GM Top 100 courses

[Crazyface]

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 £40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.

 

[Canmore]

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!

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

You've mentioned this a few times now

 

[Deleted member 21258]

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]

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.

I agree there is no right or wrong.

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

 

[3puttmaster]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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 £40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.

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]

I agree there is no right or wrong.

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

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]

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

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

Due to play there next September

 

[Liverbirdie]

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 £40 (summer rates)? Now that would be a list I would REALLY be interested in. I won't hold my breath on this.

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

 

[Canmore]

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

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

 

[Liverbirdie]

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

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

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

 

[Deleted member 1147]

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]

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]

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

I was suprised Saunton East and Ganton had fallen

 

[Deleted member 1147]

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

Too much love for Links among those doing the ratings?

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Too much love for Links among those doing the ratings?

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]

I was suprised Saunton East and Ganton had fallen

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.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

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.

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]

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?

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:

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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