Hunstanton

[Liverbirdie]

Design, test, condition and presentation should be all its about and that is why golf course reviews are nonsense.

It's a review of the course not the club.

Anyway I don't want to take this further off track. Hopefully whoever next plays Hunstanton gives us their views. Never played it and to be honest it's never been on my radar either.

In your opinion.

Obviously the OP and others want it about other things like the welcome, so cant be everything to everyone.

The rating guidlelines arent static and are tweaked every 2 years.

Its like the arument from a few years back about private courses not being included such as Loch Lomond, wentworth etc. After a decade of consideration GM decided to take them out of it. On the forum there was a healthy split of people who agreed and ones that didnt. One group wanted a top 100 including them as its still a list of UK top courses, the others were'nt happy that they were in cos everyone cant play them. Merits to both arguments.

What do YOU think criteria should be, and what individual aspects a course should be marked on, as we have to take into account approx 20-30 "pointers". Lets just say course only, give us 15-20.

Go on the stage is yours, dont drop the mic.

 

[Jacko_G]

It's quite simple. It's about the course, the course and the course.

Playability, variety, design, layout, condition, greens, bunkers, and flow. Do the holes flow seamlessly? Is the back 9 not as good as the front 9 (Royal Aberdeen, Western Gailes and vice versa) etc.

Never really understood how you can say we're marking this course down because it doesn't have as good a clubhouse/shower or reception as that course.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

It's quite simple. It's about the course, the course and the course.

Playability, variety, design, layout, condition, greens, bunkers, and flow. Do the holes flow seamlessly? Is the back 9 not as good as the front 9 (Royal Aberdeen, Western Gailes and vice versa) etc.

Never really understood how you can say we're marking this course down because it doesn't have as good a clubhouse/shower or reception as that course.

I wouldn't be over the moon if I spent £200 on a green fee for a course with no facilities.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Of course it would, surprised your surprised.

Like a lot of things, people can criticise, but when asked for solutions or CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, they suddenly wont put as much effort in.

A bit like the average football fan - we need a new left back - okay name one thats available, the right price, you've actually seen play, errrrrrrr.............

I asked Mike in May, if any spaces were free on the review panel, but sadly I was informed there was not.

If a reviewer space was ever offered to me, which it probably wont be, I would only wish to do the reviews on a mystery shopper/green fee basis.

Tend to read trip adivsor and the top100 website reviews, in particular the less than top reviews, to see what is really said about the club.

Also agree that when spending a lot of money on playing a course, the whole experience needs to be marked, with a very strong bias to the golf course itself. GM split looks pretty good to me. Bit like if I went to a restaurant, I wouldn't just mark the meal, I would mark the décor/welcome/toilets/service as well etc as it all forms part of what I am paying for.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

... Bit like if I went to a restaurant, I wouldn't just mark the meal, I would mark the décor/welcome/toilets/service as well etc as it all forms part of what I am paying for.

Michelin star rating is based on food alone, and as such some people are disappointed if they aren't treated like kings & queens on their visits, because they expert great service as part of the rating.

As such I think a golf course rating should cover all aspects, but very much weighted towards the course.

 

[robinthehood]

Michelin star rating is based on food alone, and as such some people are disappointed if they aren't treated like kings & queens on their visits, because they expert great service as part of the rating.

As such I think a golf course rating should cover all aspects, but very much weighted towards the course.

Also Michelin reviewers are anonymous.

 

[patricks148]

It's quite simple. It's about the course, the course and the course.

Playability, variety, design, layout, condition, greens, bunkers, and flow. Do the holes flow seamlessly? Is the back 9 not as good as the front 9 (Royal Aberdeen, Western Gailes and vice versa) etc.

Never really understood how you can say we're marking this course down because it doesn't have as good a clubhouse/shower or reception as that course.

i would tend to agree with you, i go to a course to play golf, anything else means very little to me, its all about the course..

last couple of times i've been to Carnoustie we didn't even set foot in the new reception, shop area, i didn't go there for that.. it was the course, when i've been to Muirfiled with the SGU deal were have been treated pretty poorly, but it didn't spoil it as i was ther to play golf and have been back many times, though you do get treated better as a members guest than the proletariat

as for Hunstanton, never played it doubt i ever will where i live, but from the photo's of the course it looks nice, if the OP unhappy with it he is entitled to his opinion, but personally i would be there for the course alone.

