of 4 guys turning up at their club. After all, they see themselves as being above golfers such as me but I want golf clubs to shed this inward mentality. A small shift in their thinking could allow golf to become more open and not be so stuck up it's own ar*e!


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			I hear what you say.

 That doesn't mean to say that those golf clubs that view themselves as being above those of us who don't have pots of money can't change their policy towards visitors. They obviously can set quotas per day for visitors so it doesn't get out of hand, but, I just don't get why they wouldn't want to open their doors and allow golfers the privilege of playing at their venue. It would just be refreshing to see some golf clubs shed that elitist image that they portray, however, I won't be holding my breath and that in my opinion is a shame.
		
Click to expand...

Why can't a private member's club decide its own policy? And its those on the outside that label it elitist, whilst those on the inside might label it exclusive. I'm not, nor ever will be, in the position to even apply to join one of the elitist clubs you speak of, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I could afford to pay to visit but, again, it doesn't bother that they won't allow it.

I'd like to have a drive of next door's Porsche but I'm not all green with envy or stamping my foot and shouting entitlement that so many in society do...

I honestly just don't get it. Their club, their rules, and I'll not waste my breath or push my blood pressure on a I should be entitled to visit.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 25, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Why can't a private member's club decide its own policy? And its those on the outside that label it elitist, whilst those on the inside might label it exclusive. I'm not, nor ever will be, in the position to even apply to join one of the elitist clubs you speak of, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I could afford to pay to visit but, again, it doesn't bother that they won't allow it.

I'd like to have a drive of next door's Porsche but I'm not all green with envy or stamping my foot and shouting entitlement that so many in society do...

I honestly just don't get it. Their club, their rules, and I'll not waste my breath or push my blood pressure on a I should be entitled to visit.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, there are also private clubs that have exclusion rules that wouldn't make it into the top 100, not every Club that excludes itself is automatically a top course.


----------



## Canmore (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			Don't get me wrong, I don't hold any grudges and I can totally understand why these clubs adopt the policies on visitors that they do. You're quite right in that the great and good don't want to be seen within 100 yards of 4 guys turning up at their club. After all, they see themselves as being above golfers such as me but I want golf clubs to shed this inward mentality. A small shift in their thinking could allow golf to become more open and not be so stuck up it's own ar*e!
		
Click to expand...

How can you make a generalisation like that?  Of course some of these golfers may be like that, but generally I think you would find most people are friendly enough at these so called elitist golf clubs.

its meant to be a Top 100 list - we should include the best courses, not just the ones which are open to visitors.  How do you decide what is open to the public?  Surely a Â£200 green fee is beyond most golfers, so would you exclude courses like this?


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 25, 2016)

Canmore said:



			How can you make a generalisation like that?  Of course some of these golfers may be like that, but generally I think you would find most people are friendly enough at these so called elitist golf clubs.

its meant to be a Top 100 list - we should include the best courses, not just the ones which are open to visitors.  How do you decide what is open to the public?  Surely a Â£200 green fee is beyond most golfers, so would you exclude courses like this?
		
Click to expand...

Every course is accessible in the UK if you work hard enough at it. I've played all wentworths, Bearwood and also Remedy (which is semi-exclusive) without paying anything more than a guest green fee. 

I've got a contact who'se at the Wisley so will get on there eventually too. 

Ask anyone on here thats played Bearwood (through their contact on this forum) and they will tell you it should 100 be in the top 100 courses list.


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

Unfortunately I've experienced stuffy attitudes at some clubs within the Top 100 when visiting so I can only imagine what those who want to stay totally 'closed' to non members are like. Yes, it's a generalisation but if these clubs and its members wanted to project a more welcoming and open image, surely they'd put the wheels in motion via an AGM or EGM to change these policies. The fact they don't tells me that they deem themselves too important, exclusive or just simply don't want visitors at their club which I find a shame.

We shall never agree on the issue of these clubs being on the list. I think GM have done the right thing. Golf has a massive image problem (hence the recent female members saga at Royal Troon and Muirfield) and some clubs are adding to this by pulling up the drawbridge. 

If a club wants to set a ridiculous green fee then fine but at least you can save up and play it, even if it's only once. I paid nearly Â£450 years ago to play Pebble Beach but at least I got to play it and loved every minute of it. But at least I had the opportunity to play it and that's my point.


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			Unfortunately I've experienced stuffy attitudes at some clubs within the Top 100 when visiting so I can only imagine what those who want to stay totally 'closed' to non members are like. Yes, it's a generalisation but if these clubs and its members wanted to project a more welcoming and open image, surely they'd put the wheels in motion via an AGM or EGM to change these policies. The fact they don't tells me that they deem themselves too important, exclusive or just simply don't want visitors at their club which I find a shame.

We shall never agree on the issue of these clubs being on the list. I think GM have done the right thing. Golf has a massive image problem (hence the recent female members saga at Royal Troon and Muirfield) and some clubs are adding to this by pulling up the drawbridge. 

If a club wants to set a ridiculous green fee then fine but at least you can save up and play it, even if it's only once. I paid nearly Â£450 years ago to play Pebble Beach but at least I got to play it and loved every minute of it. But at least I had the opportunity to play it and that's my point.
		
Click to expand...

You couldnt be more wrong about the way that exclusive clubs treat non-members. They treat you like royalty. Wentworth offers the best service you could possibly ever asked for. 

i still think your missing the point. Golf Monthly call it the 2017/18 Course Rankings NOT 2017/18 Club Rankings. 
Would you want, Cypress point or Augusta removed from the world top 100 list? that would be braindead


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			Every course is accessible in the UK if you work hard enough at it. I've played all wentworths, Bearwood and also Remedy (which is semi-exclusive) without paying anything more than a guest green fee. 

I've got a contact who'se at the Wisley so will get on there eventually too. 

Ask anyone on here thats played Bearwood (through their contact on this forum) and they will tell you it should 100 be in the top 100 courses list.
		
Click to expand...

I too have played Bearwood when I was a Golf Club Secretary on one of their away days. I liked the course and I agree with you, it would probably be nudging into the Top 100 at some point.

But it's this that I find very strange. I could play it as a GC Secretary and yet my golfing pals, many of them low handicappers and one who is a County player can't play it as a visitor. I just don't get it and I never will. I have experienced at close quarters the 'anti visitor' mentality and I find it abhorrent. I want golf to make strides forward in making itself more open and forward thinking but these inward looking approaches of some clubs set the wrong image. I just find it sad and ultimately very disappointing.


----------



## Canmore (Nov 25, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			You couldnt be more wrong about the way that exclusive clubs treat non-members. They treat you like royalty. Wentworth offers the best service you could possibly ever asked for. 

i still think your missing the point. Golf Monthly call it the 2017/18 Course Rankings NOT 2017/18 Club Rankings. 
Would you want, Cypress point or Augusta removed from the world top 100 list? that would be braindead
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this!  The more exclusive clubs treat their guests like royalty

If only some visitors would treat the course with the same respect - I think some members do get annoyed when a society come in and hack up the course...

actually dont Gilf Digest do a public course ranking list?


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			You couldnt be more wrong about the way that exclusive clubs treat non-members. They treat you like royalty. Wentworth offers the best service you could possibly ever asked for. 

i still think your missing the point. Golf Monthly call it the 2017/18 Course Rankings NOT 2017/18 Club Rankings. 
Would you want, Cypress point or Augusta removed from the world top 100 list? that would be braindead
		
Click to expand...

I don't doubt for one second that Wentworth offers unrivalled levels of service and has swanky changing rooms. I'm sure if you are lucky enough to get an invite as a guest of a member that the day would be utterly wonderful. However, I just don't understand the mentality of not allowing a small allocation of visitor slots per day or on certain days of the week, just like Sunningdale, Swinley Forest etc. 

If you want to call me brain dead then that's fine but my opinion is that golf has an image problem. Good strides have been made in recent years with incentives to get more people to play the game. Also the bridging of the gap between men and women at clubs (Muirfield and Royal Troon as visible examples) have been made too. I wouldn't include the likes of Augusta and Cypress Point in any rankings if it won't allow visitors. Yes they are wonderful courses, both I'm sure in pristine condition.

I just find it strange that you can play Pebble Beach, Spanish Bay and Spyglass Hill but can't play Cypress Point unless you can get one of their 200 members to sign you in as their guest. Even being a Golf Club Secretary at the time couldn't sway them into allowing me to play! There is nothing worse as a golfer than being stood 50 yards from the first tee in one of the most stunning locations for golf in the world and being told you can't play that course. For that mental torture alone it doesn't deserve to be on any list!


----------



## Gopher (Nov 25, 2016)

Canmore said:



			Completely agree with this!  The more exclusive clubs treat their guests like royalty

If only some visitors would treat the course with the same respect - I think some members do get annoyed when a society come in and hack up the course...

actually dont Gilf Digest do a public course ranking list?
		
Click to expand...

I agree too, it's the real top end, exclusive clubs that treat their guests like royalty, nothing is too difficult and the welcome is as warm as though you are a 30 year member.  Castle Stuart is a good example of this.  

However there are clubs that are desperate to gain the exclusivity, really want to be special but just aren't quite there and are trying too hard to gain that reputation.  They are the ones which offer less than a warm welcome to non-members in my experience.


----------



## 3565 (Nov 25, 2016)

Canmore said:



			actually dont Gilf Digest do a public course ranking list?
		
Click to expand...

I think you need to re edit that sentence??? &#128514;


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			I don't doubt for one second that Wentworth offers unrivalled levels of service and has swanky changing rooms. I'm sure if you are lucky enough to get an invite as a guest of a member that the day would be utterly wonderful. However, I just don't understand the mentality of not allowing a small allocation of visitor slots per day or on certain days of the week, just like Sunningdale, Swinley Forest etc. 

If you want to call me brain dead then that's fine but my opinion is that golf has an image problem. Good strides have been made in recent years with incentives to get more people to play the game. Also the bridging of the gap between men and women at clubs (Muirfield and Royal Troon as visible examples) have been made too. I wouldn't include the likes of Augusta and Cypress Point in any rankings if it won't allow visitors. Yes they are wonderful courses, both I'm sure in pristine condition.

I just find it strange that you can play Pebble Beach, Spanish Bay and Spyglass Hill but can't play Cypress Point unless you can get one of their 200 members to sign you in as their guest. Even being a Golf Club Secretary at the time couldn't sway them into allowing me to play! There is nothing worse as a golfer than being stood 50 yards from the first tee in one of the most stunning locations for golf in the world and being told you can't play that course. For that mental torture alone it doesn't deserve to be on any list!
		
Click to expand...

Why should they allocate some visitors slots if they don't want to? Also, they aren't responsible for golf's image, that's the remit of the R&A/England Golf/Scottish Golf etc.

I used to be a member of a club that chased more members and visitors. It got virtually impossible to rock up and play on an evening after work. I was very glad to move to a club that set a low limit for members and visitors. I could play pretty much when I wanted.


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			. Good strides have been made in recent years with incentives to get more people to play the game. Also the bridging of the gap between men and women at clubs (Muirfield and Royal Troon as visible examples)
		
Click to expand...

you really think these courses would have changed their rules if it didn't mean they would have lost the open? 

Its an interesting to debate, but this list is no longer the top 100 courses in the UK. thats all i am trying to get across. Your talk around exclusivity and growth of the game is not relevant in any debate around quality of course.


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			I too have played Bearwood when I was a Golf Club Secretary on one of their away days. I liked the course and I agree with you, it would probably be nudging into the Top 100 at some point.

But it's this that I find very strange. I could play it as a GC Secretary and yet my golfing pals, many of them low handicappers and one who is a County player can't play it as a visitor. I just don't get it and I never will. I have experienced at close quarters the 'anti visitor' mentality and I find it abhorrent. I want golf to make strides forward in making itself more open and forward thinking but these inward looking approaches of some clubs set the wrong image. I just find it sad and ultimately very disappointing.
		
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective

They aren't "anti-visitor" more "pro member".  i.e. the members are paying a premium to be a member of that club and enjoy the level of service offered so their priority is catering for them.

This isn't limited to golf clubs either.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 25, 2016)

Utterly ridiculous the prices these "top" courses charge, and Golf Monthly suck up to them all by rating them in a top 100. Where is GM comittment to golf being more open to the average golfer, on a basic salary? Golf will NEVER be able to appeal to the masses whilst golf magazines promote courses with ridiculous green fees to keep the oiks out. So, why don't you at GM get off your high horses and get down with the local club players and present a Top 50 courses to play for under Â£40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.


----------



## Canmore (Nov 25, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			I don't doubt for one second that Wentworth offers unrivalled levels of service and has swanky changing rooms. I'm sure if you are lucky enough to get an invite as a guest of a member that the day would be utterly wonderful. However, I just don't understand the mentality of not allowing a small allocation of visitor slots per day or on certain days of the week, just like Sunningdale, Swinley Forest etc. 

If you want to call me brain dead then that's fine but my opinion is that golf has an image problem. Good strides have been made in recent years with incentives to get more people to play the game. Also the bridging of the gap between men and women at clubs (Muirfield and Royal Troon as visible examples) have been made too. I wouldn't include the likes of Augusta and Cypress Point in any rankings if it won't allow visitors. Yes they are wonderful courses, both I'm sure in pristine condition.

I just find it strange that you can play Pebble Beach, Spanish Bay and Spyglass Hill but can't play Cypress Point unless you can get one of their 200 members to sign you in as their guest. Even being a Golf Club Secretary at the time couldn't sway them into allowing me to play! There is nothing worse as a golfer than being stood 50 yards from the first tee in one of the most stunning locations for golf in the world and being told you can't play that course. For that mental torture alone it doesn't deserve to be on any list!
		
Click to expand...

Why should you be entitled to play a course just because you are a GC Secretary?

You've mentioned this a few times now


----------



## DRW (Nov 25, 2016)

I think it comes down to, do you want a list :-

1) Top courses that you are allowed to play

OR 

2) Top courses that you can droll over (or perhaps play if you know the right person or like ). 

Personally I have no interested in 2)  as I wish to try to play the top courses that I can actually play, so would agree with GM completely on excluding those courses that you can not play normally.

There is no wrong or right on this.


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 25, 2016)

DarrenWilliams said:



			I think it comes down to, do you want a list :-

1) Top courses that you are allowed to play

OR 

2) Top courses that you can droll over (or perhaps play if you know the right person or like ). 

Personally I have no interested in 2)  as I wish to try to play the top courses that I can actually play, so would agree with GM completely on excluding those courses that you can not play normally.

There is no wrong or right on this.

Click to expand...

I agree there is no right or wrong. 

But if its a), the list should be named accordingly.


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Why should they allocate some visitors slots if they don't want to? Also, they aren't responsible for golf's image, that's the remit of the R&A/England Golf/Scottish Golf etc.

I used to be a member of a club that chased more members and visitors. It got virtually impossible to rock up and play on an evening after work. I was very glad to move to a club that set a low limit for members and visitors. I could play pretty much when I wanted.
		
Click to expand...

If they don't want visitors fine - just don't be expected to go on the Top 100 list........that's all. If they want to be exclusive, elitist or call it whatever you want I don't have a problem with that. I just agree with GM's policy that they've introduced this year. If you don't agree that too is fine, it's a world of opinions.

I do disagree with you on the image side of things. Golf undeniably has an image problem and all clubs adopting a insular approach don't help with this. The recent non-female members at Muirfield and Royal Troon was a club issue but gained worldwide notoriety and showed golf in a particularly bad light. Those two instances didn't help the image of golf one bit but it had nothing to do with the R&A or Scottish Golf, it was purely an issue for the 2 clubs concerned. 

