GM Top 100 rankings - live Q&A today 1-3pm

[Val]

Great idea for a thread gents, I wonder who suggested this

Jezz,

What is in the thinking in the decisions to leave the like's of Wallasey, Dundonald, either course at Archerfield, Glasgow Gailes and Little Aston out on the top 100?

I appreciate there is a million reasons why any course SHOULD be in it, but what makes these ones in particular miss? Particularly Archerfield due to the outstanding facilities and welcome you receive there.

I'm pretty biased and defensive of Wallasey naturally, but it has received some outstanding reviews this year from those who played it particularly during Open week

 

[MikeH]

Mike

How are the course assessors selected? I have considered putting my name forward on a few occasions but don't want to spend a nice day out walking round the course with a metaphoric clipboard in my hands. I want to enjoy the day, not feel that I'm 'working'.

We initially put out a call to get involved in 2006 - we asked for golfers who had played a lot of courses, could commit to playing around 20 per 2-year assessing period and had a real interest in courses and golf course design to put themselves forward and include a golfing CV

We selected around 15 of which 2/3rds of the original panelists are still with us and their experience of seeing courses year on year to asses improvement or indeed drops in quality is invaluable as in a world of subjectivity having a benchmark to work from is crucial

I have put out one if not two calls to action to invite new applications panelists from forum members but surprisingly never had one application - even from the very opinionated types who you’d think would be perfect for this!

We ask that those who put themselves forward have played at least 30 of the current top 100 (to enable them to benchmark), commit to playing at least 15 rounds on contender courses in the 2 year assessing window and then complete a sample assessment form for a course they have recently visited

Those who have read the issue of the mag with the rankings in it will see what goes into these forms but if you haven’t then below is an example of a good one - this from one of our more recent recuits Tim Gallant - he is only 27years old but has already played close on 400 courses worldwide

Being brutally honest if you cant hit that level then you can't really add to the pool of assessors!

If you are selected then you pay all your expenses getting to and from courses and should expect to pay for all food and drinks on the day although you will often get a soup and sandwiches type. May assessors ask to take friends although they will always pay a green fee.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

We initially put out a call to get involved in 2006 - we asked for golfers who had played a lot of courses, could commit to playing around 20 per 2-year assessing period and had a real interest in courses and golf course design to put themselves forward and include a golfing CV

We selected around 15 of which 2/3rds of the original panelists are still with us and their experience of seeing courses year on year to asses improvement or indeed drops in quality is invaluable as in a world of subjectivity having a benchmark to work from is crucial

I have put out one if not two calls to action to invite new applications panelists from forum members but surprisingly never had one application - even from the very opinionated types who you’d think would be perfect for this!

We ask that those who put themselves forward have played at least 30 of the current top 100 (to enable them to benchmark), commit to playing at least 15 rounds on contender courses in the 2 year assessing window and then complete a sample assessment form for a course they have recently visited

Those who have read the issue of the mag with the rankings in it will see what goes into these forms but if you haven’t then below is an example of a good one - this from one of our more recent recuits Tim Gallant - he is only 27years old but has already played close on 400 courses worldwide

Being brutally honest if you cant hit that level then you can't really add to the pool of assessors!

If you are selected then you pay all your expenses getting to and from courses and should expect to pay for all food and drinks on the day although you will often get a soup and sandwiches type. May assessors ask to take friends although they will always pay a green fee.

View attachment 13091

Thanks Mike...I meet the criteria, keep an eye on your inbox

 

[MikeH]

When assessing the quality of test & design of a course do you take into account different playing ability and style of play?

For example some courses would be long slogs for shorter hitters, especially if they are taking a lot of shots as well.
Whereas other courses might be very tight and a big hitter (perhaps not the most accurate) might find this less interesting if having to hold back.

Our panel covers a wide variety of golfers from 2 hcap up to 18 handicap and naturally within that there's a wide spread of golfing style so while we cant produce a ranking of the top 100 courses long but wild hitters will enjoy we are confident our panel is representative of the type of golfers who want to visit top 100 courses and who are prepared to pay their own hard earned money to play there - our strapline has always been a ranking for golfers, by golfers

This has always been our key difference to the likes of Golf World whose panel was packed with Tour pros and elite amateurs (who play a different game to the rest of us) architects (who look at courses in a way no ordinary golfers do) and dear old Peter Alliss (who hasn't stepped foot on a golf course to play 18 holes for quite sometime)

 

[JezzE]

whats the main panelists criteria in..

a) Setting out which courses to have in the pool before establishing a shortlist? i.e last years top 100 or do you collate from another external list as the foundation.

