GM Top 100 courses

[Deleted member 16999]

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...

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]

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...

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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...

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

 

[Val]

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]

The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is because… 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]

The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is because… 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

Sorry, that's just not good enough.

The proffessionally offended need to find further fault.....😂😂😂

 

[Deleted member 1740]

The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is because… 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

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.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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

 

[Oxfordcomma]

The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is because… 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

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]

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

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

 

[FairwayDodger]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

The reason that we don't have any female golfers on the top 100 panel is because… 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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?