Good for you in that you were able to move to another club that gave you what you wanted. Interesting to note that your new club also does allow visitors but in lesser numbers. That from the outset has been my point. Clubs should allow visitors but can set the parameters for how many per day or what days of the week they allow them to play. Just not allowing visitors to play at all is what I think is wrong.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 25, 2016)

Crazyface said:



			Utterly ridiculous the prices these "top" courses charge, and Golf Monthly suck up to them all by rating them in a top 100. Where is GM comittment to golf being more open to the average golfer, on a basic salary? Golf will NEVER be able to appeal to the masses whilst golf magazines promote courses with ridiculous green fees to keep the oiks out. So, why don't you at GM get off your high horses and get down with the local club players and present a Top 50 courses to play for under Â£40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.
		
Click to expand...

I do believe there is a little segment in the magazine telling people how they can play courses in the top 100 on a budget

And I also think you fail to understand that golf courses need to charge a certain price because it's not cheap to maintain certain golf clubs 

But then that is of course common sense to most


----------



## 3puttmaster (Nov 25, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			I agree there is no right or wrong. 

But if its a), the list should be named accordingly.
		
Click to expand...

I think GM has got it right in that they've highlighted a small additional list which lists the courses which would have been included if they allowed visitors e.g. Wentworth, Centurion Club etc.

They can call the list what they like as long as they make it clear what the criteria for being listed or excluded is.


----------



## Robobum (Nov 25, 2016)

Paperboy said:



			Trevose is one of the most overrated golf courses I've ever played!
		
Click to expand...

Some major changes being done at the moment, it will be interesting to see them in action.

Due to play there next September


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

Crazyface said:



			Utterly ridiculous the prices these "top" courses charge, and Golf Monthly suck up to them all by rating them in a top 100. Where is GM comittment to golf being more open to the average golfer, on a basic salary? Golf will NEVER be able to appeal to the masses whilst golf magazines promote courses with ridiculous green fees to keep the oiks out. So, why don't you at GM get off your high horses and get down with the local club players and present a Top 50 courses to play for under Â£40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that some courses are too expensive, but if you could get on Carnoustie championship for Â£40, you'd have to book 5 years in advance.


----------



## Canmore (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			I agree that some courses are too expensive, but if you could get on Carnoustie championship for Â£40, you'd have to book 5 years in advance.
		
Click to expand...

As a guest of a member you can get on most traditional members courses for Â£30/Â£40


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

Canmore said:



			As a guest of a member you can get on most traditional members courses for Â£30/Â£40
		
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm just talking about the great unwashed. 

Most top 100 up here are only Â£20-25 with a member.


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

Also, if some of the top courses charged less they might have to let some of the greenkeepers go or not buy the machinery required, and the course may end up in worse condition. Thus they end up not being top 100 courses


----------



## Junior (Nov 25, 2016)

I always like the debates the top 100 throw's up.  

For me, it is interesting that the 'manufactured' type links courses, Castle Stuart, Trump Aberdeen, Castle Course at St Andrews and say Kingsbarns have all risen in the rankings whereas (in my mind) some of the more classic traditional links / heathland type courses Royal Lytham, Hoylake, Birkdale, Portrush, Woodhall etc have fallen.   I know that they are rated higher than the 'newer' ones I mention, but its just an observation.   I prefer the traditional courses to the modern ones.  To me they are a more of a subtle test than a shell ally type 420 yard par 4 between two huge sand dunes.......that said, I need to go and play Turnberry to see what the fuss is all about


----------



## MendieGK (Nov 25, 2016)

Junior said:



			I always like the debates the top 100 throw's up.  

For me, it is interesting that the 'manufactured' type links courses, Castle Stuart, Trump Aberdeen, Castle Course at St Andrews and say Kingsbarns have all risen in the rankings whereas (in my mind) some of the more classic traditional links / heathland type courses Royal Lytham, Hoylake, Birkdale, Portrush, Woodhall etc have fallen.   I know that they are rated higher than the 'newer' ones I mention, but its just an observation.   I prefer the traditional courses to the modern ones.  To me they are a more of a subtle test than a shell ally type 420 yard par 4 between two huge sand dunes.......that said, I need to go and play Turnberry to see what the fuss is all about 

Click to expand...

  I was suprised Saunton East and Ganton had fallen


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

Junior said:



			I always like the debates the top 100 throw's up.  

F*or me, it is interesting that the 'manufactured' type links courses,* Castle Stuart, Trump Aberdeen, Castle Course at St Andrews and say Kingsbarns *have all risen in the rankings* whereas (in my mind) some of the more classic traditional links / heathland type courses Royal Lytham, Hoylake, Birkdale, Portrush, Woodhall etc have fallen.   I know that they are rated higher than the 'newer' ones I mention, but its just an observation.   I prefer the traditional courses to the modern ones.  To me they are a more of a subtle test than a shell ally type 420 yard par 4 between two huge sand dunes.......that said, I need to go and play Turnberry to see what the fuss is all about 

Click to expand...

Too much love for Links among those doing the ratings?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			Too much love for Links among those doing the ratings?
		
Click to expand...

There will always be subjective opinions but the range of panellists is very varied. Courses are rated as a test of golf amongst other things and I think most people would agree that a links is often more testing of your overall game than an inland course due to the changing elements.


----------



## Junior (Nov 25, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			I was suprised Saunton East and Ganton had fallen
		
Click to expand...

Never had the pleasure of Saunton but Ganton surprised me too.  One of my favourite courses.  It is old school though and this might have lost it a few points.


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

drive4show said:



			There will always be subjective opinions but the range of panellists is very varied. Courses are rated as a test of golf amongst other things and I think most people would agree that a links is often more testing of your overall game than an inland course due to the changing elements.
		
Click to expand...

I only ask that as the page in the mag' about some of the course raters (of which I believe you were one) all said that Links was their favourite form of golf. Do you think that taints your view of Parkland courses at all?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			I only ask that as the page in the mag' about some of the course raters (of which I believe you were one) all said that Links was their favourite form of golf. Do you think that taints your view of Parkland courses at all?
		
Click to expand...

I can only speak on a personal level but my preference is links, heathland then parkland in that order, probably based on what I said earlier about the level of test that each type of course presents. I'm lucky enough to be a member of a links and a heathland course and the links starts with a par 3. I have hit everything from 2 iron to 7 iron on that hole. Some days it is an easy 3 others it is a tough bogey 4. 

Having said that, I always enjoy a game at Bognor Regis which is a very ordinary parkland course that is well looked after and has a great variation of holes. 

So to answer your original question, I would guess the majority of reviewers prefer links because they present a better test of golf  :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 25, 2016)

My two pennies worth 

1. I think it's a good call for the "exclusive" clubs to not be included - I can understand why some believe they should but I also think you see the reasons why they haven't. Shame as think Bearwood would be clearly the top rated Parkland Course

2. Only a few I disagree with - Swinley Forest for me should be right up there amongst the Hotchkin , I think Swinley is as good. 

3. The links debate - I think they will always be seen as the top courses in the country because they are always naturally sculptured and the condition is always at the top of the tree, agree with the comments about the courses that have been Man made i.e. - Trump etc 

4. The one course I believe should be in the top 100 is Ipswich Purdis - think it's one of the best heathlands I have played and if it was in Surrey etc it would be raved about 

Overall though isn't it great that we have so many wonderful courses that we can play in the UK - it's why i don't bother going abroad


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I can only speak on a personal level but my preference is links, heathland then parkland in that order, probably based on what I said earlier about the level of test that each type of course presents. I'm lucky enough to be a member of a links and a heathland course and the links starts with a par 3. I have hit everything from 2 iron to 7 iron on that hole. Some days it is an easy 3 others it is a tough bogey 4. 

Having said that, I always enjoy a game at Bognor Regis which is a very ordinary parkland course that is well looked after and has a great variation of holes. 

So to answer your original question, I would guess the majority of reviewers prefer links because they present a better test of golf  :thup:
		
Click to expand...

I've only played a few links tracks (Hillside, Seacroft, Formby Ladies) so can't comment about the variety of test, except to say that Parklands can be very different tests in different conditions.

Think I'll have to give myself more excuses to travel to the coast and try out more Links courses, not too many to choose from in Derbyshire!


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			Think I'll have to give myself more excuses to travel to the coast and try out more Links courses, not too many to choose from in Derbyshire!
		
Click to expand...

You're a fair trek from the south coast but I put out an open invite earlier this year for any forummers to come down to Hayling  :thup:


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

drive4show said:



			You're a fair trek from the south coast but I put out an open invite earlier this year for any forummers to come down to Hayling  :thup:
		
Click to expand...

I'll have to take you up on that sometime, cheers

I did play Broadstone a couple of years back and that is a favourite among my 10 top 100 courses played so far. Lovely variety of holes,.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			I've only played a few links tracks (Hillside, Seacroft, Formby Ladies) so can't comment about the variety of test, except to say that Parklands can be very different tests in different conditions.

Think I'll have to give myself more excuses to travel to the coast and try out more Links courses, not too many to choose from in Derbyshire!
		
Click to expand...

must only be 80 /90 miles to Englands Golf Coast, loads of links there


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

patricks148 said:



			must only be 80 /90 miles to Englands Golf Coast, loads of links there
		
Click to expand...

Like I say I'm going to have to get out to some more of these areas. 
My usual playing partners aren't keen on Links golf which I think has held the rest of us back a bit. One of them lost a dozen Pro V's at S&A once and won't go back. I believe they'd recently held Open quali' so it was playing particularly tough that weekend


----------



## Paperboy (Nov 25, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Some major changes being done at the moment, it will be interesting to see them in action.

Due to play there next September
		
Click to expand...

Hopefully in the flat dull, pal land bit in the middle to end of the round!


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			Like I say I'm going to have to get out to some more of these areas. 
My usual playing partners aren't keen on Links golf which I think has held the rest of us back a bit. One of them lost a dozen Pro V's at S&A once and won't go back. I believe they'd recently held Open quali' so it was playing particularly tough that weekend 

Click to expand...

its well worth the effort to Travel.

I reg head down to Western Gailes for a game, 200 miles each way and when i get the offer to play Muirfield I never turn it down despite 185 miles each way.


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			Like I say I'm going to have to get out to some more of these areas. 
My usual playing partners aren't keen on Links golf which I think has held the rest of us back a bit. One of them lost a dozen Pro V's at S&A once and won't go back. I believe they'd recently held Open quali' so it was playing particularly tough that weekend 

Click to expand...

If you fancy a trip to the North West fire a post up in the arrange a game section, couple of links members up here but we also play a few others on reciprocals etc :thup:

My place isn't a links although it's on the coast and links turf (in the main) and welcome anytime :thup:


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

JamesR said:



			I've only played a few links tracks (Hillside, Seacroft, Formby Ladies) so can't comment about the variety of test, except to say that Parklands can be very different tests in different conditions.

Think I'll have to give myself more excuses to travel to the coast and try out more Links courses, not too many to choose from in Derbyshire!
		
Click to expand...

James. 

I can sign you in @ Conwy if you ever fancy it. Have some decent reciprocals at Wallasey, West Lancs and St Annes Old Links that would spread the cost. 

Anything to convert a doubter :thup:


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

Crazyface said:



			Utterly ridiculous the prices these "top" courses charge, and Golf Monthly suck up to them all by rating them in a top 100. Where is GM comittment to golf being more open to the average golfer, on a basic salary? Golf will NEVER be able to appeal to the masses whilst golf magazines promote courses with ridiculous green fees to keep the oiks out. So, why don't you at GM get off your high horses and get down with the local club players and present a Top 50 courses to play for under Â£40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.
		
Click to expand...

Don't see the logic here to be honest. Sounds more like a chip on your shoulder. 

You can pay, say, Â£200 to play an Open Venue - even get a meal thrown in at some. Spend the day there, soak up the history. 

If you shop around you can play there for much lower prices in winter.

How much would it cost to have a game of football at Wembley, tennis on Centre Court @ Wimbledon and so on?


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

Junior said:



			I always like the debates the top 100 throw's up.  

For me, it is interesting that the 'manufactured' type links courses, Castle Stuart, Trump Aberdeen, Castle Course at St Andrews and say Kingsbarns have all risen in the rankings whereas (in my mind) some of the more classic traditional links / heathland type courses Royal Lytham, Hoylake, Birkdale, Portrush, Woodhall etc have fallen.   I know that they are rated higher than the 'newer' ones I mention, but its just an observation.   I prefer the traditional courses to the modern ones.  To me they are a more of a subtle test than a shell ally type 420 yard par 4 between two huge sand dunes.......that said, I need to go and play Turnberry to see what the fuss is all about 

Click to expand...

Prefer traditional myself. Turnberry didn't feel remotely manufactured when I played it last...

I'll drive :thup:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 25, 2016)

drive4show said:



			So to answer your original question, I would guess the majority of reviewers prefer links because they present a better test of golf  :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Define a test of golf. It seems a hugely subjective notion. I've played links, heathland and parkland and can say that each variety depending on the course in question can throw up their own challenges and test golfers in many different ways. I'm not entirely sure you can simply links is best because of the conditions. I've played parkland courses in howling winds where a 140 yard par 3 required a 5 iron one day and was an 8 iron after lunch as the wind subsided. Heathland presents its own unique challenges with the heather and gorse not normally found on parkland courses and which puts a premium on driving to avoid the penalties for going in there. 

I also wonder, given the make up of the panel, if there's a sub-conscious thought that links being the original form of golf should always be represented at the very top of the list and that should a world class (and not exclusive) parkland or heathland course be created, it would still get overlooked because it wasn't links.

As I say, all subjective


----------



## JamesR (Nov 25, 2016)

Thanks for all offers chaps.
I shall be in touch once January is over, work is mad until then & hopefully the weather may be improved come the spring.


----------



## KenL (Nov 25, 2016)

Just been looking at the list.  Sadly I haven't played very many of them.  Of the ones I have some of the ones high up the list are overrated and some too far down.

For me Carnoustie is overrated as a golf course. 
North Berwick is also a course with an overrated reputation.  Again some great holes and I know it is a great club.  The narrative talks about a great finish but for me the finishing holes (18 excepted) are not the best.

Muirfield also.  I haven't played it but spent a week there as a marshal and I did not think it was so special.  Also heard horror stories about the way they can treat visitors.

Royal Troon, although quite far up it deserves to be a lot higher up.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 25, 2016)

drive4show said:



			You're a fair trek from the south coast but I put out an open invite earlier this year for any forummers to come down to Hayling  :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Will take you up on this next year Gordon - that's a promise!


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

Junior said:



			I always like the debates the top 100 throw's up.  

For me, it is interesting that the 'manufactured' type links courses, Castle Stuart, Trump Aberdeen, Castle Course at St Andrews and say Kingsbarns have all risen in the rankings whereas (in my mind) some of the more classic traditional links / heathland type courses Royal Lytham, Hoylake, Birkdale, Portrush, Woodhall etc have fallen.   I know that they are rated higher than the 'newer' ones I mention, but its just an observation.   I prefer the traditional courses to the modern ones.  To me they are a more of a subtle test than a shell ally type 420 yard par 4 between two huge sand dunes.......that said, I need to go and play Turnberry to see what the fuss is all about 

Click to expand...

I love walking around the clubhouses of the old courses, especially the Open courses and taking in the history - Prestwick is one of the best for that, of the ones I've played.

However, once out on the course I can separate the "club" and the course, in terms of preference.

Royal Dornoch/Castle Stuart being a prime example. I loved Dornoch but still think CS is one of the top 1/2/3 courses I've played. Probably the same situation for Cruden/Trump Aberdeen,although probably like them in equal measure.

The conundrum must come when you have a 1/2/300 year old golf club, that has a modern clubhouse, like Cruden. Due to it being a traditional, old course do you mark it up based on that, despite it having a new clubhouse? What do you think?


