GM Top 100 courses

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.

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

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.
 
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.:o

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.
 
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.:o

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.
 
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.
 
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.:o

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

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

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.:confused:
 
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.:confused:

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

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!
 
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!

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];)
 
Top