Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tommy Williamsen on May 27, 2022, 08:44:38 AM
-
This is the list I enjoy the most. The top 25 don’t change much but the rest of the list is a toss-up.
https://www.top100golfcourses.com/news-item/top-100-courses-of-britain-ireland-2022?utm_source=convertkit&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GB%26I+Top+100+2022%20-%208259345 (https://www.top100golfcourses.com/news-item/top-100-courses-of-britain-ireland-2022?utm_source=convertkit&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GB%26I+Top+100+2022%20-%208259345)
-
With St Patrick's flying in, but Renaissance dropping significantly, it's certainly a bit of a curate's egg for Mr Doak.
F.
-
Still no Forfar ? Shocking !
Niall
-
Still no Forfar ? Shocking !
Niall
+1
both Ballyliffin's make it and no Portsalon...
heavy sigh
If #1 green and hole #2 at Portsalon don't grab you(with a lot of quirk, charm and beauty ahead)
well I'm flabbergasted...
-
Quite a few significant up/down moves in the mid and lower positions. I note a noble Scottish links is positioned above (rightly so?) its slightly more northern photogenic nearish neighbours, don’t recall seeing that in such a listing before, and Beau Desert isn’t mentioned. Mind if some new ones are included some others have to drop out or the numbers won’t add up. But will the new inclusions hold their positions over the forthcoming years and will the recently renovated/restored maintain their position once others have been renovated/restored?
Atb
-
David
I must admit, I was wondering what courses had dropped out. Was Shiskine not on this list at one point ?
Niall
-
Moray, Royal Ashdown Forest, Castletown, Wentworth East and Woburn Marquess dropped out. I’m pretty sure Shiskine never made it on to this ranking; they don’t even have it in their Scottish top 100!
-
David
I must admit, I was wondering what courses had dropped out. Was Shiskine not on this list at one point ?
Niall
I am sure Shiskine was on the Golfworld top 100 about 25 years ago... or whatever the big name British mag was called. Their list used to be the only real list and it was awful.
Ciao
-
I’d like to see Westward Ho! Saunton West, and Beau Desert on the list. The first two might be a stretch but the third belongs.
-
I like their lists too BUT......having played 33 of the top 100 and 16 of the top 24, I just cannot understand The Renaissance Club not getting more love. I spent a few days there last September and absolutely loved the place. I think it is a very good golf course and the club and property itself is special. I get that it's viewed as "Americanized" but who cares, I would go back in a heartbeat.
-
I’d like to see Westward Ho! Saunton West, and Beau Desert on the list. The first two might be a stretch but the third belongs.
Which courses get moved out?
Ciao
-
I used to like the old Golf World listings c 2000, when they were at least reasonably thoroughly compiled, and the most recent GW/Today’s Golfer listing seemed like a return to form - with warm recognition of the massive GCA virtue of playability. I don’t share the love of some of you for the Top 100’ website listing (rather mean to Wales, with only one course in the top 75…) but taking this and GW and Golf Monthly and NCG together, you’d get a fairly representative idea of a general GB and I Top 100, with considerably more consistency in the Top Thirty than below…
On the Wirral this week at Wirral Ladies (as was), Leasowe, Hoylake and Wallasey and will report back. My first exposure to the new Hoylake 13th/15th.
I do agree 100% that any British ranking list that doesn’t include Westward Ho! Is fundamentally off beam. Ran’s comments on his last photo tour of RND remain deeply resonant.
-
With St Patrick's flying in, but Renaissance dropping significantly, it's certainly a bit of a curate's egg for Mr Doak.
F.
I don’t worry much about rankings anymore, but I certainly didn’t lose any sleep over this particular trade.
I do think it shows that there are some voters who think too much about who the architect is. Either they had Renaissance too high because they thought I should have one course ranked highly over there, or they’ve knocked it down too far because they don’t think I should have two. Renaissance certainly hasn’t gone backwards over the last two years, it has only gotten better. But, again, worrying about the collected thoughts of people you don’t even know would be pointless.
-
David
I must admit, I was wondering what courses had dropped out. Was Shiskine not on this list at one point ?
Niall
I am sure Shiskine was on the Golfworld top 100 about 25 years ago... or whatever the big name British mag was called. Their list used to be the only real list and it was awful.
Ciao
You have a good memory. Shiskine was in position 96 in 1994, a few places below Hanbury Manor, Slaley Hall and St Mellion
Westward Ho! was in position 86 that year, it dropped out for good in 2002.
I am a bit biased towards Golf World but I think a combination of the Golf World and Top 100 rankings is pretty good these days. I have little time for the Golf Monthly one I am afraid (they have Adare Manor at 23, Old Head at 33, Cruden Bay at 69....).
-
David
I must admit, I was wondering what courses had dropped out. Was Shiskine not on this list at one point ?
Niall
I am sure Shiskine was on the Golfworld top 100 about 25 years ago... or whatever the big name British mag was called. Their list used to be the only real list and it was awful.
Ciao
You have a good memory. Shiskine was in position 96 in 1994, a few places below Hanbury Manor, Slaley Hall and St Mellion
Westward Ho! was in position 86 that year, it dropped out for good in 2002.