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			I love walking around the clubhouses of the old courses, especially the Open courses and taking in the history - Prestwick is one of the best for that, of the ones I've played.

However, once out on the course I can separate the "club" and the course, in terms of preference.

Royal Dornoch/Castle Stuart being a prime example. I loved Dornoch but still think CS is one of the top 1/2/3 courses I've played. Probably the same situation for Cruden/Trump Aberdeen,although probably like them in equal measure.

The conundrum must come when you have a 1/2/300 year old golf club, that has a modern clubhouse, like Cruden. Due to it being a traditional, old course do you mark it up based on that, despite it having a new clubhouse? What do you think?
		
Click to expand...

Can't see the conundrum to be honest. Think Andrew was talking about courses.

You can have a traditional links course that has a new clubhouse (West Lancs). Doesn't make it a non-traditional course. 

Or are you after being the reviewer in chief for GM Top 100 Clubhouses? With a round thrown in of course :thup:


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 25, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Will take you up on this next year Gordon - that's a promise!
		
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a threatâ€¦â€¦â€¦


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

huds1475 said:



			Can't see the conundrum to be honest. Think Andrew was talking about courses.

You can have a traditional links course that has a new clubhouse (West Lancs). Doesn't make it a non-traditional course. 

Or are you after being the reviewer in chief for GM Top 100 Clubhouses? With a round thrown in of course :thup:
		
Click to expand...

He may have said courses, but we all know that the marks are given for the whole experience at the club in question, not just for the course.

The point being that an old traditional course can have a new clubhouse, so the "feeling" isnt necessarily the same as walking into a clubhouse such as Alwoodley, Royal Liverpool, Formby, Lytham etc.

West Lancs is one of the oldest courses in England, but no great traditional feel to their clubhouse.


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			I love walking around the clubhouses of the old courses, especially the Open courses and taking in the history - Prestwick is one of the best for that, of the ones I've played.

However, once out on the course I can separate the "club" and the course, in terms of preference.

Royal Dornoch/Castle Stuart being a prime example. I loved Dornoch but still think CS is one of the top 1/2/3 courses I've played. Probably the same situation for Cruden/Trump Aberdeen,although probably like them in equal measure.

The conundrum must come when you have a 1/2/300 year old golf club, that has a modern clubhouse, like Cruden. Due to it being a traditional, old course do you mark it up based on that, despite it having a new clubhouse? What do you think?
		
Click to expand...

I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.

Edit: why one of my biggest annoyances is not having played Turnberry before the recent changes as they are being done, partly, to draw attention to the landmarks to look more spectacular.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean,and it would be interesting to see peoples views in 50 years time to see if they could separate the more traditional courses than the others,after the new courses have bedded in more or are even rougher round the edges.

It would be interesting to see if you could put a golfer on two courses that they didnt know, one from 1870 and one from 1930 and see if they could tell which was which.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.

Edit: why one of my biggest annoyances is not having played Turnberry before the recent changes as they are being done, partly, to draw attention to the landmarks to look more spectacular.
		
Click to expand...

Its also interesting to note that maybe the preferences are generally for old/traditional rather than new as our links courses mostly seem to be over 90 years old, and its not necessarily a links preference over inland.......


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			I understand what you mean,and it would be interesting to see peoples views in 50 years time to see if they could separate the more traditional courses than the others,after the new courses have bedded in more or are even rougher round the edges.

It would be interesting to see if you could put a golfer on two courses that they didnt know, one from 1870 and one from 1930 and see if they could tell which was which.
		
Click to expand...

For me it's not so much that the courses will be bedded in, just that you're being spoon fed the spectacular almost rather than the golf course itself. Hard to describe really, just a feeling I got on both.

That said they are 2 great courses and, going back to my other point, I have no idea why they are so far apart in the rankings!?

Castle Course is tougher IMO but both stunning places to play golf.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 25, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.

Edit: why one of my biggest annoyances is not having played Turnberry before the recent changes as they are being done, partly, to draw attention to the landmarks to look more spectacular.
		
Click to expand...

Ive played "old" Turnberry twice - Hillside makes it look like a Muni......


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Ive played "old" Turnberry twice - Hillside makes it look like a Muni......

Click to expand...

In which case Formby must make it look like a pitch and putt


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			He may have said courses, but we all know that the marks are given for the whole experience at the club in question, not just for the course.

The point being that an old traditional course can have a new clubhouse, so the "feeling" isnt necessarily the same as walking into a clubhouse such as Alwoodley, Royal Liverpool, Formby, Lytham etc.

West Lancs is one of the oldest courses in England, but no great traditional feel to their clubhouse.
		
Click to expand...

We're never going to agree, but he said courses. As an opinion, not about what the assessment criteria was.

I get where you are coming from, deffo. But he said courses.

You can tell when a course is the real deal, by playing the course. Not by the clubhouse.

Irrespective of the ranking, when I look at the top 100 I look at which courses look most natural, not the clubhouse. 

I do love walking round somewhere with history. Turnberry clubhouse, Royal Lytham Clubhouse, Locker Room at Moortown, not overly well travelled!

I still prefer a natural course


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Ive played "old" Turnberry twice - Hillside makes it look like a Muni......

Click to expand...

PMSL

Are you paid per hit by Hillside?


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 25, 2016)

huds1475 said:



			PMSL

Are you paid per hit by Hillside?
		
Click to expand...

Doh! Another pound


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 26, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Define a test of golf. It seems a hugely subjective notion. I've played links, heathland and parkland and can say that each variety depending on the course in question can throw up their own challenges and test golfers in many different ways. I'm not entirely sure you can simply links is best because of the conditions. I've played parkland courses in howling winds where a 140 yard par 3 required a 5 iron one day and was an 8 iron after lunch as the wind subsided. Heathland presents its own unique challenges with the heather and gorse not normally found on parkland courses and which puts a premium on driving to avoid the penalties for going in there. 

I also wonder, given the make up of the panel, if there's a sub-conscious thought that links being the original form of golf should always be represented at the very top of the list and that should a world class (and not exclusive) parkland or heathland course be created, it would still get overlooked because it wasn't links.

As I say, all subjective
		
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I was watching a program about Tiger Woods this evening on Sky and I think he summed it up perfectly when talking about the appeal of the Open. He said when you miss a green in any other event you automatically reach for your lob wedge but when you miss a green on a links course you have so many different options.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 26, 2016)

huds1475 said:



			We're never going to agree, but he said courses. As an opinion, not about what the assessment criteria was.

I get where you are coming from, deffo. But he said courses.

You can tell when a course is the real deal, by playing the course. Not by the clubhouse.

Irrespective of the ranking, when I look at the top 100 I look at which courses look most natural, not the clubhouse. 

I do love walking round somewhere with history. Turnberry clubhouse, Royal Lytham Clubhouse, Locker Room at Moortown, not overly well travelled!

I still prefer a natural course 

Click to expand...

Fleetwood is as au naturelle as they come, still doesnt make it better than Castle Stuart......or Hillside.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 26, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Funnily enough, I was watching a program about Tiger Woods this evening on Sky and I think he summed it up perfectly when talking about the appeal of the Open. He said when you miss a green in any other event you automatically reach for your lob wedge but when you miss a green on a links course you have so many different options.
		
Click to expand...

Good point.

I had played parkland courses for 15 years and just when I thought I was getting good at this game, I started to play links courses......its a different game.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 26, 2016)

i'm not sure the club house can make much difference to how the course is rated TBH

Take Royal Dornoch for instance a raise in the ranking this time and the club house is not all that, poor changing facilities miles from the 18th green and a bit dated, but scored better than last time and must just be for the fantastic course.


----------



## PNWokingham (Nov 26, 2016)

3puttmaster said:



			Unfortunately I've experienced stuffy attitudes at some clubs within the Top 100 when visiting so I can only imagine what those who want to stay totally 'closed' to non members are like. Yes, it's a generalisation but if these clubs and its members wanted to project a more welcoming and open image, surely they'd put the wheels in motion via an AGM or EGM to change these policies. The fact they don't tells me that they deem themselves too important, exclusive or just simply don't want visitors at their club which I find a shame.

We shall never agree on the issue of these clubs being on the list. I think GM have done the right thing. Golf has a massive image problem (hence the recent female members saga at Royal Troon and Muirfield) and some clubs are adding to this by pulling up the drawbridge. 

If a club wants to set a ridiculous green fee then fine but at least you can save up and play it, even if it's only once. I paid nearly Â£450 years ago to play Pebble Beach but at least I got to play it and loved every minute of it. But at least I had the opportunity to play it and that's my point.
		
Click to expand...

I think this soap-box stance is totally wrong. Yes some courses are stuffy and some members can come across as hostile towards visitors on "their" course but, in my experience, it has nothing to do with their ranking in the top 100 or their "exclusivity" - indeed, i think that, generally, the better and more "exclusive" clubs are more welcoming and hospitable than many "lesser" courses. 

I have no problem with this list being the top 100 you can play - personally, I would have preferred a dual list, as usually happens with the US rankings, where the majority of top courses are closed to non members, but can totally understand the GM stance. My home course has been excluded due to this rule - a few years ago we did open up to limited member play and i was in favour of this but that was overturned a couple of years ago. I would be happy to see this at our club and others but the decision is for the club and should not be seen as anything sinister. We have nearly 700 members and are busy every day with those members playing golf - if we had much visitor play or societies it could make it harder to get a game - and when you are paying a high price to be a member, you want to be able to play when you want. 

The other comment (not from you) that courses should not charge a high price for visitors is also daft - you have to pay for better products - choose a Ferrari or an Fiesta - choice is yours. 

The fact that out of 3000 courses in GB&I and only a handful don't allow visitors shows that golf in the UK is a very open sport and a great opportunity to play on the same fields as the sporting greats - you don't get that in most other sports.


----------



## Junior (Nov 26, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			I love walking around the clubhouses of the old courses, especially the Open courses and taking in the history - Prestwick is one of the best for that, of the ones I've played.

However, once out on the course I can separate the "club" and the course, in terms of preference.

Royal Dornoch/Castle Stuart being a prime example. I loved Dornoch but still think CS is one of the top 1/2/3 courses I've played. Probably the same situation for Cruden/Trump Aberdeen,although probably like them in equal measure.

The conundrum must come when you have a 1/2/300 year old golf club, that has a modern clubhouse, like Cruden. Due to it being a traditional, old course do you mark it up based on that, despite it having a new clubhouse? What do you think?
		
Click to expand...

I think part of the experience for me is the history of the course aswell.   Knowing your walking on turf that golf has been played on for 100's of years, and the test you face is pretty much the same as it was it era's gone by.  Also, the subtlety of the test is different on the older courses.  I loved Castle Stuart, the holes along the estuary blew me away, as did most holes at Trump.  But, just for me, they didn't get the juices flowing like Dornoch or Carnoustie did. 

Regarding clubhouses, your it's interesting........Tbh, when I think of my favourite courses (and my own list that I keep) I've just realised right now that I don't even consider the clubhouse, or the 'whole' experience.  I'm always just dying to get out on the course.


----------



## 2blue (Nov 26, 2016)

patricks148 said:



			i'm not sure the club house can make much difference to how the course is rated TBH

Take Royal Dornoch for instance a raise in the ranking this time and the club house is not all that, poor rchanging facilities miles from the 18th green and a bit dated, but scored better than last time and must just be for the fantastic course.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed....  same would apply to 
Silloth regarding Clubhouse (not the tucker however) &#127860; & it's moved up


----------



## pendodave (Nov 26, 2016)

Was browsing though the mag the other day and saw this article. 

There are 36 people on the selection panel. None of them are women.

This seems a little lopsided. Not altogether surprising, given GMs coverage of Charley Hull's recent victory, but still a little remiss.

After all, most courses play differently off the Ladies tees. Most clubhouses have different facilities for Ladies. Some may even treat them differently or make them drink somewhere else afterwards. Is none of this of any relevance when selecting a ranking of courses? I would have thought it was. GM reminds me of a lot of golf clubs; lip service paid, old habits die hard...


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 26, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Fleetwood is as au naturelle as they come, still doesnt make it better than Castle Stuart......or Hillside.

Click to expand...

Stoppit. Stoppit!


----------



## Bazzatron (Nov 26, 2016)

Don't get to play many of the links courses living smack bang in the middle of the country, will take years to knock those off. Need to get Belfry and the two Notts ones done at least


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 26, 2016)

Junior said:



			I think part of the experience for me is the history of the course aswell.   Knowing your walking on turf that golf has been played on for 100's of years, and the test you face is pretty much the same as it was it era's gone by.  Also, the subtlety of the test is different on the older courses.  I loved Castle Stuart, the holes along the estuary blew me away, as did most holes at Trump.  But, just for me, they didn't get the juices flowing like Dornoch or Carnoustie did. 

Regarding clubhouses, your it's interesting........Tbh, when I think of my favourite courses (and my own list that I keep) I've just realised right now that I don't even consider the clubhouse, or the 'whole' experience.  I'm always just dying to get out on the course.
		
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think like most, you will look at the sign on the door, or on the club badge which tells you how old it is, but can you tell if it was re-modelled in the 30's/50's or even later, sometimes not always "respectfully".


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 27, 2016)

Having gone through the list of the top 100 and the next 100 I've always looked for where I've played and, obviously, do I agree with the rating. One thing is obvious from my own ratings is the ones I've played well I've rated as high or higher but those I've played badly struggle to get to the published rating for me. I'd be surprised if this aspect doesn't impact on the scores by the 'official' raters. How do they maintain enough objectivity on a rank bad day?

However, apart from a few positions, especially in the top 20, I'd say its a great bucket list for anyone wanting to schedule their golf for the next x years.

That aside, there's a few I wouldn't miss if they weren't in there. The Woburn's and Formby. The Woburn's I just didn't enjoy, but that was a wayward day off the tee that just became a drudge. Formby, apart from a couple of holes, was instantly forgettable. It did nothing for me at all to make it stand above so many courses that aren't listed. But as so many people rate them highly, especially Formby, I think I need a revisit.

I do find that the welcome in the pro shop and the clubhouse do go a long way towards whether or not I'd want to revisit. Cruden Bay this year was one of the best welcome's ever, and 16 of the best holes in golf too - pity about 10 & 11. 11 would be sorted with better drainage but 10 needs a major revamp to take it to make it something more memorable than a great view up and down the coast. Royal West Norfolk's clubhouse has fantastic boards with many illustrious names, and great food too. But isn't it great to come off a stunning course and find a clubhouse with comfy chairs that you can sit and chew the fat for hours.

Nice to see my home club creep in there, and with the winter work ongoing it would be nice to see them climb higher the #100.

So many great courses but where to go next?


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 27, 2016)

pendodave said:



			Was browsing though the mag the other day and saw this article. 

There are 36 people on the selection panel. None of them are women.

This seems a little lopsided. Not altogether surprising, given GMs coverage of Charley Hull's recent victory, but still a little remiss.

After all, most courses play differently off the Ladies tees. Most clubhouses have different facilities for Ladies. Some may even treat them differently or make them drink somewhere else afterwards. Is none of this of any relevance when selecting a ranking of courses? I would have thought it was. GM reminds me of a lot of golf clubs; lip service paid, old habits die hard...
		
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Looking forward to hearing GM response on this


----------



## Simbo (Nov 27, 2016)

So who thinks the Â£350 green fee for summer season at Trump turnberry is worth it?
Double the old course?


----------



## KenL (Nov 27, 2016)

Simbo said:



			So who thinks the Â£350 green fee for summer season at Trump turnberry is worth it?
Double the old course?
		
Click to expand...

D
Absolutely no danger.

You could play the OC, the New and the Jubilee for that.  I am not lining Trump's pockets!


