Hunstanton

[Hobbit]

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.

I'm inclined to disagree. When I arrive at a club I'd expect at least the common courtesies, and when I've finished playing I'd like to think there's a decent welcome in the clubhouse. Would a poor experience stop me revisiting? It has done. There's more than enough very good courses out there to not have to revisit places that don't make you feel welcome.

However, in terms of marking a visit, I'd expect that a large percentage of the score to come from how good or bad the course is. I'd hope that the comments associated with a review would at least say that the overall experience, including pro shop and clubhouse staff were good/poor.

 

[user2010]

I'm inclined to disagree. When I arrive at a club I'd expect at least the common courtesies, and when I've finished playing I'd like to think there's a decent welcome in the clubhouse. Would a poor experience stop me revisiting? It has done. There's more than enough very good courses out there to not have to revisit places that don't make you feel welcome.

However, in terms of marking a visit, I'd expect that a large percentage of the score to come from how good or bad the course is. I'd hope that the comments associated with a review would at least say that the overall experience, including pro shop and clubhouse staff were good/poor.

Which brings us nicely back to the OP.

 

[Jacko_G]

I'm inclined to disagree. When I arrive at a club I'd expect at least the common courtesies, and when I've finished playing I'd like to think there's a decent welcome in the clubhouse. Would a poor experience stop me revisiting? It has done. There's more than enough very good courses out there to not have to revisit places that don't make you feel welcome.

However, in terms of marking a visit, I'd expect that a large percentage of the score to come from how good or bad the course is. I'd hope that the comments associated with a review would at least say that the overall experience, including pro shop and clubhouse staff were good/poor.

We all have our own agendas and tick lists. I'm not suggesting that I am correct. It's nice to feel valued and welcomed but for me the course is what takes me to these places.

 

[patricks148]

I have paid full whack, played in opens, been guests of members and have also been afforded courtesy of the course.

don't forget hung around outside the pro shop trying to get members to sign you on

 

[Deleted member 1147]

We all have our own agendas and tick lists. I'm not suggesting that I am correct. It's nice to feel valued and welcomed but for me the course is what takes me to these places.

I agree the course is the reason for the visit, and that is why I suggested the majority of the weighting should go towards the course.
But the extras make the experience better or worse, and so should, for me, have an influence on the rating.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Also Michelin reviewers are anonymous.

How do you know?

 

[Liverbirdie]

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 .

So do you honestly think that someone would give a rubbish course 100 out of 100 cos a freebie, but 10 if they had to pay?

I think GM would be on to us in no time. Yes there is very disparate ratings, I'm sure on some courses but as 80% is about the course, bad welcomes would still only cover 1-2 marks.

If they are mostly free, how can you differentiate, anyway?

If I was to review 25 courses over a 2 year period and say even 20 were free, its a reasonably level playing field, but you are obviously calling into question peoples integrity - probably just for show.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Ah and here come the childish insults.

As opposed to the childish arguments?

 

[Liverbirdie]

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.

Do you say this because a course you are/were a member of doesnt have a clubhouse?

Some would say that you could be biased?

I dont, as I think its a salient point, but look at JamesR and the OP and others over time, who DO want that also incorporated. We cant have 20 different 100 lists so have to pick one, not perfect, but there you go.

 

[robinthehood]

As opposed to the childish arguments?

Oof, you boys are the ones with the knob gags.
I'm Not questioning anyone's integrity your just being a bit precious.
To me , getting to review lovely courses at a free or reduced rate sounds like a cushy little number.
Good luck to you 😉

 

[Hobbit]

Do you say this because a course you are/were a member of doesnt have a clubhouse?

Some would say that you could be biased?

I dont, as I think its a salient point, but look at JamesR and the OP and others over time, who DO want that also incorporated. We cant have 20 different 100 lists so have to pick one, not perfect, but there you go.

