DATE change >> Top 100 forum Q&A - Thursday December 8 12-1pm

[MikeH]

>>due to unforeseen circumstances we are having to move Q&A to Thursday. Please do post questions now if you cant join us live on Thursday>>>

Hi all
As mentioned myself and fellow senior panel members Rob Smith and Jezz Ellwood will be hosting a one hour long Top 100 live Q&A on the forum on Thursday December 7 from noon until 1pm
You can post questions in advance or live tomorrow
Please keep this thread free for the Q&A - any general Top 100 chat should be on this thread...
http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?88803-GM-Top-100-courses
We will also be doing a FaceBook Live at 1.30pm on Thursday
Mike

 

[Junior]

Following on from a number of debates on here and in the pub after a few forum trips up North (we debated Dornoch versus Castle Stuart and Carnoustie versus Trump Aberdeen until the cows come home). Aside from condition.......what are each of you looking out for when specifically judging a golf course ? I ask this as i'd like to understand how you compare say a modern links to a traditional one and also a Surrey sand belt type heathland course versus a classic links ?　


Ps. Top work, great list as always !!!!

 

[Parky24]

Sorry i won't be around for the live Q&A but my question relates to the judging criteria i.e Quality of Test and Design Condition and presentation etc etc. So 35 points is top marks on quality of test and design. I want to know how this points system is broken down for example Very Poor 1-5, Poor 5-7, Average 7-15, above average 15-20.....Do you see where i am getting at. Or is it simply if you liked it it got 35 points.

Secondly can you tell me why the overall points for each section was not published in the magazine. If i were to go away and want to play courses just for the look of them and the surrounding beauty it would be of great help in deciding which courses to include.

Thanks in advance

 

[Val]

Mike/Jezz/Rob, chances are I won't get online tomorrow in time but I have a couple of questions.

What courses narrowly missed out this year. I know the likes of Little Aston and Glasgow Gailes just did last time so are they near contenders again and what do the need to get better to make it?

Do you advise clubs of their positions and do any ask for feedback on how to improve, particularly the next 100?

Would Dundonald get in if it had a proper clubhouse?

Ladybank is highly regarded but it's fallen 2 places and could be out the top 100 next time. What got it marked down this time especially as 4 of the 6 new entrants have all jumped ahead of it?

 

[matt611]

Like Val I would be interested to know which of the next 100 were closest to entering the top 100.

Many clubs have been investing heavily in their courses and it appears to have paid off, in particular Parkstone/Ferndown/Broadstone & Woking/Tandridge, how much higher can these clubs go. Presumably this is an example to others.

Are heathland courses closing the gap on links? Many fallers in the top 100 are links.

I am surprised to see The Grove improving its position, could this be due to the course being in better condition in the build up to the British Masters?

Also Enniscrone is surely a better course than Portmarnock links, whilst Co. Sligo (how the 17th wasn't judged to be one of the hardest holes I don't know) is surely better than Mount Juliet.

 

[MikeH]

Sorry i won't be around for the live Q&A but my question relates to the judging criteria i.e Quality of Test and Design Condition and presentation etc etc. So 35 points is top marks on quality of test and design. I want to know how this points system is broken down for example Very Poor 1-5, Poor 5-7, Average 7-15, above average 15-20.....Do you see where i am getting at. Or is it simply if you liked it it got 35 points.

Secondly can you tell me why the overall points for each section was not published in the magazine. If i were to go away and want to play courses just for the look of them and the surrounding beauty it would be of great help in deciding which courses to include.

Thanks in advance

Hi Parky24
ref the judging criteria no course in the top 100 would be getting a mark less than 20/35 (or 17/30, 7/15 or 6/10 for respective categories) from an assessor or frankly it shouldn't be in contention for the list!
I'd say that top 10 courses would all be scoring close to
these marks are really for guidance for the senior panel (i.e. me Rob and Jezz) and we do then as part of the moderation process we benchmark them against our marks and then have to take into account the fact that some panellists are generous markers and some are quite stingy!
Its certainly not an exact science hence why we don't publish the marks
In terms of scenic courses we did do a piece in the magazine on courses that we thought were particularly scenic - included the likes of Old Head, Gleneagles, Kingsbarns, Druids Glen, County Down - and discussed what factors make a scenic course
As with everything about the rankings, beauty is of course subjective! some folk find links very bleak while others will find inland courses a bit too manicured and lacking in a natural feel
From a personal perspective my top 4 'lookers' are Sunningdale Old, Hankley Common, Royal Dornoch and Castle Stuart but I havant played Old Head or Waterville which everyone says are stunners

 

[Rob Smith GM]

Following on from a number of debates on here and in the pub after a few forum trips up North (we debated Dornoch versus Castle Stuart and Carnoustie versus Trump Aberdeen until the cows come home). Aside from condition.......what are each of you looking out for when specifically judging a golf course ? I ask this as i'd like to understand how you compare say a modern links to a traditional one and also a Surrey sand belt type heathland course versus a classic links ?　