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 27, 2016)

Simbo said:



			So who thinks the Â£350 green fee for summer season at Trump turnberry is worth it?
Double the old course?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced many pay that. most of the footfall is with tour companies and they all have good deals. and for the American Market they sort of work on the proviso that the more expensive it is the better it is.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2016)

pendodave said:



			Was browsing though the mag the other day and saw this article. 

There are 36 people on the selection panel. None of them are women.

This seems a little lopsided. Not altogether surprising, given GMs coverage of Charley Hull's recent victory, but still a little remiss.

After all, most courses play differently off the Ladies tees. Most clubhouses have different facilities for Ladies. Some may even treat them differently or make them drink somewhere else afterwards. Is none of this of any relevance when selecting a ranking of courses? I would have thought it was. GM reminds me of a lot of golf clubs; lip service paid, old habits die hard...
		
Click to expand...

That is a shameful figure, come on GM wake up to the brave new world.
An explanation of the male only jury would be interesting ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is a shameful figure, come on GM wake up to the brave new world.
An explanation of the male only jury would be interesting ?
		
Click to expand...

It is a disappointment and I'm another that would appreciate a GM point of view.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is a shameful figure, come on GM wake up to the brave new world.
An explanation of the male only jury would be interesting ?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know the reason but maybe it's as simple as no women have ever expressed an interest in joining the panel?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 27, 2016)

Seems the pitchforks are out for GM and the baying mob demanding answers 

How about the answer being simple - no female has asked to be a part of the panel ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 27, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Seems the pitchforks are out for GM and the baying mob demanding answers 

How about the answer being simple - no female has asked to be a part of the panel ?
		
Click to expand...

And how many females (and how many males) knew you could ask to be part of it. It's a valid question especially in this day and age and you are someone that regularly goes on about growing the game. Surely this has to be one area that needs looking at. You can expand that, and how many females are part of testing panels, not just in GM. I know the opportunities on here can be entered by all, and can't say if that applies for other mags and online sites. Is there any females included in a test panel anywhere?


----------



## huds1475 (Nov 27, 2016)

KenL said:



			D
Absolutely no danger.

You could play the OC, the New and the Jubilee for that.  I am not lining Trump's pockets!
		
Click to expand...

I would pay. Save cash out of bonuses etc...

It's a special place. My mum says I'm special too.

So it's a good match really :thup:


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 27, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Seems the pitchforks are out for GM and the baying mob demanding answers 

How about the answer being simple - no female has asked to be a part of the panel ?
		
Click to expand...

That would be, in my opinion, incredibly weak. GM and the golf industry need to be proactive


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 27, 2016)

The last time the top 100 came out there was a good thread that had the GM guys answering any and all questions on the list and the panel was one of the subjects discussed.

Worth a search for anyone interested...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is a shameful figure, come on GM wake up to the brave new world.
An explanation of the male only jury would be interesting ?
		
Click to expand...

Why is it shameful? Have you also checked if the panel has the politically correct spread of ages or sexual orientation or handicaps or ethnicity or financial status etc. Can we simply not trust 36 males to make fair decisions.


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 27, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Why is it shameful? Have you also checked if the panel has the politically correct spread of ages or sexual orientation or handicaps or ethnicity or financial status etc. Can we simply not trust 36 males to make fair decisions.
		
Click to expand...

Some might suggest it's not a fair reflection of the make up of the golfing population


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 27, 2016)

were there not selection criteria for getting on the panel? didn't you have to have already played many of the courses already?

maybe no women have asked to be on the panel or have played enough of the top 100 to make the panel???


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 27, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			Some might suggest it's not a fair reflection of the make up of the golfing population
		
Click to expand...

Fair and shameful have completely different meanings, why has nobody asked if the age range or ethnicity is a fair reflection of the make up of the golfing population.


----------



## richy (Nov 27, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Fair and shameful have completely different meanings, why has nobody asked if the age range or ethnicity is a fair reflection of the make up of the golfing population.
		
Click to expand...

As someone mentioned earlier. The women play from a different tee so may see the course differently. 

I think it's a fair question, don't k ow why people are blindly leaping to the defence of GM. Pretty sure they can stick up for themselves.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is a shameful figure, come on GM wake up to the brave new world.
*An explanation of the male only jury would be interesting ?*

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 27, 2016)

richy said:



			As someone mentioned earlier. The women play from a different tee so may see the course differently. 

I think it's a fair question, don't k ow why people are blindly leaping to the defence of GM. Pretty sure they can stick up for themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Not blindly jumping to anyones defence Rich, my issue is with the word shameful, completely daft.
How many of us looked at the list and thought "not sure I can read this, don't think they've had any women involved in the decisions"
Sure, ask MikeH the question but leave it to be answered before judging.


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 27, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Fair and shameful have completely different meanings, why has nobody asked if the age range or ethnicity is a fair reflection of the make up of the golfing population.
		
Click to expand...

I never said shameful. I've said it so many times about golf being stuck in the dark ages. I don't have a problem with clubs being exclusive and not allowing women members, however, outlets within the industry, such as GM, have the chance to change the image of golf by being proactive.

My guess is that the panel is made up of white middle class men with an average age of 50. Just a guess...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 27, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			I never said shameful. I've said it so many times about golf being stuck in the dark ages. I don't have a problem with clubs being exclusive and not allowing women members, however, outlets within the industry, such as GM, have the chance to change the image of golf by being proactive.

My guess is that the panel is made up of white middle class men with an average age of 50. Just a guess...
		
Click to expand...

If you look back my response was to the poster who did say shameful.
Ask again, if you want them to change the image, why only concern for female representation, because for me, age and finances would be the biggest areas to target.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 27, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			I never said shameful. I've said it so many times about golf being stuck in the dark ages. I don't have a problem with clubs being exclusive and not allowing women members, however, outlets within the industry, such as GM, have the chance to change the image of golf by being proactive.

My guess is that the panel is made up of white middle class men with an average age of 50. Just a guess...
		
Click to expand...

TBH there are not going to be many poor working class people  from ethic minorities playing most of the UK top 100 courses out of their own pocket are there?


----------



## Mike07 (Nov 27, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			If you look back my response was to the poster who did say shameful.
Ask again, if you want them to change the image, why only concern for female representation, because for me, age and finances would be the biggest areas to target.
		
Click to expand...

Paul, I agree with age and finances. Just that the topic of women is being discussed on this thread.

The issue of image can't be pinpointed to one specific area, it's the sum of all the parts. I don't have any answers either sadly.


----------



## richy (Nov 27, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Not blindly jumping to anyones defence Rich, my issue is with the word shameful, completely daft.
How many of us looked at the list and thought "not sure I can read this, don't think they've had any women involved in the decisions"
Sure, ask MikeH the question but leave it to be answered before judging.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, "shameful" is a little OTT. 

To be honest I didn't even bother to read who was part of the panel, I did assume there'd be at least one woman part of it.


----------



## richy (Nov 27, 2016)

Mike07 said:



			I never said shameful. I've said it so many times about golf being stuck in the dark ages. I don't have a problem with clubs being exclusive and not allowing women members, however, outlets within the industry, such as GM, have the chance to change the image of golf by being proactive.

My guess is that the panel is made up of white middle class men with an average age of 50. Just a guess...
		
Click to expand...

You're miles off. It's 51.91, call it 52


----------



## Val (Nov 27, 2016)

How's about this, many golf courses play completely different from women's tees than men's therefore there is a chance a woman's and mans opinions of a course will be completely different. There is a potential then a top 25 course could struggle to be top 100 in a women's eyes.

If there is any doubt on the above, asks FD how low she would rate Western Gailes.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 27, 2016)

The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is becauseâ€¦ no female golfer has ever expressed an interest/applied to be part of the panel.

From time to time we have put out calls to action for anyone interested in joining the panel to apply and we have recruited a number of new panellists in the past few years (including drive4show and from next year liverbirdie too) but I'm yet to receive an application from a female golfer.

We'd consider any golfer regardless of sex (or for that matter age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) the only stipulation is that candidates need to have played a minimum of 25 of the current top 100 to be considered and we prefer them to have a handicap of 18 or less

we'd also expect panellists to be able to commit to assessing around 20 courses a year

If they fit that criteria we then we ask for a golfing CV and sample assessments and consider them on those submissions

hopefully the throng of people with placards stood outside the GM office will now disperse. it's very cold, you'll catch a sniffle if you stay there too long


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 27, 2016)

MikeH said:



			The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is becauseâ€¦ no female golfer has ever expressed an interest/applied to be part of the panel.

From time to time we have put out calls to action for anyone interested in joining the panel to apply and we have recruited a number of new panellists in the past few years (including drive4show and from next year liverbirdie too) but I'm yet to receive an application from a female golfer.

We'd consider any golfer regardless of sex (or for that matter age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) the only stipulation is that candidates need to have played a minimum of 25 of the current top 100 to be considered and we prefer them to have a handicap of 18 or less

we'd also expect panellists to be able to commit to assessing around 20 courses a year

If they fit that criteria we then we ask for a golfing CV and sample assessments and consider them on those submissions

hopefully the throng of people with placards stood outside the GM office will now disperse. it's very cold, you'll catch a sniffle if you stay there too long
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's just not good enough. 

The proffessionally offended need to find further fault.....ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 27, 2016)

MikeH said:



			The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is becauseâ€¦ no female golfer has ever expressed an interest/applied to be part of the panel.

From time to time we have put out calls to action for anyone interested in joining the panel to apply and we have recruited a number of new panellists in the past few years (including drive4show and from next year liverbirdie too) but I'm yet to receive an application from a female golfer.

We'd consider any golfer regardless of sex (or for that matter age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) the only stipulation is that candidates need to have played a minimum of 25 of the current top 100 to be considered and we prefer them to have a handicap of 18 or less

we'd also expect panellists to be able to commit to assessing around 20 courses a year

If they fit that criteria we then we ask for a golfing CV and sample assessments and consider them on those submissions

*hopefully the throng of people with placards stood outside the GM office will now disperse. it's very cold, you'll catch a sniffle if you stay there too long*

Click to expand...


I'm disappointed there's no offer of a straightener at the duck pond on HW for any of those still dissatisfied with your reasoning. 

Your standards are slipping.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 27, 2016)

Congratulations LB, all of that brown nosing has paid off :rofl:


----------



## Oxfordcomma (Nov 27, 2016)

MikeH said:



			The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is becauseâ€¦ no female golfer has ever expressed an interest/applied to be part of the panel.

From time to time we have put out calls to action for anyone interested in joining the panel to apply and we have recruited a number of new panellists in the past few years (including drive4show and from next year liverbirdie too) but I'm yet to receive an application from a female golfer.

We'd consider any golfer regardless of sex (or for that matter age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) the only stipulation is that candidates need to have played a minimum of 25 of the current top 100 to be considered and we prefer them to have a handicap of 18 or less

we'd also expect panellists to be able to commit to assessing around 20 courses a year

If they fit that criteria we then we ask for a golfing CV and sample assessments and consider them on those submissions

hopefully the throng of people with placards stood outside the GM office will now disperse. it's very cold, you'll catch a sniffle if you stay there too long
		
Click to expand...

Mike, I think that's sort of the answer that everyone expected and it's a valid one. 

Have you thought about reaching out and trying to be a little more proactive though? Inviting people (Sandy, just as an example who many of us know), rather than waiting for them to express an interest? Otherwise there's a danger that it becomes a bit self-selecting. And actually now that it's been raised I think it's something that would be an interesting addition to the rating criteria. It's been discussed on here many times, some courses play differently, some (hopefully not many) aren't as welcoming.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 27, 2016)

Stuart_C said:



			Congratulations LB, all of that brown nosing has paid off :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I thought I was picked for being an ethnic minority (scouse), and being a working class lad (who knows his cheeses).


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 27, 2016)

Val said:



			How's about this, many golf courses play completely different from women's tees than men's therefore there is a chance a woman's and mans opinions of a course will be completely different. There is a potential then a top 25 course could struggle to be top 100 in a women's eyes.

If there is any doubt on the above, asks FD how low she would rate Western Gailes.
		
Click to expand...



Indeed, the course I played was a shadow of itself. I still want to go and play it from the yellow or white tees to see what the fuss is all about! To be fair, it did look good from there but too many holes were totally ruined by thoughlessly dumping the forward tee at the start of the fairway. 

I know that was something that many guys I talk to about WG had never appreciated. Martin, I think you didn't notice when we played but after my comments you saw what I meant the next time you played there?

As an observation rather than a criticism, I think if there were some females on the panel the ratings would be impacted by a number of factors that are possibly overlooked at the moment. Arguably, that could give a more complete assessment. However, if there were only one or two women it would mean that only a fraction of courses would be subject to those criteria which might skew things if the panel weren't careful.


----------



## Val (Nov 28, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			I know that was something that many guys I talk to about WG had never appreciated. Martin, I think you didn't notice when we played but after my comments you saw what I meant the next time you played there?
		
Click to expand...

I did notice it more the second time but even when I played there with you it wasnt until we played the 14th where the tee is up by the railway track that I noticed how far forward the ladies tee was and how much it changed the hole. I don't think WG really fully thought out their forward tees which is a shame.

Edit to add - Ive just check WG website and it now has some good hole fly overs and on the 14th you can see where you tee'd off which was in front of the bushes over the burn some 50+ yards from where we were which changed the shape of the hole and took out the first set of bunkers for you not to mention the short carry from the tee and intimidating tee shot beside the railway with OOB all down the right.


----------



## Qwerty (Nov 28, 2016)

It appears that the current top 100 list is purely based on playing the course off the White or possibly yellow tees.

Most courses are completely different off the Reds, and let's be honest there isn't much thought goes into where the red tees are located on many courses making the course on the face of it a much less enjoyable experience.

Some of the UKs highly regarded links have high grand elevated tees whilst the reds are just positioned on flat ground at the start of the fairway.

If female Golfers were introduced into the panel IMO the only way the list could be remotely accurate is if the ratio of Male/female Golfers were 50/50 throughout,with 50/50 playing every course contending for a place in the top 100 ?

..And even then the list would become more irrelevant and Skewed across the board from both sides. Female Golfers reading the list don't care how the course plays of the Whites and Males Vice versa off the reds.


----------



## pendodave (Nov 28, 2016)

I wrote the original note about the one-eyed nature of the review. I do not consider myself to be professionally offended, but I have two daughters and often play in mixed company.

I think that the lack of any female perspective makes the list less useful than it should be. If I am playing with ladies it would be helpful to know if they were also going to enjoy the course, the facilities and the welcome before we all stumped up the not inconsiderable green fees.

Who knows, if there were remarks about such matters in a national magazine it might lead to improvements where appropriate.

So not so much offended as slightly disappointed with the lack of imagination demonstrated in the journalistic endeavour...


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Nov 28, 2016)

I think to a large extent, if a course is well designed and people play off the correct tees for their ability then the course will play broadly similar for everyone. When I play with Louise she plays off the back tees with me. When she plays off the reds she generally destroys courses, it is very unusual for her not to be under par off the reds. If the tees are correctly positioned in relation to the hazards then courses will play pretty much the same for most people.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2016)

MikeH said:



			The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is becauseâ€¦ no female golfer has ever expressed an interest/applied to be part of the panel.

From time to time we have put out calls to action for anyone interested in joining the panel to apply and we have recruited a number of new panellists in the past few years (including drive4show and from next year liverbirdie too) but I'm yet to receive an application from a female golfer.

We'd consider any golfer regardless of sex (or for that matter age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) the only stipulation is that candidates need to have played a minimum of 25 of the current top 100 to be considered and we prefer them to have a handicap of 18 or less

we'd also expect panellists to be able to commit to assessing around 20 courses a year

If they fit that criteria we then we ask for a golfing CV and sample assessments and consider them on those submissions

hopefully the throng of people with placards stood outside the GM office will now disperse. it's very cold, you'll catch a sniffle if you stay there too long
		
Click to expand...

