FairwayDodger
Money List Winner
I've danced around this a bit but it seems there are a couple of things, more "talking points" than "issues", that are getting a bit conflated. So here's my take, for what it's worth.
It's a great feature, no doubt about that. I haven't read GM for a few months but I'll be buying this issue to read the top 100 courses feature. (Incidentally I've been looking the last few days but haven't seen it - is it out yet?) I particularly like that there is a panel that includes "ordinary" golfers contributing to the rankings rather than golf industry professionals/journalists divvying it up.
If it was simply a ranking of the best courses based on how they play from the white tees and no other considerations that would be a perfectly valid and interesting article in its own right, but I think it's about more than that; the welcome at the clubhouse, the facilities, the course layout and condition etc. The deliberate spread of abilities in the panel suggests an attempt to get a balanced rating for the experience across different levels of golfer. All good stuff.
On the gender side of things, I think there are two different factors; does the experience a course provides for female golfers (if it differs) affect its overall rating and are women part of the panel? In my opinion the former is more important, although it is probably easier to assess if the latter is in place.
I believe courses that offer a frosty welcome to female visitors should be marked down on that basis. Those that have well laid out and appropriately positioned red tees should score higher than those that have just dumped them at the start of each fairway without any thought for maintaining the character of the hole. Even better, those courses that have two or (even better) three sets of tees rated for women should be credited for such good practice.
The reason there aren't currently any female panelists has already been spelled out and is hard to argue with but I'm sure the course raters are already asked to consider how the course might play for better/worse players than themselves? It would be an easy matter to add a few things such as the above to consider.
I realise GM isn't about crusading to right any perceived inequities in golf and that it needs to primarily appeal to its largely male readership but factoring this into the ratings would make them even more useful for women and might even encourage a few courses to put a bit more thought into their offering for female golfers. I genuinely think in most instances there isn't deliberate discrimination going on, just the failure to step back and think things through from a different perspective or to realise women play golf at a wide range of levels rather than catering just for the shorter hitters.
I don't want to go naming and shaming courses any more than I've already done on the thread but there are some courses out there getting it so right and others that are miles behind the times, and it's not always the ones you expect in each regard. I think that should be recognised and shaking up the GM top 100 would be one way to do it.
It's a great feature, no doubt about that. I haven't read GM for a few months but I'll be buying this issue to read the top 100 courses feature. (Incidentally I've been looking the last few days but haven't seen it - is it out yet?) I particularly like that there is a panel that includes "ordinary" golfers contributing to the rankings rather than golf industry professionals/journalists divvying it up.
If it was simply a ranking of the best courses based on how they play from the white tees and no other considerations that would be a perfectly valid and interesting article in its own right, but I think it's about more than that; the welcome at the clubhouse, the facilities, the course layout and condition etc. The deliberate spread of abilities in the panel suggests an attempt to get a balanced rating for the experience across different levels of golfer. All good stuff.
On the gender side of things, I think there are two different factors; does the experience a course provides for female golfers (if it differs) affect its overall rating and are women part of the panel? In my opinion the former is more important, although it is probably easier to assess if the latter is in place.
I believe courses that offer a frosty welcome to female visitors should be marked down on that basis. Those that have well laid out and appropriately positioned red tees should score higher than those that have just dumped them at the start of each fairway without any thought for maintaining the character of the hole. Even better, those courses that have two or (even better) three sets of tees rated for women should be credited for such good practice.
The reason there aren't currently any female panelists has already been spelled out and is hard to argue with but I'm sure the course raters are already asked to consider how the course might play for better/worse players than themselves? It would be an easy matter to add a few things such as the above to consider.
I realise GM isn't about crusading to right any perceived inequities in golf and that it needs to primarily appeal to its largely male readership but factoring this into the ratings would make them even more useful for women and might even encourage a few courses to put a bit more thought into their offering for female golfers. I genuinely think in most instances there isn't deliberate discrimination going on, just the failure to step back and think things through from a different perspective or to realise women play golf at a wide range of levels rather than catering just for the shorter hitters.
I don't want to go naming and shaming courses any more than I've already done on the thread but there are some courses out there getting it so right and others that are miles behind the times, and it's not always the ones you expect in each regard. I think that should be recognised and shaking up the GM top 100 would be one way to do it.
Last edited:
