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

[PNWokingham]

Great thread and enjoyed the past hour reading it!

 

[MikeH]

One of the threads of the year, and brilliant that a few of you guys engage with us on this one.:thup:

Mike, I represent a charity called "what to you do with your spare velour bags", can I send you a letter?

Like everyone on here I have my views on what is missing from the top 100 and what is too high in that list also. I'm glad that Royal St. Davids was mentioned, as I always felt that this was too high in the lists. It obviously scores highly for VFM but out of all the other courses I have played above it (44 upwards) such as Prestwick, Silloth,W Gailes, Moortown,W Saunton,Hunstanton, S&A,W Lancs and Bearwood. I would rate them all higher, with the only exception being Ladybank.


I feel that although it is a very good course (I've played it 3 times, and all in cheap opens), I feel that the castle on the hill probably raises the course's appeal, somewhat. If 13th century English gunners weren't clearly inebriated, and a better shot, I feel it wouldn't get in the top 200.

So, the main question is - do you rank them just on the marks across all contributors, or is there a later discussion whereby someone says "I know x course comes out at 53, but would anyone agree that it's not as good as Y at 57 and Z at 58. If people then agree with that sentiment is it then re-jigged on the comparison suggestion. If all that makes sense - or is it the marks only?

lid, I'll send you all my arl velour bags. You can make one of your big banners for the kop out of them!

back to the real world - marks are just the base element we work off

as Rob sais in his intro feature in the mag...
"Although we look carefully at the scores, we also read each report carefully to look at supporting evidence and then use a combination to make sure that variations between assessors are ironed out.
Wonderful for one person may equate to 10 out of 15, while for another it means 13 out of 15. This moderation process, and regular contact with assessors, makes a subjective process as objective as it can be."

in the final phase of compiling the list it will invlove me Rob, Jezz and other staff arguing about course a vs course b
one of the big debates this year was should trump be above royal aberdeen
jezz rob and fergus all played both - Fergus voted for RA but Jezz and Rob for Trump so it got the nod

 

[Liverbirdie]

lid, I'll send you all my arl velour bags. You can make one of your big banners for the kop out of them!

Thanks Mike, but I think Gary from Derry would nick them off me and make lots of pair of trousers.

We're still working out which decade his pair of cords are from.

back to the real world - marks are just the base element we work off

as Rob sais in his intro feature in the mag...
"Although we look carefully at the scores, we also read each report carefully to look at supporting evidence and then use a combination to make sure that variations between assessors are ironed out.
Wonderful for one person may equate to 10 out of 15, while for another it means 13 out of 15. This moderation process, and regular contact with assessors, makes a subjective process as objective as it can be."

in the final phase of compiling the list it will invlove me Rob, Jezz and other staff arguing about course a vs course b
one of the big debates this year was should trump be above royal aberdeen
jezz rob and fergus all played both - Fergus voted for RA but Jezz and Rob for Trump so it got the nod

Sorry, missed that bit in the criteria.

Good, I think marks can only take it so far, as you say. The "wee demon" that is comparison, still needs to be done towards the end, as you say.

As most of us mark out of 10, 5 years ago SandA would have been a 9/10 for me, but after playing the likes of Prestwick, Carnoustie, Turnberry etc it starts moving down to a 6. But then who wants to play a 6/10 course - everyone if it's SandA!!!!! It just goes to show how tough this whole process is.

 

[Snelly]

Excellent thread and erudite musings on RCD vs Muirfield. Nice work.

 

[Val]

one of the big debates this year was should trump be above royal aberdeen
jezz rob and fergus all played both - Fergus voted for RA but Jezz and Rob for Trump so it got the nod

Thats a big endorsement from Jezz as he told me the best course he had played was Royal Aberdeen, particularly the front 9. (I'm sure it was best he said but it maybe have been favourite now I think on it, maybe Jezz can clarify)

 

[MikeH]

As most of us mark out of 10, 5 years ago SandA would have been a 9/10 for me, but after playing the likes of Prestwick, Carnoustie, Turnberry etc it starts moving down to a 6. But then who wants to play a 6/10 course - everyone if it's SandA!!!!! It just goes to show how tough this whole process is.

without wishing to bang the drum I think this ability to benchmark is key - the more courses you have played the more effectively you can place one course above another. with out panel they've played a lot of courses so are well placed to make these judgements

 

[MikeH]

Excellent thread and erudite musings on RCD vs Muirfield. Nice work.

its all about the lunch snelly

 

[Ethan]

its all about the lunch snelly

I think this is an interesting distinction between best course and best club. As someone from NI, I think RCD is the greatest course on the planet, although the club has not always been the most welcoming, although improving. Never played Muirfield but I have heard great things including the traditional lunch. Based on TV appearance, I don't think Muirfield can have enough vertical movement or attractive rugged appeal to beat RCD.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Because it is about ranking the top 100 courses. Not about ranking the top 100 courses with a few caveats added to cater to the moans and whines of a few online class warriors who don't like being excluded.

Or maybe they are judged on their welcome and don't score very highly??

If its just about the courses then the ratings for welcome and food etc shouldnt be involved and should be all about the actual course

So is it the top 100 courses or golf clubs ?

And its nothing to do with what "class" someone is or being excluded.