 

[Backache]

i would tend to agree with you, i go to a course to play golf, anything else means very little to me, its all about the course..

last couple of times i've been to Carnoustie we didn't even set foot in the new reception, shop area, i didn't go there for that.. it was the course

I agree in as much as my reason for choosing a place to visit is all about the course. Having said that a truly unfriendly atmosphere would put me off visiting a place again whereas a friendly welcoming one would encourage me to visit again.
Fortunately the former is very rare in my experience.

 

[patricks148]

I agree in as much as my reason for choosing a place to visit is all about the course. Having said that a truly unfriendly atmosphere would put me off visiting a place again whereas a friendly welcoming one would encourage me to visit again.
Fortunately the former is very rare in my experience.

wouldn't bother me TBH as long as the course was good

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Also Michelin reviewers are anonymous.

I'm not interested in your argument; I was just stating that, if the whole of an experience is not rated, the rating is flawed.

If I go for a meal I want to be looked after by the MD, waiters and sommeliers, as well as wanting to have great food & wine.

If I play golf I want to be treated as a member for the day, if this isn't done well I don't think I enjoy the experience as much. But, the course (set up, condition etc) is the main element.

Much like the fact that I remember great dishes, I remember great golf courses as well, but will often recall the other aspects of those days out which either enhance or diminish the experience.

 

[robinthehood]

I'm not interested in your argument; I was just stating that, if the whole of an experience is not rated, the rating is flawed.

If I go for a meal I want to be looked after by the MD, waiters and sommeliers, as well as wanting to have great food & wine.

If I play golf I want to be treated as a member for the day, if this isn't done well I don't think I enjoy the experience as much. But, the course (set up, condition etc) is the main element.

Much like the fact that I remember great dishes, I remember great golf courses as well, but will often recall the other aspects of those days out which either enhance or diminish the experience.

It's not an argument, I'm just wondering how objective someone who's getting a free round of golf at an apparent top club will be .
I got the impression from the replies in this thread that some had more than just a passing interest in the ranking process .

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

It's not and argument, I'm just wondering how objective someone who's getting a free round of golf at an apparent top club will be .

That is a whole different argument and you are bringing ethics into it.

 

[robinthehood]

That is a whole different argument and you are bringing ethics into it.

Not at all, it's a fair enough point. Have you ever written a really bad review?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

...I got the impression from the replies in this thread that some had more than just a passing interest in the ranking process .

They may well do...

Perhaps one of them is writing a book on their experiences, working title - The top 100 courses I've played for free (and have over stated their quality in order to annoy a bunch of knobs on a golf forum)

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Not at all, it's a fair enough point. Have you ever written a really bad review?

Yeah, his punctuation was terrible

 

[robinthehood]

They may well do...

Perhaps one of them is writing a book on their experiences, working title - The top 100 courses I've played for free (and have over stated their quality in order to annoy a bunch of knobs on a golf forum)

Ah and here come the childish insults.

 

[Jacko_G]

I'm not interested in your argument; I was just stating that, if the whole of an experience is not rated, the rating is flawed.

If I go for a meal I want to be looked after by the MD, waiters and sommeliers, as well as wanting to have great food & wine.

If I play golf I want to be treated as a member for the day, if this isn't done well I don't think I enjoy the experience as much. But, the course (set up, condition etc) is the main element.

Much like the fact that I remember great dishes, I remember great golf courses as well, but will often recall the other aspects of those days out which either enhance or diminish the experience.

The whole experience? This is the TOP 100 golf courses. Not top 100 golf experience's.

Therefore it's surely about the golf course, not the marble floor and walnut paneling or the luxurious shower room.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Ah and here come the childish insults.

It's no more childish than you questioning the ethics of people you've never met.

 

[Neilds]

Michelin star rating is based on food alone, and as such some people are disappointed if they aren't treated like kings & queens on their visits, because they expert great service as part of the rating.

As such I think a golf course rating should cover all aspects, but very much weighted towards the course.

Incorrect

“Michelin's inspectors evaluate all aspects of a restaurant, from the time it takes to be seated to the politeness of the serving staff to the quality and creativity of the food to the overall ambiance. Despite not having any set guidelines to go by, chefs can boost their chances of being considered for a star by paying attention to every detail of their restaurants, not just the food.”

 

[Captainron]

It's not an argument, I'm just wondering how objective someone who's getting a free round of golf at an apparent top club will be .
I got the impression from the replies in this thread that some had more than just a passing interest in the ranking process .

Being given courtesy doesn’t mean a favourable review. Every reviewer will score it according to the guidelines and not whether they paid for it.