Any list, and or criteria involved in creating that list will be subjective. What's right for you might not be right for me. However, what the list does create is a benchmark number that might have a bearing on whether or not someone visits. You might score it 80 out of a 100, and my benchmark for a visit might be 70. In effect, although I might disagree with your score you've passed my limit for a visit.

All that said, the fact those courses are on a list, and probably somewhere around their expected position by many golfers, what's the problem if they're 20th or 30th?

Where the real discussions, and disagreements, take place is around the real anomalies. When you get a significant number of people saying no way should that course be anywhere near the top 50 let alone in the top 10, thats when something is amiss.

I'll throw one on there that has received a great mark recently, Trump Aberdeen. I played it in great company, and on a good weather day. It didn't light my candle at all. It was a decent layout, and had 16 good holes. There's courses around that I think are way better than Trump Aberdeen but barely squeeze into the top 100. For me, a question that I always ask myself is would I revisit? No, not in this instance. Its too manufactured for me and just 'hurts' the eye a little because of it. I dare say when its older I might have a different view... as for others liking it so much. I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't think they're wrong, I just think they have a different opinion.

 

[Jacko_G]

Do you say this because a course you are/were a member of doesnt have a clubhouse?

Some would say that you could be biased?

I dont, as I think its a salient point, but look at JamesR and the OP and others over time, who DO want that also incorporated. We cant have 20 different 100 lists so have to pick one, not perfect, but there you go.

Surprised at your reply to be honest, pretty childish. Some of the best fun courses I've played I've changed my shoes in the car park and stuck a ten spot in the honesty box.

I guess when people can't debate without resorting to point scoring its best to leave the argument alone.

 

[Jacko_G]

Any list, and or criteria involved in creating that list will be subjective. What's right for you might not be right for me. However, what the list does create is a benchmark number that might have a bearing on whether or not someone visits. You might score it 80 out of a 100, and my benchmark for a visit might be 70. In effect, although I might disagree with your score you've passed my limit for a visit.

All that said, the fact those courses are on a list, and probably somewhere around their expected position by many golfers, what's the problem if they're 20th or 30th?

Where the real discussions, and disagreements, take place is around the real anomalies. When you get a significant number of people saying no way should that course be anywhere near the top 50 let alone in the top 10, thats when something is amiss.

I'll throw one on there that has received a great mark recently, Trump Aberdeen. I played it in great company, and on a good weather day. It didn't light my candle at all. It was a decent layout, and had 16 good holes. There's courses around that I think are way better than Trump Aberdeen but barely squeeze into the top 100. For me, a question that I always ask myself is would I revisit? No, not in this instance. Its too manufactured for me and just 'hurts' the eye a little because of it. I dare say when its older I might have a different view... as for others liking it so much. I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't think they're wrong, I just think they have a different opinion.

Sums up perfectly how we're all different. I thought Trump Aberdeen was fantastic, as good as we have in Scotland, great par 3's and 5's and a tremendous mix of par 4's that challenge risks and reward and tough great holes.

 

[jammag]

They used to close the 6th hole on windy days because the balls would be blown off the green.
The 14th is a blind par 3, not great if the group in front don't ring the bell.

Interesting you mention the blind par 3. One of the myths around this region is that Hunstanton would be in line to host the open if they sorted the blind hole. Also the roads would have to be better to cope with the traffic in and out of the town.

 

[anotherdouble]

As mentioned previously the welcome and staff form only a small part of the process. The design, test, condition and presentation of the course forms the bulk of the review and I doubt that any course will have the inclination or ability to change those for a reviewers planned visit.

Sod playing the courses you review as the approach shots must be horrendous 😁😁😁

 

[Liverbirdie]

Oof, you boys are the ones with the knob gags.
I'm Not questioning anyone's integrity your just being a bit precious.
To me , getting to review lovely courses at a free or reduced rate sounds like a cushy little number.
Good luck to you 😉

It is, would never deny it.

