Royal troon

There are strict criteria for ranking the courses. It's not just a case of some bloke turning up, knocking it round and then saying "Yeah, that's a pretty good track"

Clearly not that strict when you don't have to play 18 holes!

Guidelines. Yip and budgets.
 
Lists are always subjective, how are the Oscars decided, footballer of the year, etc etc, a top 100 can only be done the way GM do it and will always be questioned as to why one course is rated differently to another. If you play, say, the number 37 course on a given day when its raining or been undergoing maintenance you might justifiably feel that it's not as good as the course rated 45 which you played on a gorgeous summers day. Some courses are better to your eye than others, you may prefer, say, parkland courses to links - so, GM have a panel who play the courses, put in a report and then the decisions are made as to their place on the list after, we are assured, much discussion.

I find it funny that Jacko would trust Val's opinion of Wallasey over GM's ranking list when he hasn't even played the course?
 
haha...aye I'll bet there is strict criteria, whoever lets you on free just happens to pop up the list and any place that takes the slightest of fee from you finds themselves plummet, I think we all know how it works. :rolleyes:

I know how it works and what you are suggesting is NOT how it works.


How can a course go up and down, TOC down one :rolleyes: it hasn't changed in a million years, yet it's dropped down to 4 :whoo: yet the Queens at Gleneagles is 62 :rofl:

As Phil said, courses are continually making improvements and the conditioning and presentation of the course carries a lot of marks in the total marking.


Clearly not that strict when you don't have to play 18 holes!

Guidelines. Yip and budgets.

Where did you get that bit of information from?
 
Lucky to be getting a game round Royal Troon on Wednesday, will report back ;) Even luckier that it is costing a lot less than £250.

Although does the £250 include lunch and a game on Portland ??
 
Lists are always subjective, how are the Oscars decided, footballer of the year, etc etc, a top 100 can only be done the way GM do it and will always be questioned as to why one course is rated differently to another. If you play, say, the number 37 course on a given day when its raining or been undergoing maintenance you might justifiably feel that it's not as good as the course rated 45 which you played on a gorgeous summers day. Some courses are better to your eye than others, you may prefer, say, parkland courses to links - so, GM have a panel who play the courses, put in a report and then the decisions are made as to their place on the list after, we are assured, much discussion.

I find it funny that Jacko would trust Val's opinion of Wallasey over GM's ranking list when he hasn't even played the course?

Absolutely. Anyone that can rank the Castle Course ahead of Dundonald needs to make an appointment with their GP.
 
that the top ten is filled with links courses.

I have posted it before, but what surprises me more is the amount of the top 100/200 that are links courses. I don't get that.

Certainly don't 'get or understand' why generally parklands are almost always rubbish and links are great(apart from the dryness in winter). And certainly don't really get the 'its a better test of golf stuff/argument', the Uk open winners are littered with not the best golfer winners.

Some links courses which have no scenery and are very manicured, I would call them very bland to look at and to play not much more interesting(I suppose I don't count the sea as much scenery tbh). Even Turnberry No 1 course in UK, I thought had a number of not so great holes on.

But I think it is great we all have our own opinions, its brilliant.:thup:
 
Top