GM Top 100 courses

[Qwerty]

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.

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]

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

 

[2blue]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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]

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]

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

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]

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".

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]

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".

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]

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 ?

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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...?

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]

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.

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

 

[Qwerty]

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

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]

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

Which is the correct answer.:thup:

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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