The chance to play fantastic courses for free is fantastic. I'm not expecting sympathy, but some trips can still cost you hundreds of pounds though, but I do it by choice as I would love to do all 100, if I get a chance. It normally takes me about 3 hours to write up my reports, and I do put a lot of thought into it, as I'm sure the others do as well. However, its not just a case of playing the courses within an hour of where I live, play it for free, just say thats a "72" out of 100, cheers me hearty.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

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.”

I’ve spoken to a former inspector; service etc can help achieve the star, to give that extra push from good to excellent. But the food is what counts, you can have great food and poor service, but you can’t have only decent food and excellent service.
Hence the reason fast food/street food stalls can get stars as can stuffy Parisian restaurants with miserable staff.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Sod playing the courses you review as the approach shots must be horrendous 😁😁😁

I can just picture it now:

“Having hit a 314 yard drive on the 350 yard 2nd hole, I was left with a tricky 267 yard approach; over the green keepers hut, between the giant oak and electricity pylon, it is not a thing of beauty. But it does bring a sense of adventure!”
🤣🤣

 

[Liverbirdie]

Surprised at your reply to be honest, pretty childish. Some of the best fun courses I've played I've changed my shoes in the car park and stuck a ten spot in the honesty box.

I guess when people can't debate without resorting to point scoring its best to leave the argument alone.

Firstly, after reading my post again, you may have missed my intention.

When I said I dont, in the last line, I was saying that I dont think that you do think like that, so I wasnt trying to point score at all. Sincerely.

What I was saying though is for someone who knows that, they may think that you dont want that including, because your course doesnt have that great clubhouse feel, look or facilities so dont feel its important. I actually really liked Dundonald, and played it before reviewing, but the lack of a clubhouse did put it slightly down in my opinion. As I say, it wasnt meant to be a dig.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Any list, and or criteria involved in creating that list will be subjective. What's right for you might not be right for me. However, what the list does create is a benchmark number that might have a bearing on whether or not someone visits. You might score it 80 out of a 100, and my benchmark for a visit might be 70. In effect, although I might disagree with your score you've passed my limit for a visit.

All that said, the fact those courses are on a list, and probably somewhere around their expected position by many golfers, what's the problem if they're 20th or 30th?

Where the real discussions, and disagreements, take place is around the real anomalies. When you get a significant number of people saying no way should that course be anywhere near the top 50 let alone in the top 10, thats when something is amiss.

I'll throw one on there that has received a great mark recently, Trump Aberdeen. I played it in great company, and on a good weather day. It didn't light my candle at all. It was a decent layout, and had 16 good holes. There's courses around that I think are way better than Trump Aberdeen but barely squeeze into the top 100. For me, a question that I always ask myself is would I revisit? No, not in this instance. Its too manufactured for me and just 'hurts' the eye a little because of it. I dare say when its older I might have a different view... as for others liking it so much. I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't think they're wrong, I just think they have a different opinion.

Bang on Bri.

Believe me, I also have big opinions about some of the placings, and would argue till the cows come home, against their ranking. My no.1 is actually about 48 (Tralee) and I've played 9 out the top 10 and and 16 out the top 20. For me there are courses not in the top 100 that IMHO should be and same the other way around. I'd be interested to see how many differences between their list of 12 years ago and now.

I liked Trump, very photogenic, but I'm a sucker for views. Others may prefer a bigger challenge, and so on.

What I would say from being on the other side of the fence is that GM have a good "process", A minimum of 3 reviews for every course, and with at least 35 other contenders outside the current list, so not a closed shop. By admission, I dont know other magazine's process to compare against, and would be interested to know.

However, I would be surprised if there were less than 65-70 courses that are in the same lists across most other lists also, so would then lead me to think that whilst not definitive, but if say 4 lists have a similar 70 courses that there is a consensus.

I certainly wouldnt be calling people "idiots" as the OP has done though, especially without knowing at least some of the processes.