Mike, If I were in your position I would be asking myself, 'why have no women applied'.
Once you get past that perhaps your business could take the necessary steps to become more inclusive.

I know many low handicap women golfers who would fill your criteria and give a much more balanced opinion of a course than an 18 handicap male.


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 28, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Mike, If I were in your position I would be asking myself, 'why have no women applied'.
Once you get past that perhaps your business could take the necessary steps to become more inclusive.

I know many low handicap women golfers who would fill your criteria and give a much more balanced opinion of a course than an *18 handicap male*.
		
Click to expand...


Isn't 18 the uk average handicap? If so, surely that's exactly who the magazine shoud aim at as it'll cover the most people interested?


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 28, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Mike, If I were in your position I would be asking myself, 'why have no women applied'.
Once you get past that perhaps your business could take the necessary steps to become more inclusive.

I know many low handicap women golfers who would fill your criteria and give a much more balanced opinion of a course than an 18 handicap male.
		
Click to expand...

are you suggesting positive discrimination for women golfers to be added to the panel???

I think women readers of GM would be in the minority from prev questions MH has answered and that there are womens golf Magazines available surly they do a similar list catering for Women readers  that would be the target audience of those publications?


----------



## Qwerty (Nov 28, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I know many low handicap women golfers who would fill your criteria and give a much more balanced opinion of a course than an 18 handicap male.
		
Click to expand...

 I'd imagine they'd be giving a totally different opinion. Regardless of their low Hcaps I would've thought that the lady Golfers on the panel would want to play from the Red tees as so to give other lady Golfers a ladies view/review of the course.



 location/position/elevation of the tees is huge, if the reds were taken into account on all contending courses  I can't help thinking the list would feel a little less defined and innaccurate on the whole, mostly due to no thought being put into where most Ladies tees were located when courses were designed all those years ago.

If people are looking for inclusion on the matter then you need two accurate credible lists IMO.


----------



## Crow (Nov 28, 2016)

The simplest solution would be to have a separate panel and to rate a Top 100 Courses from the ladies tees and perspective.


----------



## 2blue (Nov 28, 2016)

Crow said:



			The simplest solution would be to have a separate panel and to rate a Top 100 Courses from the ladies tees and perspective.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, Nick. Separate Panels... separate 100's...   seems the logical way for me


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 28, 2016)

It would have to be two separate lists 

I doubt very much that a male golfer would look to a review of a course from the red tees or from the female perspective of the course and vice versa most females won't look at a review from a male because they will see the course from a different set of tees. 

I think both GM and Karen have answered the questions very well


----------



## Siren (Nov 28, 2016)

Ill be honest I have flicked through the list but was upset to find what is usually a supplement a take little notice of taking up the majority of the magazine this month.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It would have to be two separate lists 

I doubt very much that a male golfer would look to a review of a course from the red tees or from the female perspective of the course and vice versa most females won't look at a review from a male because they will see the course from a different set of tees. 

I think both GM and Karen have answered the questions very well
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil. Although I don't go along with the separate lists idea. If a course is great for men but not women or vice versa then it's not as good as one that's great for both and I think it would be fantastic to see that reflected in the rankings. My concern is that without a critical mass of female reviewers such that all candidate courses were assessed from both perspectives there's a risk of skewing things. That could be mitigated by all reviewers considering both. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see the other side, especially if some common issues were highlighted as part of a review "checklist".


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 28, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Thanks Phil. Although I don't go along with the separate lists idea. If a course is great for men but not women or vice versa then it's not as good as one that's great for both and I think it would be fantastic to see that reflected in the rankings. My concern is that without a critical mass of female reviewers such that all candidate courses were assessed from both perspectives there's a risk of skewing things. That could be mitigated by all reviewers considering both. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see the other side, especially if some common issues were highlighted as part of a review "checklist".
		
Click to expand...

Apologies for putting you on "the spot" Karen, surely a prime example of the differences would be something like you encountered at Trump Aberdeen, with your ability you more than held your own playing off the same Tees as us, (actually won imo ) however you were very disappointed with the female facilities, therefore would it lose points in your opinion ?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 28, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Thanks Phil. Although I don't go along with the separate lists idea. If a course is great for men but not women or vice versa then it's not as good as one that's great for both and I think it would be fantastic to see that reflected in the rankings. My concern is that without a critical mass of female reviewers such that all candidate courses were assessed from both perspectives there's a risk of skewing things. That could be mitigated by all reviewers considering both. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see the other side, especially if some common issues were highlighted as part of a review "checklist".
		
Click to expand...

Kaz, just out of interest how many of the top 100 have you played and how many of them have you played off non-red tees?

I could understand if you had mainly played ones when your handicap was higher off the reds, but as it has come lower, have you played more off the yellows/whites and even blues?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 28, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Apologies for putting you on "the spot" Karen, surely a prime example of the differences would be something like you encountered at Trump Aberdeen, with your ability you more than held your own playing off the same Tees as us, (actually won imo ) however you were very disappointed with the female facilities, therefore would it lose points in your opinion ?
		
Click to expand...

I think that was a fairly minor issue, IIRC, just that the locker room was very small and there were quite a few women playing that day.

As far as the golf course went I think Trump was an example of really good practice. Three sets of tees had women's par and SSS, which is great, and although I didn't play from the reds I did think they generally seemed to have been sensibly placed to allow an option for shorter hitters but without unnecessarily ruining the character of the hole. That would gain it points in my book.

Great welcome as well from all the staff.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 28, 2016)

Whether it be a GM top 100 or TG or any other publication or online site, and they all seem to produce their own version, I think women golfers would be interested in a top 100 from their own perspective. However as Mike has said, and reiterated, the demographic doesn't seem that big, even though we are fortunate on here to have a number of lady members, most of whom are very very good in their own right. I guess there would be large discrepancies in the top 100 for both men and women and there is clearly a cost implication. There has to be something that works for the women golfers though although I think the onus is on Lady Golfer etc to take an interest and drive this


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 28, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Kaz, just out of interest how many of the top 100 have you played and how many of them have you played off non-red tees?

I could understand if you had mainly played ones when your handicap was higher off the reds, but as it has come lower, have you played more off the yellows/whites and even blues?
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the current list but have only played 22 of the previous top 100. I probably played most of those from the reds, partly because a fair few of those were in competitions.

Nowadays, in a bounce game, I decide based on a number of factors; length of the course, weather conditions, whether there's a women's SSS, who I'm playing with, do the red tee positions "ruin" any holes etc. But, yes, as I've improved I tend to play from further back - it costs a lot of money for some of these courses and you want to experience them at their best.

At Trump, for example, I decided the course was too short off the reds and was going to play the yellows but it was more sociable to play the same tees as my PPs and, after a good chat with the starter, decided the whites would be perfectly playable for me. The bonus was that there was a women's SSS from there so I was able to relate my score back to my handicap. Often there isn't so it's harder to form a view as to if my score was any good or not!

Sometimes I look at it and think the yellows or whites look like a bit of a slog for me and the reds are actually at a reasonable length so I stick with them. I think I did that at Birkdale when we played...?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			I'd imagine they'd be giving a totally different opinion. Regardless of their low Hcaps I would've thought that the lady Golfers on the panel would want to play from the Red tees as so to give other lady Golfers a ladies view/review of the course.



 location/position/elevation of the tees is huge, if the reds were taken into account on all contending courses  I can't help thinking the list would feel a little less defined and innaccurate on the whole, mostly due to no thought being put into where most Ladies tees were located when courses were designed all those years ago.

If people are looking for inclusion on the matter then you need two accurate credible lists IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Not really,
My four handicap daughter played the new Turnberry Ailsa from the mens middle tees a few months ago.
The group was made up with two low and one 12 handicap males.

Are you saying that the 12 handicapper male would have appraised the course better than the four handicap woman playing from the same tees.

BTW she said it was fab, inc clubhouse etc. 

OOI one of my friends played it a couple of months ago and had five 2's at the short holes.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 28, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			I haven't seen the current list but have only played 22 of the previous top 100. I probably played most of those from the reds, partly because a fair few of those were in competitions.

Nowadays, in a bounce game, I decide based on a number of factors; length of the course, weather conditions, whether there's a women's SSS, who I'm playing with, do the red tee positions "ruin" any holes etc. But, yes, as I've improved I tend to play from further back - it costs a lot of money for some of these courses and you want to experience them at their best.

At Trump, for example, I decided the course was too short off the reds and was going to play the yellows but it was more sociable to play the same tees as my PPs and, after a good chat with the starter, decided the whites would be perfectly playable for me. The bonus was that there was a women's SSS from there so I was able to relate my score back to my handicap. Often there isn't so it's harder to form a view as to if my score was any good or not!

Sometimes I look at it and think the yellows or whites look like a bit of a slog for me and the reds are actually at a reasonable length so I stick with them. I think I did that at Birkdale when we played...?
		
Click to expand...

I can see where your coming from. I think I'd be the same in bounce games, and would generally pick between yellows and whites, but would rarely pick the blues.

When the course just plays long for long's sake (e.g. 6,800+ off the yellows, to a par 70) it might seriously hamper my enjoyment, although when some courses have some holes turn from par 4's into par 5's, it can be an interesting option.

Trump was good for different tee options, although as someone pointed out, it probably added on 20-30 minutes on the round going to (and finding) the right ones.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 28, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			I can see where your coming from. I think I'd be the same in bounce games, and would generally pick between yellows and whites, but would rarely pick the blues.

When the course just plays long for long's sake (e.g. 6,800+ off the yellows, to a par 70) it might seriously hamper my enjoyment, although when some courses have some holes turn from par 4's into par 5's, it can be an interesting option.

Trump was good for different tee options, although as someone pointed out, it probably added on 20-30 minutes on the round going to (and finding) the right ones.
		
Click to expand...

It's basically "which tees will I enjoy playing off today?"


----------



## Qwerty (Nov 28, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Are you saying that the 12 handicapper male would have appraised the course better than the four handicap woman playing from the same tees.
		
Click to expand...

No,not at all.  What I was saying was.. As it stands the GM top 100 courses is a list based on play from the back tees, if women were introduced to the panel and wanted to play the same tees then fine.. But surely they'd want to play from the reds to make it a list for all which IMO would cause a few issues.

Edit - What I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that some highly rated courses are rubbish off the reds. 
That's why you need two lists..it might throw up a few surprises.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 28, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			It's basically "which tees will I enjoy playing off today?"
		
Click to expand...

Which is the correct answer.:thup:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			No,not at all.  What I was saying was.. As it stands the GM top 100 courses is a list based on play from the back tees, if women were introduced to the panel and wanted to play the same tees then fine.. But surely they'd want to play from the reds to make it a list for all which IMO would cause a few issues.

Edit - What I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that some highly rated courses are rubbish off the reds. 
That's why you need two lists..it might throw up a few surprises.
		
Click to expand...

Nearly all 18 handicappers would struggle to break 100 off the back tees on most of the courses listed.
I would not place any value on their revues.
IMO for the review to be taken seriously the handicap of the reviewers should be at least single figures.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			No,not at all.  What I was saying was.. As it stands the GM top 100 courses is a list based on play from the back tees, if women were introduced to the panel and wanted to play the same tees then fine.. But surely they'd want to play from the reds to make it a list for all which IMO would cause a few issues.

Edit - What I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that some highly rated courses are rubbish off the reds. 
That's why you need two lists..it might throw up a few surprises.
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes that works in reverse where good historical courses have been stretched to meet equipment improvements.
IMO they are better courses off the middle tees than the back.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Nearly all 18 handicappers would struggle to break 100 off the back tees on most of the courses listed.
I would not place any value on their revues.
IMO for the review to be taken seriously the handicap of the reviewers should be at least single figures.
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish and once again a perfect example of Golf snobbery and probably why GM have a variety of experiences on the panel. It's not The UK's Top 100 Courses for Single Figure Golfers, 
I would imagine many single figure golfers have also failed to break 100 off the back tees on some of those courses as well. 
I'd also imagine there is a massive difference in ability between a 9 handicapper and a 1 handicapper.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 29, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Rubbish and once again a perfect example of Golf snobbery and probably why GM have a variety of experiences on the panel. It's not The UK's Top 100 Courses for Single Figure Golfers, 
I would imagine many single figure golfers have also failed to break 100 off the back tees on some of those courses as well. 
I'd also imagine there is a massive difference in ability between a 9 handicapper and a 1 handicapper.
		
Click to expand...



depends on if they were TT players or not:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Val (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Nearly all 18 handicappers would struggle to break 100 off the back tees on most of the courses listed.
I would not place any value on their revues.
IMO for the review to be taken seriously *the handicap of the reviewers should be at least single figures*.
		
Click to expand...

Thats almost as good as the concept that a scratch golfer would be a good coach. Absolute nonsense.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

Val said:



			Thats almost as good as the concept that a scratch golfer would be a good coach. Absolute nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think an average 18 handicap golfer can be a better reviewer of a golf course than an average scratch player.

My gast has just been flabbered.


----------



## chico (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you seriously think an average 18 handicap golfer can be a better reviewer of a golf course than an average scratch player.

My gast has just been flabbered.

Click to expand...

Surely it depends who the review is for. The majority of golfers are not single figure handicap. It would be useful to know if the course could be enjoyable for say someone playing off 18.


----------



## JamesR (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you seriously think an average 18 handicap golfer can be a better reviewer of a golf course than an average scratch player.

My gast has just been flabbered.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, the scratch player got so good because he was practicing whilst the 18 'capper was at school. Thus the better written piece may come from the higher handicapper.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

JamesR said:



			Perhaps, the scratch player got so good because he was practicing whilst the 18 'capper was at school. Thus the better written piece may come from the higher handicapper.
		
Click to expand...

Not if he is writing well written nonsense :lol:


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you seriously think an average 18 handicap golfer can be a better reviewer of a golf course than an average scratch player.

My gast has just been flabbered.

Click to expand...

This average 18 handicapper has to have played 25 of the top 100, and meet other criteria set by Mike. Im sure his reviews would be fine. 
May be hes off 18 because he cant chip. That would not effect his reviews at all. May be he cant putt, or has mental issues. 18 doesnt mean you are rubbish at everything. May be no good with a medal card in hand. May be used to play off 5 and is now older, or injured. There is more to handicaps than generalities.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 29, 2016)

As the average handicap for male golfers is around 17 and fewer than 3% have single figure handicaps it is reasonable to, in fact, question the relevance of a review provided only by single figure players.

Also, as has been pointed out, the +3 player at our club is likely to have a very different judgement to a 9 handicap.

In any event all such reviews are subjective.


----------



## NWJocko (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you seriously think an average 18 handicap golfer can be a better reviewer of a golf course than an average scratch player.

My gast has just been flabbered.

Click to expand...

Don't see why not.

They aren't off 18 but all over 10 (I think, apologies if not) and I'd say Val, Odvan, LincolnQuaker, Birchy to name a few have played a lot more courses than me so have more experience to rate a course overall (in context of top 100) and I'm a 5 handicap (on paper  )

Not having the ability/consistency to hit the required shots doesn't mean you can't understand the shot being asked of you by the design/hole IMO.

Bit like the rules debate, why should a low handicapper have a better knowledge of the rules than an 18 handicapper?


----------



## 2blue (Nov 29, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			Don't see why not.

They aren't off 18 but all over 10 (I think, apologies if not) and I'd say Val, *Odvan, LincolnQuaker, Birchy to name a few have played a lot more courses than me so have more experience to rate a course overall (in context of top 100)* and I'm a 5 handicap (on paper  )

Not having the ability/consistency to hit the required shots doesn't mean you can't understand the shot being asked of you by the design/hole IMO.