Ps. Top work, great list as always !!!!

With regard to what we each look for, then with our GM hats on it is hopefully the same thing - the extensive criteria we use which are documented in the magazine and more so on the website. Obviously each panellist will have his own preferences, but we all use the same criteria and these are ironed out via the moderation process. It is also easy to compare one course with another, head to head, but far more difficult when you have a large number to take into account as with any three courses, you will find some who prefer A to B, some who prefer B to C, and some who prefer C to A. By having a number of views, we come to a fair and democratic ranking. With regard to comparing new and old, links and inland, etc, they are almost different breeds but the process allows us to look at them as objectively as possible. I think it works pretty well as the rankings contain courses of every type.

 

[IanG]

Have there been any dramatic shifts in your own rating of a particular course over the years? What drove the change - did you change or did the course/club change ?

 

[JezzE]

Hello there - some thoughts on all your points, hopefully in red below each one if I've formatted this correctly...

Like Val I would be interested to know which of the next 100 were closest to entering the top 100.
Each panellist will have their own thoughts on courses that are closest to making it, and there is always much debate around courses perceived to be in the 90-110 bracket (although we don't actually rank the courses beyond 100). As Val has hinted at, Glasgow Gailes and Little Aston are certainly among those right on the cusp, and Prince's is another course where much work has gone on to enhance the links. Goswick, Seacroft and Portstewart would be others that came under close scrutiny again this time. As I say, each panellist will have his own views, and for me, if there was one course not in that I would put in if it were all down to me (which thankfully it's not), I would go for Seacroft

Many clubs have been investing heavily in their courses and it appears to have paid off, in particular Parkstone/Ferndown/Broadstone & Woking/Tandridge, how much higher can these clubs go. Presumably this is an example to others.
You're right, and those are all good examples of clubs/courses reaping the benefit of very considerable investment and work in some instances. It certainly should be an example to others, and indeed, many more courses have been going down a similar route in recent years, although not all will have the wherewithal to do so. How much higher can they go? We will see, but there will certainly be a plateau beyond which courses are unlikely to go given their marks and performance in some of the other assessing criteria.

Are heathland courses closing the gap on links? Many fallers in the top 100 are links.
I think there has been a huge increase in the amount of often very major going on at some of our finest heathland courses in recent years, and this is often perhaps more drastic than on links courses given the terrain (for example, major clearing work of trees and scrub will almost always transform things much more visually than on many links courses, swathes of gorse on some links course notwithstanding). Beyond that, I think there may be a slightly false impression about many of the fallers being links as a result of six exclusive clubs being removed from the list this time. There are twice as many inland courses from 51- 100 as there are in the top 50, so the further down the list you go, the more courses will have benefitted from our decision to remove those 6 courses.

I am surprised to see The Grove improving its position, could this be due to the course being in better condition in the build up to the British Masters?
Two factors here really. 1) I happened to play the course the day after the British Masters and can confirm that the conditioning was indeed even more excellent than usual. And then 2) because of its position in the 80s, it is one of the courses to benefit from the our new policy on exclusive clubs as detailed above

Also Enniscrone is surely a better course than Portmarnock links, whilst Co. Sligo (how the 17th wasn't judged to be one of the hardest holes I don't know) is surely better than Mount Juliet.
Two places between Enniscrone and Portmarnock Links is not a vast difference and different people would no doubt argue one over the other for various reasons. Each of the 4 courses you mention would have perceived strengths and weaknesses, but the feedback from our assessors saw them in this order this time round. As for Sligo's 17th, I can't remember it specifically from my game there a few years ago, but with 1800 holes vying for contention for a single page feature in the mag, there simply wouldn't have been room to feature every single hard hole, I'm afraid!

 

[pokerjoke]

Jezz I know that you do the rules section in the magazine every month and a fine job at that,are there any rules that you believe could be removed altogether or any that could be improved on or even maybe one that you feel could be added.

Full relief from a divot springs to mind.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Hi guys, thanks for giving us this chance to Q&A. Firstly, I'm delighted to see my home course in the top 100. I knew buying Jezz a beer would pay dividends

Seriously though, do you think the panel is better off being fairly stable and static or do you think it would benefit by more turnover of panellists?

 

[JezzE]

Have there been any dramatic shifts in your own rating of a particular course over the years? What drove the change - did you change or did the course/club change ?