 

[JezzE]

Thats a big endorsement from Jezz as he told me the best course he had played was Royal Aberdeen, particularly the front 9. (I'm sure it was best he said but it maybe have been favourite now I think on it, maybe Jezz can clarify)

Can't remember exactly what I might have said, Val, but probably that Royal Aberdeen has the best nine holes of links golf anywhere in the country, and that it would be in my personal top 5 overall. I think it still would be despite Trump's arrival, with one of my other top 5 having to give way...

 

[MadAdey]

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

Hey Mike, if you ever need someone this side of the pond to go and do any course reviews I would be happy to help out...

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

It would be interesting to see the movers and shakers if the ranking criteria was changed to solely the course layout, design and condition. In the buildup to our trip to Muirfield last year, everyone was talking about the lunch rather than the course Compare that to somewhere like Carnoustie or TOC where there is no clubhouse as such and the experience is purely golf based.

 

[Ethan]

I speak purely for myself here, though I know at least one other panellist feels the same...

Of course, there's no doubt that RCD wins on the wow factor by a long way, but - and bearing in mind we're talking about trying to find reasons to separate what we are saying are the two best courses in the land - I personally feel it tails off a little midway through the back nine with that slightly less exciting par 3 down into the far corner and the hole that follows that.

Others will point to the number of blind shots, but it is really the above that does it for me.

Muirfield is less spectacular, no doubt about it, but someone the other day asked me to name my least favourite hole on the course, and I struggled to do it. It's just a solid test of golf from start to finish, with no tricks.

Jezz

I hope you are not talking about the 14th and 15th. The 14th is a good par 3 which requires a solid mid iron, nice tough hole, but the 15th is a wonderful par 4 to a rising fairway which narrows and requires a long iron or timber to a testing green. That is a great hole. But on that back 9, expectations have been so raised by some wonderful holes that it would be impossible to keep the level up.

The weakest holes at RCD are probably 17th (shortish par 4 with a pond in the fairway) and 18th, longish but not very exciting par 5. But by then, you are usually glad of the rest.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It would be interesting to see the movers and shakers if the ranking criteria was changed to solely the course layout, design and condition. In the buildup to our trip to Muirfield last year, everyone was talking about the lunch rather than the course Compare that to somewhere like Carnoustie or TOC where there is no clubhouse as such and the experience is purely golf based.

Yep - as i mentioned to Snelly - is it the Top 100 Courses or Golf clubs ?

If its courses then surely welcome and food and clubhouse etc shouldnt really come into it ?

 

[JezzE]

Yep - as i mentioned to Snelly - is it the Top 100 Courses or Golf clubs ?

If its courses then surely welcome and food and clubhouse etc shouldnt really come into it ?

Here are the full criteria on which we assess...

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/courses/top-100-courses/top-100-criteria-60844

 

[JezzE]

Jezz

I hope you are not talking about the 14th and 15th. The 14th is a good par 3 which requires a solid mid iron, nice tough hole, but the 15th is a wonderful par 4 to a rising fairway which narrows and requires a long iron or timber to a testing green. That is a great hole. But on that back 9, expectations have been so raised by some wonderful holes that it would be impossible to keep the level up.

The weakest holes at RCD are probably 17th (shortish par 4 with a pond in the fairway) and 18th, longish but not very exciting par 5. But by then, you are usually glad of the rest.

Yes, I am talking about the 14th, a par 3 that seems to lose the links characteristics of the rest of the course. I also think 13 is probably a slightly unfair hole for all but the best of golfers.

17 is a little incongruous, but I don't mind 18 even though I chopped it up there in 7 or 8 last time I played!

 

[MikeH]

If its just about the courses then the ratings for welcome and food etc shouldnt be involved and should be all about the actual course

So is it the top 100 courses or golf clubs ?

And its nothing to do with what "class" someone is or being excluded.

as we have said many times with our rankings it's about the all round experience so factors like lunch, welcome, visitor facilities and sense of occassion do count. if these things dont matter to you when youre handing over a large chunk of money then you might as well go any play it on a simulator!

however... on course alone Muirfield would still win my vote though

 

[Deleted member 15344]

as we have said many times with our rankings it's about the all round experience so factors like lunch, welcome, visitor facilities and sense of occassion do count. if these things dont matter to you when youre handing over a large chunk of money then you might as well go any play it on a simulator!

however... on course alone Muirfield would still win my vote though

So is it that grey area between a course and a club ?

So with Woburn as an example - the welcome , lunch etc will be the same markings for all three course then each course marked seperately ?

Or would the course occasions differ in regards say between the Dukes and the Marquess which do seem to have a different atmosphere

 

[MikeH]

So is it that grey area between a course and a club ?

So with Woburn as an example - the welcome , lunch etc will be the same markings for all three course then each course marked seperately ?

Or would the course occasions differ in regards say between the Dukes and the Marquess which do seem to have a different atmosphere

one of the things that has got The Dukes into the top 100 in 2012 (when we had Marquess and Duchess in in 2010) was the upgrade of the clubhouse facilities

they are ranked within the list as to what we believe to 1,2,3

 

[Deleted member 15344]

one of the things that has got The Dukes into the top 100 in 2012 (when we had Marquess and Duchess in in 2010) was the upgrade of the clubhouse facilities

they are ranked within the list as to what we believe to 1,2,3

Cheers for that

Ah right that's quite interesting because if you talk to a lot of the members they believe the upgrade of the clubhouse has moved it towards a corporate club and less a members club and the atmosphere being poor ( bar closing at 7 when members are still there etc )

Must feel different for a visitor arriving

Im guessing the new short game facility wasn't in place when the assessment was done