Bit like the rules debate, why should a low handicapper have a better knowledge of the rules than an 18 handicapper?
		
Click to expand...

Oh yes....  with additional information on 'Strength of Beer' & 'Breakfast portion size' .......  again, nowt, tu dee with H/cap :rofl:


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 29, 2016)

2blue said:



			Oh yes....  with additional information on 'Strength of Beer' & 'Breakfast portion size' .......  again, nowt, tu dee with H/cap :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure LQ's reviews would include depth of rough and number of balls lost/found.


----------



## Val (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you seriously think an average 18 handicap golfer can be a better reviewer of a golf course than an average scratch player.

My gast has just been flabbered.

Click to expand...

Why not? Do you think all the best course architects in the world are low handicappers?

Would my 65 year old neighbour off 18 be a bad reviewer? He's an ex county champion and former 1 hc.


----------



## Robobum (Nov 29, 2016)

Mike H, can you reveal how many lesbian, gay and transsexual assessors are on the list. Pretty worthless list otherwise.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 29, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Mike H, can you reveal how many lesbian, gay and transsexual assessors are on the list. Pretty worthless list otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

one.... drive4show


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Mike H, can you reveal how many lesbian, gay and transsexual assessors are on the list. Pretty worthless list otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

Jings, one or two folk post that having a few women on the 50 male only list may add a bit of value to the conclusions, and you post this.

Normally you are a sensible poster so I hope that was a failed joke.


----------



## Robobum (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Jings, one or two folk post that having a few women on the 50 male only list may add a bit of value to the conclusions, and you post this.

Normally you are a sensible poster so I hope that was a failed joke.

Click to expand...

Oops, my error- I try to avoid posting anything sensible so please ignore previous posts.

This one stands though as it's as petty as arguing over who is best to review a golf course&#128077;


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 29, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Mike H, can you reveal how many lesbian, gay and transsexual assessors are on the list. Pretty worthless list otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

A good point, robobum, and I agree with you that increased diversity in all walks of life can only be a good thing. :thup:

Not sure the top 100 rankings is the place to start, however. Sexuality and gender identity don't really have too much relevance to golfing expertise other than that lesbians tend to be better golfers of course!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			A good point, robobum, and I agree with you that increased diversity in all walks of life can only be a good thing. :thup:

Not sure the top 100 rankings is the place to start, however. Sexuality and gender identity don't really have too much relevance to golfing expertise other than that lesbians tend to be better golfers of course!
		
Click to expand...

Classic:lol:

Perhaps the way forward is to call it 'The UK's 100 Top Rated Courses As Appraised By Average Middle Aged Men'.
[TUK100TRCAABAMAM for short]


----------



## JezzE (Nov 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Classic:lol:

Perhaps the way forward is to call it 'The UK's 100 Top Rated Courses As Appraised By Average Middle Aged Men'.
[TUK100TRCAABAMAM for short]

Click to expand...

I take objection to being described as an average middle-aged man, but I guess off 6 I would probably meet your new stringent panel criteria anyway...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2016)

JezzE said:



			I take objection to being described as an average middle-aged man, but I guess off 6 I would probably meet your new stringent panel criteria anyway... 

Click to expand...

You'll do, now just get a few women on board............ please.


----------



## Robobum (Nov 29, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			?........lesbians tend to be better golfers of course!
		
Click to expand...

Goes without saying


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 29, 2016)

I've danced around this a bit but it seems there are a couple of things, more "talking points" than "issues", that are getting a bit conflated. So here's my take, for what it's worth. 

It's a great feature, no doubt about that. I haven't read GM for a few months but I'll be buying this issue to read the top 100 courses feature. (Incidentally I've been looking the last few days but haven't seen it - is it out yet?) I particularly like that there is a panel that includes "ordinary" golfers contributing to the rankings rather than golf industry professionals/journalists divvying it up.

If it was simply a ranking of the best courses based on how they play from the white tees and no other considerations that would be a perfectly valid and interesting article in its own right, but I think it's about more than that; the welcome at the clubhouse, the facilities, the course layout and condition etc. The deliberate spread of abilities in the panel suggests an attempt to get a balanced rating for the experience across different levels of golfer. All good stuff.

On the gender side of things, I think there are two different factors; does the experience a course provides for female golfers (if it differs) affect its overall rating and are women part of the panel? In my opinion the former is more important, although it is probably easier to assess if the latter is in place.

I believe courses that offer a frosty welcome to female visitors should be marked down on that basis. Those that have well laid out and appropriately positioned red tees should score higher than those that have just dumped them at the start of each fairway without any thought for maintaining the character of the hole. Even better, those courses that have two or (even better) three sets of tees rated for women should be credited for such good practice.

The reason there aren't currently any female panelists has already been spelled out and is hard to argue with but I'm sure the course raters are already asked to consider how the course might play for better/worse players than themselves? It would be an easy matter to add a few things such as the above to consider.

I realise GM isn't about crusading to right any perceived inequities in golf and that it needs to primarily appeal to its largely male readership but factoring this into the ratings would make them even more useful for women and might even encourage a few courses to put a bit more thought into their offering for female golfers. I genuinely think in most instances there isn't deliberate discrimination going on, just the failure to step back and think things through from a different perspective or to realise women play golf at a wide range of levels rather than catering just for the shorter hitters.

I don't want to go naming and shaming courses any more than I've already done on the thread but there are some courses out there getting it so right and others that are miles behind the times, and it's not always the ones you expect in each regard. I think that should be recognised and shaking up the GM top 100 would be one way to do  it.


----------



## Bazzatron (Nov 29, 2016)

The mag was out last Thursday FD.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 29, 2016)

Bazzatron said:



			The mag was out last Thursday FD.
		
Click to expand...

Bugger must be sold out in the places I looked!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 29, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			I've danced around this a bit but it seems there are a couple of things, more "talking points" than "issues", that are getting a bit conflated. So here's my take, for what it's worth. 

It's a great feature, no doubt about that. I haven't read GM for a few months but I'll be buying this issue to read the top 100 courses feature. (Incidentally I've been looking the last few days but haven't seen it - is it out yet?) I particularly like that there is a panel that includes "ordinary" golfers contributing to the rankings rather than golf industry professionals/journalists divvying it up.

If it was simply a ranking of the best courses based on how they play from the white tees and no other considerations that would be a perfectly valid and interesting article in its own right, but I think it's about more than that; the welcome at the clubhouse, the facilities, the course layout and condition etc. The deliberate spread of abilities in the panel suggests an attempt to get a balanced rating for the experience across different levels of golfer. All good stuff.

On the gender side of things, I think there are two different factors; does the experience a course provides for female golfers (if it differs) affect its overall rating and are women part of the panel? In my opinion the former is more important, although it is probably easier to assess if the latter is in place.

I believe courses that offer a frosty welcome to female visitors should be marked down on that basis. Those that have well laid out and appropriately positioned red tees should score higher than those that have just dumped them at the start of each fairway without any thought for maintaining the character of the hole. Even better, those courses that have two or (even better) three sets of tees rated for women should be credited for such good practice.

The reason there aren't currently any female panelists has already been spelled out and is hard to argue with but I'm sure the course raters are already asked to consider how the course might play for better/worse players than themselves? It would be an easy matter to add a few things such as the above to consider.

I realise GM isn't about crusading to right any perceived inequities in golf and that it needs to primarily appeal to its largely male readership but factoring this into the ratings would make them even more useful for women and might even encourage a few courses to put a bit more thought into their offering for female golfers. I genuinely think in most instances there isn't deliberate discrimination going on, just the failure to step back and think things through from a different perspective or to realise women play golf at a wide range of levels rather than catering just for the shorter hitters.

I don't want to go naming and shaming courses any more than I've already done on the thread but there are some courses out there getting it so right and others that are miles behind the times, and it's not always the ones you expect in each regard. I think that should be recognised and shaking up the GM top 100 would be one way to do  it.
		
Click to expand...

A wonderful post and some magnificent points eloquently put. I understand GM isn't going to crusade too strongly (and there is Lady Golfer and other online sites that do cater specifically for the female golfer). It would be interesting to see what differences the welcome, course layout etc would make to some course positions. That aside, a well constructed reply


----------



## Duckster (Nov 29, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Bugger must be sold out in the places I looked! 

Click to expand...

Possibly not, it's not been in my local Tesco at all yet (100 yards away). Not spotted it at any of the places I can stop at to get my morning paper. Only managed to pick up a copy in th'asda yesterday


----------



## MikeH (Nov 30, 2016)

A few more observations on this debateâ€¦

I'm ONLY interested in producing the most authoritative set of top 100 course rankings we can, so the ONLY things that matter when recruiting a panelist is their ability to assess a golf course working to the criteria and assessment guidelines we issue to them

Inclusion of female panelists
Applications to join the panel are invited from all golfers regardless of age and gender providing they fit our basic requirements.

As I say in my 10 years as editor â€“ I have overseen every ranking since the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] iteration â€“ we have not had a single application from a female golfer. I donâ€™t know why but we havenâ€™t. This despite calls to action in the magazine and on the forum

I think the clamor by a small but vocal minority of forum users for us to is misplaced and driven by an agenda that wants to promote this notion of 'inclusivity' even if it's at the expense of quality. 

To have a female golfer on the panel, just because they are female is, in my book, tokenism. Something I donâ€™t subscribe to.

I donâ€™t believe in social engineering, positive discrimination, ticking quota boxes or whatever you want to call it. I believe in merit and quality.

I donâ€™t think I should be 'reaching out' to any person or group to be part of the panel. Any forumer who knows a female golfer who fits our basic criteria and would be a good addition should encourage them to apply

They key thing is that the prospective panelists should be motivated by a desire to be part of the process and a love for golf courses. 

We get lots of speculative applications to join the panel and Iâ€™d say we politely decline 80% of them as they just donâ€™t fit the bill. 

Playing handicaps of panel
We have a fairly wide range of handicaps represented in our panels because our rankings are designed to be relevant to our readership and the green fee paying golfer.

That said we are prepared to look at exceptions to the rule and actually have one golfer whose current handicap is 22 (I might add he is 73 years of age and in younger years played to lower than 18 handicap) however when he applied we discovered that not only had huge experience and an extensive golfing CV having played the majority of top 100/next 100 courses and wrote an absolutely superb sample review. 

Make up of panel
We donâ€™t include pros, elite amateurs and 'industry figures/personalities' (Alliss, Peter Dawson, Ewan Murray, Ant and Dec, Anton Du Beke, Gareth Pace of Hale and Pace â€˜fameâ€™ etc etc) as they aren't typical of the Golf Monthly reader/green fee-paying golfer.


Age of panelists
The reason the average age of panel is around 50 is because we need experienced golfers who have played enough courses to be able to benchmark with a degree of authority â€“ i.e. what are the merits of contender course A vs. contender course B, what courses do you think contender course C is equal to, which section of the top 100 â€“ 1-20-21-40 etc etc do you think course D should be ranked. To be able to do that you HAVE to have played a good number of courses

And, with age comes experience. To have played a significant number of courses usually takes time hence why a lot of the panel are â€˜olderâ€™

That said we have one panelist â€“ Tim Gallant who despite being just 30, he joined the panel 4 years ago â€“is a total golf nut and has played over 35 of the top 100 already plus numerous next 100 courses and around 50 of the top courses in the US.

Also because of the expectations we have in terms of the number of assessments that a panelists will carry out â€“ at least 20 in an 18 month period, having the time to be able to dedicate to this means you need spare time. Again this is tends to older golfer with fewer work or family commitments.


Impact of how you played/weather on the day
If you canâ€™t divorce how you have played on any given day (or the weather you played in) from submitting an objective assessment then quite frankly you arenâ€™t cut out for the task in hand. Nowhere on the assessment form do we ask how a golfer played. Itâ€™s irrelevant.


----------



## JamesR (Nov 30, 2016)

Out of interest Mike, how do you choose which courses should move into the top 200, which may never have been considered before?
If, for example, a course is trying to improve and has invested to do so, do you or any of the panel visit it specifically because of hearing about it, or do the reviewers just go to various courses throughout the land, without the aim of reviewing it, and just write a piece about each course played?

What I mean is, is none of you have had any cause to visit a course (competition, invitation etc) how would it get your attention so as to be rated?


----------



## MikeH (Nov 30, 2016)

JamesR said:



			Out of interest Mike, how do you choose which courses should move into the top 200, which may never have been considered before?
If, for example, a course is trying to improve and has invested to do so, do you or any of the panel visit it specifically because of hearing about it, or do the reviewers just go to various courses throughout the land, without the aim of reviewing it, and just write a piece about each course played?

What I mean is, is none of you have had any cause to visit a course (competition, invitation etc) how would it get your attention so as to be rated?
		
Click to expand...

good question! the answer is there isn't one standard route

Jezz Ellwood and Rob Smith play a vast number of courses each year - a lot of them non top 100 - for their golfer's guide feature in the mag and also for online course reviews which throws the net well outside the top100/next 100 

Our assessors do the same and we ask them to flag courses they have played which they think merit closer inspection.

We also look at other lists in other mags/websites, chat to secretaries and county unions and crucially chat to golfers when we are out an about to get word of mouth recommendations on where we should visit. 

Often we will have visited those courses already - Rob has played 900 courses and Jezz 750, me 450 and a number of the reader panel similar numbers - and have an opinion but if not then we will certainly try and put them on our hit list

Hope that answers the question. Hopefully we'll get more of the same on December the 7th when we do our top100 live Q&A on the forum (looking at 12-1) and also a Facebook live after that

we are always keen show our working on course rankings so the more questions the better


----------



## JamesR (Nov 30, 2016)

MikeH said:



			good question! the answer is there isn't one standard route

Jezz Ellwood and Rob Smith play a vast number of courses each year - a lot of them non top 100 - for their golfer's guide feature in the mag and also for online course reviews which throws the net well outside the top100/next 100 

Our assessors do the same and we ask them to flag courses they have played which they think merit closer inspection.

We also look at other lists in other mags/websites, chat to secretaries and county unions and crucially chat to golfers when we are out an about to get word of mouth recommendations on where we should visit. 

Often we will have visited those courses already - Rob has played 900 courses and Jezz 750, me 450 and a number of the reader panel similar numbers - and have an opinion but if not then we will certainly try and put them on our hit list

Hope that answers the question. *Hopefully we'll get more of the same on December the 7th when we do our top100 live Q&A on the forum* (looking at 12-1) and also a Facebook live after that

we are always keen show our working on course rankings so the more questions the better
		
Click to expand...

Cheers Mike, I'll save the rest of the Q's up for the 7th (sorry I forgot about the Q&A)


----------



## Simbo (Nov 30, 2016)

MikeH said:



			A few more observations on this debateâ€¦

I'm ONLY interested in producing the most authoritative set of top 100 course rankings we can, so the ONLY things that matter when recruiting a panelist is their ability to assess a golf course working to the criteria and assessment guidelines we issue to them

Inclusion of female panelists
Applications to join the panel are invited from all golfers regardless of age and gender providing they fit our basic requirements.

As I say in my 10 years as editor â€“ I have overseen every ranking since the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] iteration â€“ we have not had a single application from a female golfer. I donâ€™t know why but we havenâ€™t. This despite calls to action in the magazine and on the forum

I think the clamor by a small but vocal minority of forum users for us to is misplaced and driven by an agenda that wants to promote this notion of 'inclusivity' even if it's at the expense of quality. 

To have a female golfer on the panel, just because they are female is, in my book, tokenism. Something I donâ€™t subscribe to.

I donâ€™t believe in social engineering, positive discrimination, ticking quota boxes or whatever you want to call it. I believe in merit and quality.

I donâ€™t think I should be 'reaching out' to any person or group to be part of the panel. Any forumer who knows a female golfer who fits our basic criteria and would be a good addition should encourage them to apply

They key thing is that the prospective panelists should be motivated by a desire to be part of the process and a love for golf courses. 

