Golf Monthly Top 100

[D-S]

A regular playing partner of mine is a course reviewer for one of the publications. When he does a 'secret shopper' review it is generally playing in an open, members guest or a society/corporate day so no, they don't get reimbursed.

Good to know

 

[sunshine]

I find these lists rather frustrating when there isn’t much effort put into it.

To rate some of the heathland courses listed below as highly as they have indicates that they very much enjoy heathland golf. In fact, compared to Top 100 list they clearly look more favourably upon heathland golf and generally rank those courses higher.
However, they seem to love some heathland golf courses and totally disregard others - it’s inconsistent. I would be fascinated to understand why.

I can’t see how the 3 W’s can be spread so far apart, for example. Everyone you speak to has a different “favourite” - hard to say any one is significantly than another (20 places higher!)

I can’t see how you can love Liphook + Hankley and completely exclude Hindhead. Many find it difficult to split Liphook and Hindhead so if you’ve got one at #53, the other has to be quite close by…

Golf Monthly List:
30th Hankley Common
33rd Walton Heath Old
53rd Liphook
57th Walton Heath New
58th West Sussex
60th Worplesdon
68th Moortown
69th West Hill
81st Parkstone
83rd Woking
96th Broadstone

Top 100 Rankings: Arguably a lot of these are bunched closer together, indicating there’s not a lot between them all. It is acknowledgment that they are all rather similar.

31st West Sussex
39th Walton Heath Old
58th Hankley Common
67th Woking
73rd Worplesdon
75th Liphook
78th West Hill
87th Broadstone
88th Parkstone
89th Walton Heath New
91st Hindhead
98th Moortown

And I’m not overly impressed with top 100’s latest rankings either, where they moved Hindhead down 6 places in England (33rd -> 39th) despite not visiting over those 2 years (hmm) and ongoing course improvements.

Yes I’m bitter that I feel my club is constantly hard done by in the rankings. No it does not have any real consequence.

The GM list is much more subjective than Top 100.

These lists are very important to some golf clubs. Their whole marketing strategy and green fees are based on the ranking.

 

[sunshine]

Who is paying £475 to play a round of golf? Is it exclusively fat white rich Americans up at Turnberry now?

So you just turn up and announce you are a golf monthly reviewer and get on for free. Don't know if the reviewers have a badge they flash in the pro shop.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I love how people state as facts what the reviewers do and don’t get, how it works etc, without any actual knowledge or fact.

Why not ask rather than telling?
There are reviewers on here who I’m sure would be glad to advise.

 

[Bratty]

I love how people state as facts what the reviewers do and don’t get, how it works etc, without any actual knowledge or fact.

Why not ask rather than telling?
There are reviewers on here who I’m sure would be glad to advise.

Because that's not how forums work (much to my disappointment!)...

 

[Newnsy]

The GM list is much more subjective than Top 100.

These lists are very important to some golf clubs. Their whole marketing strategy and green fees are based on the ranking.

Surely every Top X list in golf is subjective, it would be so difficult to quantify a golf course standard because of all the different types of courses the history etc

As has been said before half the fun of these lists is the discussion they bring up, everyone disagrees with at least one course in the list, thinks their golf club should be higher. I'm lucky enough to play at one of the Clubs on here and I think it deserves to be much higher

But I think someone earlier in the thread mentioned West Sussex being hard done by I agree it's my favourite course I've played and I have played about 20 of the courses ranked higher. But its an interesting read all the same

 

[Deleted member 31467]

The GM list is much more subjective than Top 100.

These lists are very important to some golf clubs. Their whole marketing strategy and green fees are based on the ranking.

Have a look at the ranking criteria on the website. Very little subjectivity in it, it appears to be a pretty fixed format. The top100 website takes into account public reviews which are more likely to be subjective.

 

[Deleted member 17920]

If only I’d come to golf about 5 years earlier…even 3 years would have been nice..

Yes we have been to some cracking Top 100 venues over the years on forum meets.

Turnberry
Royal Dornoch
Nairn
Castle Stuart
Cruden Bay
Murcar
Trump Aberdeen
Carnoustie
The Machrie
Machrihanish
Mach Dunes
Southerness
Silloth
Conway
West Lancs
Hillside
Formby
Alwoodley
Moortown
Woodhall Spa
Hollinwell
Woburn
New Zealand
The Addington
West Hill
Sunningdale
Prices
Royal Cinque Ports
Royal St Georges
K Club
Druids Glen

We had some cracking times on the big road trips.

All done on forum meets plus the H4H venues like Hankley, North Hants, Liphook, Blackmoor

Shows how lucky we really have been to have played such a list before the prices went up.

 

[sunshine]

Have a look at the ranking criteria on the website. Very little subjectivity in it, it appears to be a pretty fixed format. The top100 website takes into account public reviews which are more likely to be subjective.

The more sources and opinions, the less subjective the list.

GM list is based on a panel, so only gathering a narrow sample of opinions. Top 100 list is blending multiple sources including reviews and reporting panels. Every list will be subjective, just some lists are more subjective than others.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I assume they get courtesy of the course, so that is a pretty good incentive - also maybe the more expensive the course the better this incentive appears, which I would hate to think would influence any viewpoint.

Maybe an alternative view would be asking reviewers to pay with their own money and create them as to value?

Sometime you are given courtesy of the course but increasingly clubs charge a reviewing fee. There is no reimbursement for this as there isn't for travel, accommodation and food. We are asked to rate the course on "value for money" based on the rack-rate but I'm not sure this is a major part of the exercise.

