Golf course rankings

[Deleted Member 1156]

What 'qualifications' do you need to make 'informed' judgements on ranking golf courses? The reason I ask is I was browsing another site (golfclubatlas) and reading discussions on peoples top 20 rankings in England. Many of them proclaim to be course afficionados but some of the lists they have come up with are quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Not sure there is any definitive guide. Word of mouth is usually a pretty good barometer and I reckon at least one person on here will have played most of the courses. I use the AA guide as a starting point but to me a good test is always the quality of the club's website

 

[JCW]

How do golf monthly rate golf courses , what is the format it uses , anyone answer this ..................

 

[Deleted member 15344]

People rate using various methods

Quality

Value for money

Accessibility

History

Prestige

The top 100 in both GM and TG are pretty good lists

 

[chrisd]

How do golf monthly rate golf courses , what is the format it uses , anyone answer this ..................

Mike Harris told us at the Ping Pro am that they have a panel of assessors who play courses and file a report. I think he said that most courses in the 100 plus the rising new courses get played every so often and then, depending on the reports, the list is compiled.

He told us this in the pub the evening before the ProAm so Virtuocity, Mattyboy and Pieman won't recall this as they were well on their way to Blottisvill!

 

[Lontano]

According to the current Top 100 Courses just published by Golf Monthly, they use these criteria - much more detail in the magazine on what makes up each section.

Quality of Test and design - 35 Marks
Condition and Presentation - 30 Marks
Visual Appeal - 20 Marks
Ambience - 15 Marks

 

[Region3]

I'm sure the magazines have 'formulae' and allocate points based on various factors to come up with a final ranking, but as far as I'm concerned it all boils down to how much I enjoy playing the course.
If I were to list the courses I'd played and which is my favourite somebody would start a petition to get me sectioned.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

According to the current Top 100 Courses just published by Golf Monthly, they use these criteria - much more detail in the magazine on what makes up each section.

Quality of Test and design - 35 Marks
Condition and Presentation - 30 Marks
Visual Appeal - 20 Marks
Ambience - 15 Marks

I'm sure the magazines have 'formulae' and allocate points based on various factors to come up with a final ranking, but as far as I'm concerned it all boils down to how much I enjoy playing the course.
If I were to list the courses I'd played and which is my favourite somebody would start a petition to get me sectioned.

Yes indeed but I think the 'quality and design' section is far too subjective. One man's meat etc.....

The article on the website that I read have some strange opnions. Guys were raving about some very average courses being in their top 20's then at the end coming up with stupid things like 'honourable mention to......' and then listing some far superior courses. I just don't get it, some very strange opinions out there.

As stated, if you play well round a course that can influence your decision. Maybe they shot 65 round Dogtrack Park but struggled to break 100 round Sunningdale.

 

[CMAC]

the whole subject is subjective and there cannot be a right or wrong answer for that reason.

Some of the most heated 'discussions' on here have been about the GM top 100 courses.

 

[Ethan]

What 'qualifications' do you need to make 'informed' judgements on ranking golf courses? The reason I ask is I was browsing another site (golfclubatlas) and reading discussions on peoples top 20 rankings in England. Many of them proclaim to be course afficionados but some of the lists they have come up with are quite frankly, ridiculous.

Which ones did you consider ridiculous, and why?

Golf Club Atlas is a site for aficionados of architecture, so they tend to favour classic designs and quirky courses with interesting natural features, and they place a lot less emphasis on the history of Tour events and the quality of the lunch at a course. The GCA members don't claim special qualifications, although a number of well known architects such as Tom Doak are active members.

Anyway, it is just a website where people give their opinions. You will find many others around. Like here, for example.

 

[MikeH]

Afternoon all

First thing to say on any course ranking is that they cant be anything other than subjective because its based on opinion - anyone who bills them as definitive is talking out of their behind

However what you can do to make the list as 'accurate' as possible is to assess on a strict criteria, ask panelists to benchmark courses against others they have played, ignore personal performance on the day and then for us to moderate marking to take into account overly generous or mean marking

You can read some more about how we assess courses for our Top 100 here
http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/cours...top-100-uk-and-ireland-golf-courses-2012.html

The list is generated via reports filed from our panel of assessors made up of staff, advisors and readers
http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/cours...he-2013-14-top-100-course-rankings-panel.html

Of the senior panel Jezz and Rob Smith have played every single course in the top 100 (circa 80% of the next 100) and 608 and 748 courses in total - I lag way behind on 79 of the top 100, 55 of the next 100 and getting on for 300 courses in total (I don’t know exact numbers as I'm not a weirdo and don’t keep a spreadsheet like the other two)

Our senior advisory panel have all played more than 500 courses worldwide with one of them, Derek Dobbs, having played in excess of 3,000 courses!