All of the previous time's Top 100 will automatically be in there, and then somewhere in the region of 50 or so courses in our Next 100 that we believe have realistic contender status. This will be based on the feedback we've received over the years from our panellists; news from within the industry about what courses/clubs have been doing what or investing in what; any newcomers that we're aware of that could be genuine contenders; information from any other sources that suggests we really need to consider certain courses. We have to limit the number under the assessing programme for logistics reasons as it's already a big undertaking ensuring we can get at least someone to each and every course in contention.

b) how much weight is afforded the scale based on the users personal playing round i.e great round good review, crap round with bad luck lesser review? or do you have a process to ensure that doesn't sway a rating?

I'd like to think most of our panellists have been doing this long enough not to be swayed by how they're playing, and that's certainly the impression you get reading their in-depth feedback. Personally, I rarely have a scorecard in hand when I'm on a visit other than to make notes, but I would have no problem distancing how I'm playing from what I'm playing. In fact, if you are playing poorly, I find that it's almost easier to really take account of where you are, and everything around you than if you're half thinking, "par here to be out in 3-over" or whatever.

c) Should future ratings have a bigger weighting towards a large poll from actual golfers as opposed to a few therefore minimising personal preferences?

Our panel are all actual golfers! We put great store in the experience of our assessors who have all played a great many golf courses, and been fully briefed as to what our rankings are looking for and how to go about the whole process. I'm not saying that other people haven't played as many courses, or wouldn't have as valid an opinion, but we have spent many years refining and strengthening our process and I would have reservations about a larger-scale poll where we might not necessarily know how broad the individual's experience is. One of the key things about our rankings is having panellists with the breadth of experience to make judgments about one course relative to another.

 

[MikeH]

From Rob Smith on the Contender List...

Contender List

Whilst we cannot play every course, we know someone who can ! We seek and listen to feedback from all of our readers, and we have contacts in and out of the industry that play regularly at courses of every standard. The Contender list will always be the previous Top 100, and those from the Next 100 (or even brand new courses such as Trump Links Scotland) that we feel stand a realistic chance of gaining entry. We, and the advisory panel, play a great deal of golf and speak with other keen golfers all the time. It would also be wrong to disregard other rankings, even if we feel our criteria are the best. I have played more than 100 different courses since the start of 2013, Jezz has done similarly, we have contacts everywhere, read all that we can, and believe we have as comprehensive a view as anyone. As ever, if you feel there is something we need to know about, please tell us !!

 

[MikeH]

From Rob Smith on Red Carpet Treatment/assesing at different times of the year

Our assessment visits take place at any time of the year and in any weather. Sometimes the club knows we are coming, but often the visits take place as part of a match, a society or corporate visit, an open competition, or even an off-duty round with a member. Occasionally clubs ask to delay a visit if they are undergoing some specific work or perhaps repair following last winter’s flooding, but with limited resources, assessments have to be made at all times. Our panellists are all very experienced and apply that knowledge to understand how, given normal circumstances, the course will be during the main season. We also hope to get more than one visit to each course so that we can compare different times and conditions.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Has any of the panel ever experienced pretty poor customer service/welcome at any club (not asking for any names)? And if so has this influenced its position in the rankings?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Some areas are renowned as top regions for golf - Surrey, Southport, Scottish Links etc, but some are not so well known, such as Derbyshire & Leicestershire.

Is there equality in visits to all regions or are some favoured due to there good name?

(ps, if it comes across that way, this isn't meant to sound like an accusation of bias)

 

[Hacker Khan]

Does the relative lack of love in the forum and questioning of their positions in the top 100 for places like The Belfry and The Grove surprise you?

 

[MikeH]

Has any of the panel ever experienced pretty poor customer service/welcome at any club (not asking for any names)? And if so has this influenced its position in the rankings?

yes, I even wrote an eds letter about one of the two 2 clubs in recent memory who managed to get it very wrong - both are/were close to getting into the Top 100. Both missed out and this had a not insignificant bearing on the final outcome

 

[MikeH]

Does the relative lack of love in the forum and questioning of their positions in the top 100 for places like The Belfry and The Grove surprise you?

no not really, I think both have their fans and detractors

I think with the Grove you have to play lots of courses to appreciate just how good a design job Phillips has done on an unremarkable bit of land and how well the course is presented
like The Belfry the quality of visitor experience/service is high
Belfry covered off in a post above - we didnt used to have it in but after massive chnages and improvements under Kenny Mackay's stewardship as course manager allied to redesign of holes and better off course service pushed it into the list

both have dropped in this ranking and are now in the ultra competitive 80-100 zone

Neither are locks for future Top 100s if they dont keep delivering on the conditioning/welcome

 

[Duckster]

Do you take into consideration the current course ranking on any other websites/magazines or is it purely down to the GM assessors own opinions and experiences?