Like most reviewers we often review courses when we visit for opens, matches and playing with friends. In these cases the visit is covert so the club have no idea. However, a normal review will involve talking to people at the club to understand improvements / plans etc. These can give a greater insight into the visit but the focus is still on what you see on the day you visit.

For a club on the contender list (top 140) they will definitely be visited multiple times throughout the period. However, as stated some of these may be covert so will not be visible.

 

[sunshine]

Sometime you are given courtesy of the course but increasingly clubs charge a reviewing fee. There is no reimbursement for this as there isn't for travel, accommodation and food. Was are asked to rate the course on "value for money" based on the rack-rate but I'm not sure this is a major part of the exercise.

Like most reviewers we often review courses when we visit for opens, matches and playing with friends. In these cases the visit is covert so the club have no idea. However, a normal review will involve talking to people at the club to understand improvements / plans etc. These can give a greater insight into the visit but the focus is still on what you see on the day you visit.

For a club on the contender list (top 140) they will definitely be visited multiple times throughout the period. However, as stated some of these may be covert so will not be visible.

Thanks for this.

I always think a review is better if it is under cover so you receive the genuine visitor experience. If a club welcomes you with courtesy of the course, you are going to have a much more friendly disposition when it comes to writing your review, it's an unconscious bias which is just human nature.

I'd expect the reviewers to be compensated by GM in some way, as they are contributing to content which drives clicks on the website / sales of the magazine.

 

[Deleted member 31467]

The more sources and opinions, the less subjective the list.

GM list is based on a panel, so only gathering a narrow sample of opinions. Top 100 list is blending multiple sources including reviews and reporting panels. Every list will be subjective, just some lists are more subjective than others.

I have read reviews on top100golfcourses from Joe Public that have submitted reviews and clearly been beaten up and slagged the course off as a result. No thanks, I'll stick to lists where the reviewers know what they are talking about.

 

[sunshine]

I have read reviews on top100golfcourses from Joe Public that have submitted reviews and clearly been beaten up and slagged the course off as a result. No thanks, I'll stick to lists where the reviewers know what they are talking about.

I'm not here to advertise top100, but their ranking lists are not based on random reader reviews. Their rankings factor in multiple sources, including their own panel of "experts".

 

[IanM]

You need the thoughts of people who have been "around a bit!" But you never remove subjectivity entirely

 

[Deleted member 31467]

I'm not here to advertise top100, but their ranking lists are not based on random reader reviews. Their rankings factor in multiple sources, including their own panel of "experts".

They have a ranking system for reader reviews. I've just read one review of a top 100 course where the guy has given the course a rating of 2.5 because 'the course is too hard'

 

[sunshine]

They have a ranking system for reader reviews. I've just read one review of a top 100 course where the guy has given the course a rating of 2.5 because 'the course is too hard'

But the course's ranking is not based on the rating of some random hacker who found it too tough.

 

[Deleted member 31467]

But the course's ranking is not based on the rating of some random hacker who found it too tough.

Fair enough if that is the case which then makes the comments from Joe Public a bit of a waste of time.

 

[evemccc]

What I like about Top100 is that rather like ‘Goodreads’ if you find someone who writes well and has a similar opinion to you about a course you’ve played, you then are able to see all of that person’s reviews and perhaps choose to play another course based on a glowing review from that reviewer you ‘trust’

First rule of the internet though - take everything that someone says with a decent-sized pinch of salt! And it helps to have multiple reviews from Joe Public as people do notice different things

I can also see the advantage of single-person reviewers such as Golf Empire as well

 

[Kennysarmy]

Is there such a thing as a map with all these locations plotted on?

 

[3 jabber]

I find these lists rather frustrating when there isn’t much effort put into it.

To rate some of the heathland courses listed below as highly as they have indicates that they very much enjoy heathland golf. In fact, compared to Top 100 list they clearly look more favourably upon heathland golf and generally rank those courses higher.
However, they seem to love some heathland golf courses and totally disregard others - it’s inconsistent. I would be fascinated to understand why.

I can’t see how the 3 W’s can be spread so far apart, for example. Everyone you speak to has a different “favourite” - hard to say any one is significantly than another (20 places higher!)

I can’t see how you can love Liphook + Hankley and completely exclude Hindhead. Many find it difficult to split Liphook and Hindhead so if you’ve got one at #53, the other has to be quite close by…

Golf Monthly List:
30th Hankley Common
33rd Walton Heath Old
53rd Liphook
57th Walton Heath New
58th West Sussex
60th Worplesdon
68th Moortown
69th West Hill
81st Parkstone
83rd Woking
96th Broadstone

Top 100 Rankings: Arguably a lot of these are bunched closer together, indicating there’s not a lot between them all. It is acknowledgment that they are all rather similar.

31st West Sussex
39th Walton Heath Old
58th Hankley Common
67th Woking
73rd Worplesdon
75th Liphook
78th West Hill
87th Broadstone
88th Parkstone
89th Walton Heath New
91st Hindhead
98th Moortown

And I’m not overly impressed with top 100’s latest rankings either, where they moved Hindhead down 6 places in England (33rd -> 39th) despite not visiting over those 2 years (hmm) and ongoing course improvements.

Yes I’m bitter that I feel my club is constantly hard done by in the rankings. No it does not have any real consequence.

I know 2 guys that review for the top100courses rankings. Many of their reviews are 'secret shopper' so it's quite likely your course has been reviewed, they just don't know it.