We get lots of speculative applications to join the panel and Iâ€™d say we politely decline 80% of them as they just donâ€™t fit the bill. 

Playing handicaps of panel
We have a fairly wide range of handicaps represented in our panels because our rankings are designed to be relevant to our readership and the green fee paying golfer.

That said we are prepared to look at exceptions to the rule and actually have one golfer whose current handicap is 22 (I might add he is 73 years of age and in younger years played to lower than 18 handicap) however when he applied we discovered that not only had huge experience and an extensive golfing CV having played the majority of top 100/next 100 courses and wrote an absolutely superb sample review. 

Make up of panel
We donâ€™t include pros, elite amateurs and 'industry figures/personalities' (Alliss, Peter Dawson, Ewan Murray, Ant and Dec, Anton Du Beke, Gareth Pace of Hale and Pace â€˜fameâ€™ etc etc) as they aren't typical of the Golf Monthly reader/green fee-paying golfer.


Age of panelists
The reason the average age of panel is around 50 is because we need experienced golfers who have played enough courses to be able to benchmark with a degree of authority â€“ i.e. what are the merits of contender course A vs. contender course B, what courses do you think contender course C is equal to, which section of the top 100 â€“ 1-20-21-40 etc etc do you think course D should be ranked. To be able to do that you HAVE to have played a good number of courses

And, with age comes experience. To have played a significant number of courses usually takes time hence why a lot of the panel are â€˜olderâ€™

That said we have one panelist â€“ Tim Gallant who despite being just 30, he joined the panel 4 years ago â€“is a total golf nut and has played over 35 of the top 100 already plus numerous next 100 courses and around 50 of the top courses in the US.

Also because of the expectations we have in terms of the number of assessments that a panelists will carry out â€“ at least 20 in an 18 month period, having the time to be able to dedicate to this means you need spare time. Again this is tends to older golfer with fewer work or family commitments.


Impact of how you played/weather on the day
If you canâ€™t divorce how you have played on any given day (or the weather you played in) from submitting an objective assessment then quite frankly you arenâ€™t cut out for the task in hand. Nowhere on the assessment form do we ask how a golfer played. Itâ€™s irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent post fellaðŸ‘


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 30, 2016)

MikeH said:



			A few more observations on this debateâ€¦

I'm ONLY interested in producing the most authoritative set of top 100 course rankings we can, so the ONLY things that matter when recruiting a panelist is their ability to assess a golf course working to the criteria and assessment guidelines we issue to them

Inclusion of female panelists
Applications to join the panel are invited from all golfers regardless of age and gender providing they fit our basic requirements.

As I say in my 10 years as editor â€“ I have overseen every ranking since the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] iteration â€“ we have not had a single application from a female golfer. I donâ€™t know why but we havenâ€™t. This despite calls to action in the magazine and on the forum

I think the clamor by a small but vocal minority of forum users for us to is misplaced and driven by an agenda that wants to promote this notion of 'inclusivity' even if it's at the expense of quality. 

To have a female golfer on the panel, just because they are female is, in my book, tokenism. Something I donâ€™t subscribe to.

I donâ€™t believe in social engineering, positive discrimination, ticking quota boxes or whatever you want to call it. I believe in merit and quality.

I donâ€™t think I should be 'reaching out' to any person or group to be part of the panel. Any forumer who knows a female golfer who fits our basic criteria and would be a good addition should encourage them to apply

They key thing is that the prospective panelists should be motivated by a desire to be part of the process and a love for golf courses. 

We get lots of speculative applications to join the panel and Iâ€™d say we politely decline 80% of them as they just donâ€™t fit the bill. 

Playing handicaps of panel
We have a fairly wide range of handicaps represented in our panels because our rankings are designed to be relevant to our readership and the green fee paying golfer.

That said we are prepared to look at exceptions to the rule and actually have one golfer whose current handicap is 22 (I might add he is 73 years of age and in younger years played to lower than 18 handicap) however when he applied we discovered that not only had huge experience and an extensive golfing CV having played the majority of top 100/next 100 courses and wrote an absolutely superb sample review. 

Make up of panel
We donâ€™t include pros, elite amateurs and 'industry figures/personalities' (Alliss, Peter Dawson, Ewan Murray, Ant and Dec, Anton Du Beke, Gareth Pace of Hale and Pace â€˜fameâ€™ etc etc) as they aren't typical of the Golf Monthly reader/green fee-paying golfer.


Age of panelists
The reason the average age of panel is around 50 is because we need experienced golfers who have played enough courses to be able to benchmark with a degree of authority â€“ i.e. what are the merits of contender course A vs. contender course B, what courses do you think contender course C is equal to, which section of the top 100 â€“ 1-20-21-40 etc etc do you think course D should be ranked. To be able to do that you HAVE to have played a good number of courses

And, with age comes experience. To have played a significant number of courses usually takes time hence why a lot of the panel are â€˜olderâ€™

That said we have one panelist â€“ Tim Gallant who despite being just 30, he joined the panel 4 years ago â€“is a total golf nut and has played over 35 of the top 100 already plus numerous next 100 courses and around 50 of the top courses in the US.

Also because of the expectations we have in terms of the number of assessments that a panelists will carry out â€“ at least 20 in an 18 month period, having the time to be able to dedicate to this means you need spare time. Again this is tends to older golfer with fewer work or family commitments.


Impact of how you played/weather on the day
If you canâ€™t divorce how you have played on any given day (or the weather you played in) from submitting an objective assessment then quite frankly you arenâ€™t cut out for the task in hand. Nowhere on the assessment form do we ask how a golfer played. Itâ€™s irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Might clear post. 

Also so good to see an honest response to why people may or may not be on the panel. Think it's only fair you stay true to the readership. 

Cant appeal to the masses and then succumb to the minority's for a few brownie points.


----------



## 2blue (Dec 1, 2016)

MikeH said:



			A few more observations on this debateâ€¦

I'm ONLY interested in producing the most authoritative set of top 100 course rankings we can, so the ONLY things that matter when recruiting a panelist is their ability to assess a golf course working to the criteria and assessment guidelines we issue to them

Inclusion of female panelists
Applications to join the panel are invited from all golfers regardless of age and gender providing they fit our basic requirements.

As I say in my 10 years as editor â€“ I have overseen every ranking since the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] iteration â€“ we have not had a single application from a female golfer. I donâ€™t know why but we havenâ€™t. This despite calls to action in the magazine and on the forum

I think the clamor by a small but vocal minority of forum users for us to is misplaced and driven by an agenda that wants to promote this notion of 'inclusivity' even if it's at the expense of quality. 

To have a female golfer on the panel, just because they are female is, in my book, tokenism. Something I donâ€™t subscribe to.

I donâ€™t believe in social engineering, positive discrimination, ticking quota boxes or whatever you want to call it. I believe in merit and quality.

I donâ€™t think I should be 'reaching out' to any person or group to be part of the panel. Any forumer who knows a female golfer who fits our basic criteria and would be a good addition should encourage them to apply

They key thing is that the prospective panelists should be motivated by a desire to be part of the process and a love for golf courses. 

We get lots of speculative applications to join the panel and Iâ€™d say we politely decline 80% of them as they just donâ€™t fit the bill. 

Playing handicaps of panel
We have a fairly wide range of handicaps represented in our panels because our rankings are designed to be relevant to our readership and the green fee paying golfer.

That said we are prepared to look at exceptions to the rule and actually have one golfer whose current handicap is 22 (I might add he is 73 years of age and in younger years played to lower than 18 handicap) however when he applied we discovered that not only had huge experience and an extensive golfing CV having played the majority of top 100/next 100 courses and wrote an absolutely superb sample review. 

Make up of panel
We donâ€™t include pros, elite amateurs and 'industry figures/personalities' (Alliss, Peter Dawson, Ewan Murray, Ant and Dec, Anton Du Beke, Gareth Pace of Hale and Pace â€˜fameâ€™ etc etc) as they aren't typical of the Golf Monthly reader/green fee-paying golfer.


Age of panelists
The reason the average age of panel is around 50 is because we need experienced golfers who have played enough courses to be able to benchmark with a degree of authority â€“ i.e. what are the merits of contender course A vs. contender course B, what courses do you think contender course C is equal to, which section of the top 100 â€“ 1-20-21-40 etc etc do you think course D should be ranked. To be able to do that you HAVE to have played a good number of courses

And, with age comes experience. To have played a significant number of courses usually takes time hence why a lot of the panel are â€˜olderâ€™

That said we have one panelist â€“ Tim Gallant who despite being just 30, he joined the panel 4 years ago â€“is a total golf nut and has played over 35 of the top 100 already plus numerous next 100 courses and around 50 of the top courses in the US.

Also because of the expectations we have in terms of the number of assessments that a panelists will carry out â€“ at least 20 in an 18 month period, having the time to be able to dedicate to this means you need spare time. Again this is tends to older golfer with fewer work or family commitments.


Impact of how you played/weather on the day
If you canâ€™t divorce how you have played on any given day (or the weather you played in) from submitting an objective assessment then quite frankly you arenâ€™t cut out for the task in hand. Nowhere on the assessment form do we ask how a golfer played. Itâ€™s irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

But for this Forum & its members I'd be driven mad through being unable to share such diverse golfing experiences with fellow golfers. Mention such to the golfers at my place & they ask "What's the point?"......  "Do mountaineers keep climbing the same mountain?" I've found to be a good response ne:
It's been great following the debate on this & superb that you engage so frankly Mike... in a day & age when so many other journalistic forms are at 'gutter-level'.


----------



## 2blue (Dec 1, 2016)

Val said:



			Why not? Do you think all the best course architects in the world are low handicappers?

Would my 65 year old neighbour off 18 be a bad reviewer? He's an ex county champion and former 1 hc.
		
Click to expand...

Yee Gods...  need to keep clear of him. 
I'm 69 in a couple of weeks, got lowest ever, & buffered, this year at 9.7 & still striving for single figures before I'm 70......  has yer neighbour lost a limb or something? 
PS. Your safe Mike.....  I struggle to remember one hole from the next so would make a crap reviewer......  on the other hand I've just, finally,  completed compiling my full list of courses played...  just past the 200 mark....  & "Yes" I do, at least, remember where I've played :rofl:


----------



## peterlav (Dec 5, 2016)

Apologies for asking a question before Q&A session
I'm lucky enough to be a member of S&A, which has recently been voted as Golf Club of The Year, does this automatically lead to a climb up the charts?
Also construction of a halfway house is starting next month, are things like this considered when coming up with rankings?


----------



## MendieGK (Dec 5, 2016)

peterlav said:



			Apologies for asking a question before Q&A session
I'm lucky enough to be a member of S&A, which has recently been voted as Golf Club of The Year, does this automatically lead to a climb up the charts?
Also construction of a halfway house is starting next month, are things like this considered when coming up with rankings?
		
Click to expand...

fancy signing 3 top 100 golf course chasers in one day next year? &#128516;

Id happily reciprocate at Burnham & Berrow (ranked 31st) if every YOU fancied a trip down!


----------



## huds1475 (Dec 5, 2016)

Wow. A lot of hot air being expelled in here.

It's just a list.
Based on some people's personal opinion.
Other people.might have different opinions.
You are free to make up your own list.
Or make up your own mind.

Why moan about the people who make up the list? Or moan when people moan about your list?

In the grand scheme of things, it's not very significant.


----------



## peterlav (Dec 5, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			fancy signing 3 top 100 golf course chasers in one day next year? &#128516;

Id happily reciprocate at Burnham & Berrow (ranked 31st) if every YOU fancied a trip down!
		
Click to expand...

No worries mate, let me know when you're thinking


----------



## MikeH (Dec 6, 2016)

peterlav said:



			Apologies for asking a question before Q&A session
I'm lucky enough to be a member of S&A, which has recently been voted as Golf Club of The Year, does this automatically lead to a climb up the charts?
Also construction of a halfway house is starting next month, are things like this considered when coming up with rankings?
		
Click to expand...

Hi Peter
we wouldn't take any third party awards into account per se although we do take an interest in things like that
yes halfway huts and indeed all catering and other facilities are taken into account under the experience criteria


----------



## bigslice (Dec 22, 2016)

Finally found time to buy the mag and went straight to the top 100. I dont play many away course i could count this years on my middle finger. I understand the process set out by the mag but theres defo a flaw somewhere. I cant quite put my finger on it but here goes. Ive not got mag to hand so bare with me. I joined Machrihanish Dunes this season after a lot of tooing and swaying. Old mach or dunes mmmm. Finally decided on dunes . Ive played both many times and enjoyed both equally.
 But come on The Dunes only mentioned in next 100. Ure having a laugh. 
My review is based on condition and maintenance of course as both course are very similar.
The condition of old mach and its lack of control or possible apathy over the last two three years made my choice very easy. I know a new person was brought in and have heard bits here n there. BUT yes a big BUT Machrihanish Dunes is miles ahead in condition by a country mile. Ive played it the last few sundays and unwould never know it was winter. ( well apart from the wind)  ok there are other factors for making the top 100. But im just amazed it never made the top 100. 
Holes 15 and 16 are brilliant holes in run up to the last two card wreckers of 17 and 18.
How did u play 17 and 18 Jezz cos ive no clue. 17 i play like a drive a wee wedge to edge of hill then wedge again. 18 if u dont make the cliff uve no chance of getting over them. I wud happily take a 5 all day. 
My wee rant isnt biased as i carefully picked which of the two to join. 
Anyway Jezz if u say u got 5 and 5 at 17 and 18i believe u.


----------



## Jacko_G (Dec 22, 2016)

Having played both courses I do find it bizarre to say the least that GM seem to see over 50 places between the two courses. Machrihanish Dunes has improved every time I've returned to play it. 

Machrihanish on the other hand has stagnated over the last few years. Hopefully now it's on the right track but it'll take time to get it back to where it once was. 

I'd be interested to know what the review/report was on Machrihanish Dunes and why it failed to get into the top 100 when (my opinion) there are a good few lesser courses in that list.

Also when you hear others rating it so highly it's a strange omission. 

http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2016/12/07/played-ncg/


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 23, 2016)

bigslice said:



			Finally found time to buy the mag and went straight to the top 100. I dont play many away course i could count this years on my middle finger. I understand the process set out by the mag but theres defo a flaw somewhere. I cant quite put my finger on it but here goes. Ive not got mag to hand so bare with me. I joined Machrihanish Dunes this season after a lot of tooing and swaying. Old mach or dunes mmmm. Finally decided on dunes . Ive played both many times and enjoyed both equally.
 But come on The Dunes only mentioned in next 100. Ure having a laugh. 
*My review is based on condition and maintenance of course as both course are very similar.*
The condition of old mach and its lack of control or possible apathy over the last two three years made my choice very easy. I know a new person was brought in and have heard bits here n there. BUT yes a big BUT Machrihanish Dunes is miles ahead in condition by a country mile. Ive played it the last few sundays and unwould never know it was winter. ( well apart from the wind)  ok there are other factors for making the top 100. But im just amazed it never made the top 100. 
Holes 15 and 16 are brilliant holes in run up to the last two card wreckers of 17 and 18.
How did u play 17 and 18 Jezz cos ive no clue.* 17 i play like a drive a wee wedge to edge of hill then wedge again. 18 if u dont make the cliff uve no chance of getting over them*. I wud happily take a 5 all day. 
My wee rant isnt biased as i carefully picked which of the two to join. 
Anyway Jezz if u say u got 5 and 5 at 17 and 18i believe u.
		
Click to expand...