Indeed. For me, probably three spring to mind that have gone up significantly in my estimation from my first visits to subsequent visits, and they would be Trevose, Royal Troon and Ferndown. Part of the shift in thinking is down to all three investing heavily in improvements to either layout or conditioning, and part of it is possibly down to me realigning my thinking based on subtleties that I perhaps missed first time, or perhaps because I now have a broader spectrum of courses to evaluate them against as I have played many more courses over the past 10-15 years through my work with the magazine and beyond.

 

[Rob Smith GM]

Mike/Jezz/Rob, chances are I won't get online tomorrow in time but I have a couple of questions.

What courses narrowly missed out this year. I know the likes of Little Aston and Glasgow Gailes just did last time so are they near contenders again and what do the need to get better to make it?

Do you advise clubs of their positions and do any ask for feedback on how to improve, particularly the next 100?

Would Dundonald get in if it had a proper clubhouse?

Ladybank is highly regarded but it's fallen 2 places and could be out the top 100 next time. What got it marked down this time especially as 4 of the 6 new entrants have all jumped ahead of it?

Hi Val,
Some clubs do indeed approach us for feedback and advice, and we will always help where we can with this but we are not architects/designers, simply all massive golf fans. One or two very senior clubs have talked to us about changes, but I am sure they always take these balanced with the views of the professionals. Clubhouse is nowhere near as important as course (for years visitors to the Old Course had to change in the car park), it's more icing on the cake.
Cheers,
Rob

 

[MikeH]

Ladybank is highly regarded but it's fallen 2 places and could be out the top 100 next time. What got it marked down this time especially as 4 of the 6 new entrants have all jumped ahead of it?

Hi Val
I think Ladybank is certainly well regarded in Scotland - and the contrast it offers to the Fife links makes it standout - but put it up against the classic Surrey and Berkshire heather and pines courses (or which it is most like) and I think the consensus would be that its weaker.
I also feel that the clubhouse and especially locker rooms would benefit from an upgrade. Compare them with the likes of a Parkstone or Ferndown to name but two and its got room for improvement.
I have played it twice during the assessing window and really enjoyed it both times and think it currently merits its place in the top 100 - think we are the only ranking to have it in - but I do think it needs to ensure condition is always excellent and off course facilities are looked at to keep its place next time

 

[Rob Smith GM]

Hi guys, thanks for giving us this chance to Q&A. Firstly, I'm delighted to see my home course in the top 100. I knew buying Jezz a beer would pay dividends

Seriously though, do you think the panel is better off being fairly stable and static or do you think it would benefit by more turnover of panellists?

Hi there,
We have a turnover of panellists which is entirely healthy, combined with a handful of long-term assessors which provides consistency. We will probably look for some new people when the next review window opens in the spring.
Cheers,
Rob

 

[JezzE]

Hi guys, thanks for giving us this chance to Q&A. Firstly, I'm delighted to see my home course in the top 100. I knew buying Jezz a beer would pay dividends

Seriously though, do you think the panel is better off being fairly stable and static or do you think it would benefit by more turnover of panellists?

It was certainly great to finally pick off Broadstone this year and I was very impressed by the layout, but it would take more than a beer to swing it. Again, I think the path to its promotion to the Top 100 was smoothed by the removal of the exclusive clubs, but the work that has been going on there could have seen it make it in regardless of that.

 

[MikeH]

Have there been any dramatic shifts in your own rating of a particular course over the years? What drove the change - did you change or did the course/club change ?

Hi Ian
the biggest mover since we first started has been Dornoch which somewhat ridiculously was outside the top 50 in the first list. however to pass the buck... myself Jezz and Rob were not involved in that ranking. Since we took it over Dornoch has risen and risen and is now number 7
Your own North Berwick has edged up - well deserved as its a spectacular place to play, is a fun course and I think the visitor experience is excellent
For me the course that has most improved over the years and has made good strides in its rankings is Hankley Common. Much work has been done to the course and i think we have also really come to appreciate the magnificent surroundings and the sense of peace and tranquility - no mean feat in the SE of England!

 

[MikeH]

Jezz I know that you do the rules section in the magazine every month and a fine job at that,are there any rules that you believe could be removed altogether or any that could be improved on or even maybe one that you feel could be added.

Full relief from a divot springs to mind.

Hi Tony this is a top 100 thread but great idea for a future Q&A!

 

[Liverbirdie]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if you can name them, but have any courses invested heavily in their course to either improve it , or return it to the original aesthetics and moved down in the rankings, as a result?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Do you consider how a course plays from all of its tees or just the ones you use when you visit?

For example, some courses are a shadow of themselves from the so-called "ladies tees" due, I think, to a lack of imagination in the design. Others seem to manage to provide a suitable, playable experience for shorter hitters without drastically altering the character of too many holes.

Moreover, only a few (although it's becoming more common I think) seem to be rated with women's par and SSS from further back tees. I'd love to see such good practice recognised.