Also, do you find that courses which are holding The Open tend to move up a few places, more on the fact that they are currently on the Open rota rather than on their actual merit?

 

[richart]

Experience : Do the Clubs know when you are coming to play the courses, and if so doesn't that affect the welcome/experience you receive ? I would imagine the red carpet is rolled out when a GM staffer is playing.

Condition and presentation : Do you visit courses in the winter and summer to assess condition and presentation ? Most courses will look great in the summer months, but the rest of the year they may be poor. I have played a lot of the top 100 courses in the winter when the green fees are much more reasonable. Courses like Saunton are still in top condition, where as some can be soggy, muddy and not worth the winter green fees.

Any comments ?

 

[MikeH]

Some areas are renowned as top regions for golf - Surrey, Southport, Scottish Links etc, but some are not so well known, such as Derbyshire & Leicestershire.

Is there equality in visits to all regions or are some favoured due to there good name?

(ps, if it comes across that way, this isn't meant to sound like an accusation of bias)

I think there is a reason why areas like Surrey/Berks sandbelt, the North West and Scotland dominate these and all rankings... they have high quality courses, built on great golfing land and the fact they have been there for 100 plus years means they have built up history and a sense of aura or occasion when visiting

Jezz and Rob have both played extensively in lesser known counties and regularly sing the praises of them in their golfers guide features in the mag

Indeed, Cavendish in Derbyshire made it into the next 100 on the strength of Rob playing it as part of his boys' golf tour this year

 

[MikeH]

Any comments ?

yep post 47 above

 

[MikeH]

Rob Smith on Differences on the Panel

If you had asked this question when we began the process a few years ago, I would have said that we all have strong and different views on what makes a great course. As we have refined the process, we have individually learnt more about what makes a good course great, and so have got to the point where consensus is not tricky, especially as it is a democratic process and we respect one another’s views. Having said that, it is also great that we have our own preferences, and if it was up to me and me alone, Enniscrone would be in there !

 

[MikeH]

From Rob Smith on Clubs That Didn’t Make It

The question about why certain clubs were excluded from the Top 100 is an interesting one which has two very simple answers. The first is that exclusion is never a part of the process - we are simply looking for the best of the best, what to INclude. The second is that we are stumped by the laws of mathematics. It would be absolutely lovely of we could squeeze 125 into 100…!

 

[richart]

yep post 47 above

Thanks Mike missed that one.

 

[JezzE]

Great idea for a thread gents, I wonder who suggested this

Jezz,

What is in the thinking in the decisions to leave the like's of Wallasey, Dundonald, either course at Archerfield, Glasgow Gailes and Little Aston out on the top 100?

I appreciate there is a million reasons why any course SHOULD be in it, but what makes these ones in particular miss? Particularly Archerfield due to the outstanding facilities and welcome you receive there.

I'm pretty biased and defensive of Wallasey naturally, but it has received some outstanding reviews this year from those who played it particularly during Open week

Val,

You may not be surprised to learn that all the courses you mention are close, and in some ways the hardest part of the whole ranking process is deciding which courses fill the spots from 85-100 and which would, in theory, at least - for we don't rank the Next 100 - be those nipping at their heels the other side of the divide.

There will be negligible differences between the course we rank 100th and the one that was theoretically closest to getting in but didn't make it, but as with all numerically limited lists, there has to be a cut-off point somewhere!

Starting with Wallasey, it always has been and always will be up for debate, but as others have mentioned in the other post, there are perhaps a few holes that let it down a little, among them the 10th - which seems to have Marmite-like qualities - and the holes towards the end of the front nine (I think) that play closest to the link road.

Dundonald has struggled at times in recent years on the condition front. I understand that it has improved greatly of late, although one of our assessors did still make reference to it in one or two places, and I also think it would be hard to have any course with a PortaKabin for a clubhouse in any list of the very finest courses in the land, however good that Portakabin may be. Our most recent assessor commented on that too - do you have an idea if a proper clubhouse is in the offing at some stage?

Several member of the GM team are regular visitors to Archerfield as a number of companies have hosted product launches there in recent years, and I've been many times in the past, most recently during the Muirfield Open. It is an excellent facility, with some of the best practice facilities and one of the best clubhouses in the country, but the feedback has always been that neither of the courses is quite Top 100, though very close.

I've not played Glasgow Gailes, but looking at our panellist feedback from this time, one felt it should be in and one not, and with so many courses getting unanimous nods, that always makes it a bit trickier.

Indeed, Glasgow Gailes and your final one, Little Aston, are two of the most highly regarded courses I've not yet played, so I will look to try and remedy that during the next assessing period to make my own judgment.

Mike has played Little Aston within the last year, and will be along in a moment to give you his thoughts on it...