Almost all of the reader panelists have played more than 50 of our top 100 with many up near the 75 plus mark and over 250 courses in total

That doesn't make us/them 'right' about assessments and rankings of any course but it does mean the panel is proffering views based on a decent level of experience

As I say it's all subjective and there to generate debate and discussion and inspire golfers to try and experience playing a top course

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Thanks Mike, I think the panellists on here do a better job than some of the some called self appointed 'afficionados' on GCA. Some of their suggestions are strange to say the least. For what it's worth, I'm more than suitably qualified to join your esteemed panel having played well over 300 courses and 60 odd of the current top 100

Ethan, I understand your point about their views on 'quirky' and 'natural'. Scotland in particular is littered with courses like that however it doesn't make them good courses. I think the GCA guys would be better off sticking to more recognised criteria. As for Tom Doak, some of his rankings leave a lot to be desired.

Thanks for the input chaps :thup:

 

[CMAC]

Afternoon all

First thing to say on any course ranking is that they cant be anything other than subjective because its based on opinion - anyone who bills them as definitive is talking out of their behind

However what you can do to make the list as 'accurate' as possible is to assess on a strict criteria, ask panelists to benchmark courses against others they have played, ignore personal performance on the day and then for us to moderate marking to take into account overly generous or mean marking

You can read some more about how we assess courses for our Top 100 here
http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/cours...top-100-uk-and-ireland-golf-courses-2012.html

The list is generated via reports filed from our panel of assessors made up of staff, advisors and readers
http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/cours...he-2013-14-top-100-course-rankings-panel.html

Of the senior panel Jezz and Rob Smith have played every single course in the top 100 (circa 80% of the next 100) and 608 and 748 courses in total - I lag way behind on 79 of the top 100, 55 of the next 100 and getting on for 300 courses in total (I don’t know exact numbers as I'm not a weirdo and don’t keep a spreadsheet like the other two)

Our senior advisory panel have all played more than 500 courses worldwide with one of them, Derek Dobbs, having played in excess of 3,000 courses!

Almost all of the reader panelists have played more than 50 of our top 100 with many up near the 75 plus mark and over 250 courses in total

That doesn't make us/them 'right' about assessments and rankings of any course but it does mean the panel is proffering views based on a decent level of experience

As I say it's all subjective and there to generate debate and discussion and inspire golfers to try and experience playing a top course

You should use the REP for some of these Mike

 

[Ethan]

Thanks Mike, I think the panellists on here do a better job than some of the some called self appointed 'afficionados' on GCA. Some of their suggestions are strange to say the least. For what it's worth, I'm more than suitably qualified to join your esteemed panel having played well over 300 courses and 60 odd of the current top 100

Ethan, I understand your point about their views on 'quirky' and 'natural'. Scotland in particular is littered with courses like that however it doesn't make them good courses. I think the GCA guys would be better off sticking to more recognised criteria. As for Tom Doak, some of his rankings leave a lot to be desired.

Thanks for the input chaps :thup:

Very interesting, but rather devoid of examples where GCA members and or Doak have got it wrong and why. Care to elaborate? Otherwise your point is a waste of time and impossible to judge.

'Good' is a much more complicated concept than it seems. I watched Michael Caine's 1977 classic 'The Eagle Has Landed' yesterday. It really isn't very good but I enjoyed it a lot anyway.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I'll pop onto that website this evening and find the article to post the link on here :thup:

 

[MikeH]

Thanks Mike, I think the panellists on here do a better job than some of the some called self appointed 'afficionados' on GCA. Some of their suggestions are strange to say the least. For what it's worth, I'm more than suitably qualified to join your esteemed panel having played well over 300 courses and 60 odd of the current top 100

Hi D4S
when we last published the list in late 2012 I did invite applications from forumers to be considered for the panel. I didnt get any at the time and now we are mid way through current assesing period we wouldnt add to the panel but would certaibly consider new recruits for the rankings after next which we'll begin looking at in Spring 2015
Keep an eye out later in the year
Mike

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

As promised, here is the link

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50101.0.html

What I can't understand is looking at some of these lists then at the bottom are the ones that missed out.

 

[Ethan]

As promised, here is the link

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50101.0.html

What I can't understand is looking at some of these lists then at the bottom are the ones that missed out.

I am still missing your informed commentary on which courses are wrongly included/excluded and why. You want be to be a course rater. If you really want to audition for the job, rate some courses then.

That thread looks list a list of people's personal favourite courses. I didn't see it as an authoritative ranking of courses. In my case if I was to do a list it would not include The Berkshire, Walton Heath or Royal St Georges, for example, as I have never played them. It would therefore not compare to a GM list of "nest" courses.

I assume you will also be posting your criticism of similar lists produced by every other golf website.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Yes indeed but I think the 'quality and design' section is far too subjective. One man's meat etc..

Brave post.

 

[MadAdey]

How can there ever be a correct answer to this. For me personally, if I am looking at somewhere to play the softness of the changing room towels and how good the food is of no interest really. I only care about the quality if the course, if I want good food I will visit a top restaurant.

So to be honest my opinions on how good a golfing venue is, would be all about the course. So my opinion on a golf club would probably contradict a lot of other peoples opinions as I do not care too much about off course facilities.