When a course is reviewed, it is awarded a mark out of 100. This consists of 35 marks for strategy and design and 30 marks for condition and presentation. I've not played the Dunes before but the 2 bits I've highlighted above are relevant. Firstly, no course is going to make the top 100 just by being in good condition as it is only 30% of the available marks. Secondly, based on your comments about the closing holes (like I say, never played the course) it doesn't sound to me like they are particularly well designed holes?



Jacko_G said:



			Having played both courses I do find it bizarre to say the least that GM seem to see over 50 places between the two courses. Machrihanish Dunes has improved every time I've returned to play it. 

Machrihanish on the other hand has stagnated over the last few years. Hopefully now it's on the right track but it'll take time to get it back to where it once was. 

I'd be interested to know what the review/report was on Machrihanish Dunes and why it failed to get into the top 100 when *(my opinion)* there are a good few lesser courses in that list.

Also when you hear others rating it so highly it's a strange omission. 

http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2016/12/07/played-ncg/

Click to expand...

As always, these lists are very subjective. A personal favourite of mine (and also one of the other reviewers) has only just got into the top 100 in this latest ranking.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 23, 2016)

Considering the geographic location of machrihanish it seems almost certain that any reviewers will play both courses either the same day or on consecutive days so they must be getting reviewed quite consistently and in direct comparison to each other.

Personally I loved both but I played the dunes when it was suffering a bit after that bad winter. Really hope to get back over there soon.


----------



## stokie_93 (Dec 23, 2016)

Can someone please explain how you pronounce Machrihanish?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 23, 2016)

stokie_93 said:



			Can someone please explain how you pronounce Machrihanish? 

Click to expand...

Sorry......need to know basis only   :ears:


----------



## stokie_93 (Dec 23, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Sorry......need to know basis only   :ears:  

Click to expand...


I'm gonna say Mac-Ree-Hay-Nish?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 23, 2016)

stokie_93 said:



			I'm gonna say Mac-Ree-Hay-Nish?
		
Click to expand...

Close!

Ha not hay


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 23, 2016)

stokie_93 said:



			I'm gonna say Mac-Ree-Hay-Nish?
		
Click to expand...

Excellent attempt for a non Scot!

Mach - Rah - Han - Ish   :thup:


----------



## bigslice (Dec 23, 2016)

drive4show said:



			When a course is reviewed, it is awarded a mark out of 100. This consists of 35 marks for strategy and design and 30 marks for condition and presentation. I've not played the Dunes before but the 2 bits I've highlighted above are relevant. Firstly, no course is going to make the top 100 just by being in good condition as it is only 30% of the available marks. Secondly, based on your comments about the closing holes (like I say, never played the course) it doesn't sound to me like they are particularly well designed holes?



As always, these lists are very subjective. A personal favourite of mine (and also one of the other reviewers) has only just got into the top 100 in this latest ranking.
		
Click to expand...

Ive said i understand the process at gm towers. But from my house its 180 miles driving to get there and 180 back. Im saying that i carefully picked which one to join. The plan is to join both but old mach is at least two seasons away for that. 
If i was to give marks out if ten . Dunes gets 10 old mach 6. 
The last two holes u need to think how to play them, i cant unfortuantely but was interested in how Jezz attacked them. 
Ps its a 12 hour day trip but defo worth it


----------



## bigslice (Dec 23, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Considering the geographic location of machrihanish it seems almost certain that any reviewers will play both courses either the same day or on consecutive days so they must be getting reviewed quite consistently and in direct comparison to each other.

Personally I loved both but I played the dunes when it was suffering a bit after that bad winter. Really hope to get back over there soon.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if the last time u played i was there, but its in good nick right now. Last sunday the bay looked like the set of "point break"


----------



## stokie_93 (Dec 23, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Excellent attempt for a non Scot!

Mach - Rah - Han - Ish   :thup:
		
Click to expand...

.

Very proud of my effort!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 23, 2016)

bigslice said:



			Not sure if the last time u played i was there, but its in good nick right now. Last sunday the bay looked like the set of "point break"
		
Click to expand...

Yes I haven't been back since then. 

Must admit it's more the dunes that I tell friends about than the old course and that's the one I'm most looking forward to playing again. I just loved the wildness of it and the way you can hardly ever see any golf course other than the hole you are playing.


----------



## Jacko_G (Dec 23, 2016)

drive4show said:



			When a course is reviewed, it is awarded a mark out of 100. This consists of 35 marks for strategy and design and 30 marks for condition and presentation. I've not played the Dunes before but the 2 bits I've highlighted above are relevant. Firstly, no course is going to make the top 100 just by being in good condition as it is only 30% of the available marks. Secondly, based on your comments about the closing holes (like I say, never played the course) it doesn't sound to me like they are particularly well designed holes?



As always, these lists are very subjective. A personal favourite of mine (and also one of the other reviewers) has only just got into the top 100 in this latest ranking.
		
Click to expand...

Well if you have not played them or done your research into the place you should refrain from making sweeping statements that can't be further from the truth.

I believe big slice is asking how the reviewer personally played or plotted the last few holes. 

I know how to play them and have my strategy depending on wind etc.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 23, 2016)

Jacko_G said:



			Well if you have not played them or done your research into the place you should refrain from making sweeping statements that can't be further from the truth.

I believe big slice is asking how the reviewer personally played or plotted the last few holes. 

I know how to play them and have my strategy depending on wind etc.
		
Click to expand...

Not a clue what you are talking about here. All I was doing was explaining how the review process works and how/why a course would or would not get into the top 100. As for how the reviewers (plural, there would have been more than 1 of them) played the final holes I have no idea, I was just questioning that the strategy required to play them doesn't make them sound very well designed. If that is the case it would help to explain why the course isn't in the top 100. Such is the strength of courses in GB&I that a top 100 course cannot afford to have too many weaker holes or it won't get in.


----------



## Val (Dec 23, 2016)

The finish of the Dunes is head and shoulders above the finish at Machrihanish. The opening holes also better at the Dunes. For me there is not much between them through the meat of the course and although saying that my preference is still Machrihanish but both very good and I don't understand why they are so far apart in the ratings hence why I asked the question on the FB live Q&A


----------



## Jacko_G (Dec 23, 2016)

Val said:



			The finish of the Dunes is head and shoulders above the finish at Machrihanish. The opening holes also better at the Dunes. For me there is not much between them through the meat of the course and although saying that my preference is still Machrihanish but both very good and I don't understand why they are so far apart in the ratings hence why I asked the question on the FB live Q&A
		
Click to expand...

Would agree with most of this and strongly agree that there is never over 50 spots between them. I still cannot decide what I prefer. The guys I golf with mainly prefer The Dunes but I'm still on the fence. 

The last 4 at Machrihanish Dunes blow the last 4 at Machrihanish out of the water.


----------



## stevek1969 (Dec 23, 2016)

I still can't believe Machrihanish is Number 53 apart from the 1st hole for obvious reasons i can't recall another hole on the course to be honest. Ive played much better courses like Narin & Portnoo and Donegal and i can't believe there not in the Top 100.


----------



## Fish (Dec 23, 2016)

I'm not a great 'reader' so whilst writing this I'm listening to Mike, Jezza and Rob on the Golf Monthly podcast but through SoundCloud and I think it's far better listening to them all and the reasoning behind the list against trying to read it through the magazine and understand it in type.

Some excellent and varied letters written in also and to be fair Mike reads them out and the panel covered them brilliantly, especially when Rob Smith gets 'called out' over his 15 handicap!

I liked the reasoning and answers to that letter from Rob and Mike stating that the panelists and their results were based on the observations from handicap golfers, not elitists or Pro's who don't pay to play them.  Courses are not designed for those Pro golfers alone, if they were, we wouldn't, as ordinary golfers be able to enjoy ourselves around them as they'd be too tough, so it's a real list for real golfers as the majority of club handicaps average around the teens, so why would you only include courses that the majority of us wouldn't want to play or couldn't play for cost reasons also, it would be a pointless list then IMO.

I think the list is a true and honest list and will always be subjective as we all look for different things across all areas of a club/course we visit.

Now, where do I sign up to be a panelist


----------



## Val (Dec 23, 2016)

stevek1969 said:



			I still can't believe Machrihanish is Number 53 apart from the 1st hole for obvious reasons i can't recall another hole on the course to be honest. Ive played much better courses like Narin & Portnoo and Donegal and i can't believe there not in the Top 100.
		
Click to expand...

I agree about Nairn, superb golf course


----------



## bigslice (Dec 23, 2016)

Fish said:



			I'm not a great 'reader' so whilst writing this I'm listening to Mike, Jezza and Rob on the Golf Monthly podcast but through SoundCloud and I think it's far better listening to them all and the reasoning behind the list against trying to read it through the magazine and understand it in type.

Some excellent and varied letters written in also and to be fair Mike reads them out and the panel covered them brilliantly, especially when Rob Smith gets 'called out' over his 15 handicap!

I liked the reasoning and answers to that letter from Rob and Mike stating that the panelists and their results were based on the observations from handicap golfers, not elitists or Pro's who don't pay to play them.  Courses are not designed for those Pro golfers alone, if they were, we wouldn't, as ordinary golfers be able to enjoy ourselves around them as they'd be too tough, so it's a real list for real golfers as the majority of club handicaps average around the teens, so why would you only include courses that the majority of us wouldn't want to play or couldn't play for cost reasons also, it would be a pointless list then IMO.

I think the list is a true and honest list and will always be subjective as we all look for different things across all areas of a club/course we visit.

Now, where do I sign up to be a panelist 

Click to expand...

Lol i was reading ure post and thinking  i hope he gets the job


----------



## Fish (Dec 23, 2016)

Here's the link if you want to listen to it...

https://soundcloud.com/user-92058548/golf-monthly-top-100-uk-ireland-courses


----------



## bigslice (Dec 23, 2016)

I should point out just because im a member my view isnt biased. If i had been a member at old mach i would still have said the same. Dont get me started about my home course at Irvine


----------



## shivas irons (Dec 23, 2016)

Is Carnoustie really the 5th best golf course in Britain


----------



## Val (Dec 23, 2016)

shivas irons said:



			Is Carnoustie really the 5th best golf course in Britain 

Click to expand...

Yes, 5th at worst IMO.


----------



## Qwerty (Dec 23, 2016)

I haven't played Cruden Bay but I've heard some rave reviews of it from those that have.
I'd be interested to know from those that have played both what strengths Trevose has for it to be ranked above Cruden..

*Ive played Trevose many times


----------



## shivas irons (Dec 23, 2016)

Val said:



			Yes, 5th at worst IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm....


----------



## Val (Dec 23, 2016)

shivas irons said:



			Hmmm....

Click to expand...

Where do you think it should be?


----------



## richart (Dec 23, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			I haven't played Cruden Bay but I've heard some rave reviews of it from those that have.
I'd be interested to know from those that have played both what strengths Trevose has for it to be ranked above Cruden..

*Ive played Trevose many times
		
Click to expand...

Haven't played Trevose, but know quite a few that have and they were not over impressed. I am playing it next year, so will be able to make up my own mind. Cruden Bay is nice, but I was disappointed that it had a temporary green, and a couple of greens that seemed to have been painted with green glue. Also had a few ok holes, but does have great views. Think courses like Cinque Ports, S & A, St Andrews New are stronger courses, though they don't have the views. Loved Murcar and pleased to see it is in the top 100.


----------



## shivas irons (Dec 23, 2016)

Val said:



			Where do you think it should be?
		
Click to expand...

Its hard to say but I wouldnt put it at 5 theres so just many better courses in Scotland,it looks like the Open courses are favoured in that pole but why?
Whats going on with Woodhall Spa for years it was always high in that list.


----------



## Val (Dec 23, 2016)

shivas irons said:



			Its hard to say but I wouldnt put it at 5 theres so just many better courses in Scotland,it looks like the Open courses are favoured in that pole but why?
Whats going on with Woodhall Spa for years it was always high in that list.
		
Click to expand...

I've played most of the top courses in Scotland and I wouldn't put many above it. It's a superb layout and a proper test of your game.

All about opinions though.


----------



## Jacko_G (Dec 23, 2016)

shivas irons said:



			Is Carnoustie really the 5th best golf course in Britain 

Click to expand...

Wouldn't be in my top 5 either. 

It's tough as old boots, a real boot in the chuckies type of course if your game is off. Not a pretty course and not really a track that is easy on the eye. Some very good holes but others that are basically a slog. I know I'm in a minority but I rate Royal Troon higher than it.


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Dec 23, 2016)

shivas irons said:



			Whats going on with Woodhall Spa for years it was always high in that list.
		
Click to expand...

I guess Woodhall has dropped down due to the new courses that have been built, Woodhall will never be in the same league for spending as trump Aberdeen and the likes. 

will be interesting to see how the work Tom Doak is doing affects its place in a few years time, the 7th,8th,9th,10th,11th and 13th have just been done and these holes are going to be stunning once grown in about May time.


----------



## PNWokingham (Dec 23, 2016)

Lincoln Quaker said:



			I guess Woodhall has dropped down due to the new courses that have been built, Woodhall will never be in the same league for spending as trump Aberdeen and the likes. 

will be interesting to see how the work Tom Doak is doing affects its place in a few years time, the 7th,8th,9th,10th,11th and 13th have just been done and these holes are going to be stunning once grown in about May time.
		
Click to expand...

I saw the interview in National Club Golfer and the changes sound and look superb Glyn - have to come and have a look in the summer - love heathland courses opening up the views and getting rid of gorse!

http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2016/12/15/tom-doak-woodhall-spa-restoration/


----------



## SammmeBee (Dec 23, 2016)

Val said:



			Where do you think it should be?
		
Click to expand...

As Brucie would say ........'LOWER'........


----------



## stevek1969 (Dec 23, 2016)

SammmeBee said:



			As Brucie would say ........'LOWER'........
		
Click to expand...

No chance ,but saying that i didn't say that when i was a boy getting dragged around there every weekend in the winter my my dad, hated that place :rofl:


----------



## huds1475 (Dec 23, 2016)

PNWokingham said:



			I saw the interview in National Club Golfer and the changes sound and look superb Glyn - have to come and have a look in the summer - love heathland courses opening up the views and getting rid of gorse!

http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2016/12/15/tom-doak-woodhall-spa-restoration/

Click to expand...

Good read that, thanks for posting.

Played April 2015 but can't remember loads, was at a time when I didn't know what i was doing from one shot to the next. Was me vs me rather than the course!!!

Might get out there next summer at some point.


----------



## PNWokingham (Dec 23, 2016)

huds1475 said:



			Good read that, thanks for posting.

Played April 2015 but can't remember loads, was at a time when I didn't know what i was doing from one shot to the next. Was me vs me rather than the course!!!

Might get out there next summer at some point.
		
Click to expand...

I reckon a Woodhall summer trip sounds a good idea  The sun was out out and lots of great memories from the same last year - and would love to see the changes to the course


----------



## huds1475 (Dec 23, 2016)

PNWokingham said:



			I reckon a Woodhall summer trip sounds a good idea  The sun was out out and lots of great memories from the same last year - and would love to see the changes to the course
		
Click to expand...

Early/Mid July is about the best I can do.  

Would have to be a weekend too.

Am signed up to the eyeballs for 2017!!!


----------



## KenL (Dec 23, 2016)

Jacko_G said:



			Wouldn't be in my top 5 either. 

It's tough as old boots, a real boot in the chuckies type of course if your game is off. Not a pretty course and not really a track that is easy on the eye. Some very good holes but others that are basically a slog. I know I'm in a minority but I rate Royal Troon higher than it.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with you Jacko.  I've played Carnoustie twice and did not enjoy it as mugh as I have done at R Troon.  Other than the hole Hogan's Alley the memorable holes are memorable for the wrong reasons.  I have a chance of getting back there in 2017 so hopefully I will get a better feel for it and enjoy it more.


----------