I am a bit biased towards Golf World but I think a combination of the Golf World and Top 100 rankings is pretty good these days. I have little time for the Golf Monthly one I am afraid (they have Adare Manor at 23, Old Head at 33, Cruden Bay at 69....).
I remember Westward Ho! being a fixture on the list as well, although I think it may be just about good enough to still be on the list.
I think a decent case can be made for every course I know on this list.
Ciao
-
With St Patrick's flying in, but Renaissance dropping significantly, it's certainly a bit of a curate's egg for Mr Doak.
F.
I do think it shows that there are some voters who think too much about who the architect is.
Insert the word "golfers" for voters and you've really summed it up.
Which is a relatively new phenomena.
-
David
I must admit, I was wondering what courses had dropped out. Was Shiskine not on this list at one point ?
Niall
I am sure Shiskine was on the Golfworld top 100 about 25 years ago... or whatever the big name British mag was called. Their list used to be the only real list and it was awful.
Ciao
You have a good memory. Shiskine was in position 96 in 1994, a few places below Hanbury Manor, Slaley Hall and St Mellion
Westward Ho! was in position 86 that year, it dropped out for good in 2002.
I am a bit biased towards Golf World but I think a combination of the Golf World and Top 100 rankings is pretty good these days. I have little time for the Golf Monthly one I am afraid (they have Adare Manor at 23, Old Head at 33, Cruden Bay at 69....).
I remember Westward Ho! being a fixture on the list as well, although I think it may be just about good enough to still be on the list.
I think a decent case can be made for every course I know on this list.
Ciao
Westward Ho! is now back in the Golf World list. It was at no.89 in the list released a couple of months ago.
-
David
I must admit, I was wondering what courses had dropped out. Was Shiskine not on this list at one point ?
Niall
I am sure Shiskine was on the Golfworld top 100 about 25 years ago... or whatever the big name British mag was called. Their list used to be the only real list and it was awful.
Ciao
You have a good memory. Shiskine was in position 96 in 1994, a few places below Hanbury Manor, Slaley Hall and St Mellion
Westward Ho! was in position 86 that year, it dropped out for good in 2002.
I am a bit biased towards Golf World but I think a combination of the Golf World and Top 100 rankings is pretty good these days. I have little time for the Golf Monthly one I am afraid (they have Adare Manor at 23, Old Head at 33, Cruden Bay at 69....).
I remember Westward Ho! being a fixture on the list as well, although I think it may be just about good enough to still be on the list.
I think a decent case can be made for every course I know on this list.
Ciao
Westward Ho! is now back in the Golf World list. It was at no.89 in the list released a couple of months ago.
I am not sure RND would make my Top 100 if I played all the contenders. But it is a high quality course regardless.
Ciao
-
Sean
I agree on RND although I was utterly charmed by the clubhouse and to a degree the course. There's just a bit too much blandness on some of the holes to counteract the really good ones.
Niall
-
I used to like the old Golf World listings c 2000, when they were at least reasonably thoroughly compiled, and the most recent GW/Today’s Golfer listing seemed like a return to form - with warm recognition of the massive GCA virtue of playability. I don’t share the love of some of you for the Top 100’ website listing (rather mean to Wales, with only one course in the top 75…) but taking this and GW and Golf Monthly and NCG together, you’d get a fairly representative idea of a general GB and I Top 100, with considerably more consistency in the Top Thirty than below…
Overall I thought the listing is fairly solid and don't really see any obvious courses that shouldn't have been considered even if I thought some too high and others I'd have gladly taken out to allow others in. However I wonder about the methodology of ranking, or to be more precise the concern that it has become self-perpetuating, broken only by raters rushing to see the new or the greatly upgraded.
With all respects to raters, many of whom are on this site and are friends of mine, I'd suggest that a flying visit to a course isn't the best way of judging a course's overall merit even though the "first impression" judgement is the same that most other visitors will make.
I'd suggest instead taking a leaf out of the Eurovision Song Contest (yes, seriously !) and having a local "competition" to decide what courses go through for the final judgement/ranking with only local golfers deciding on the local rankings. That way you would at least have a more considered judgement, assuming of course that the locals were a good bit more familiar with the local candidates than an out of town rater would be.
I'm not sure how it would work in practice, but the local ranking would have some sort of weighting when being ranked overall.
Of course the tricky bit would be how many candidates from a local area should be put forward when you think of the strength of depth that Ayrshire or East Lothian has for instance, compared to other areas.
Niall
-
I used to like the old Golf World listings c 2000, when they were at least reasonably thoroughly compiled, and the most recent GW/Today’s Golfer listing seemed like a return to form - with warm recognition of the massive GCA virtue of playability. I don’t share the love of some of you for the Top 100’ website listing (rather mean to Wales, with only one course in the top 75…) but taking this and GW and Golf Monthly and NCG together, you’d get a fairly representative idea of a general GB and I Top 100, with considerably more consistency in the Top Thirty than below…
Overall I thought the listing is fairly solid and don't really see any obvious courses that shouldn't have been considered even if I thought some too high and others I'd have gladly taken out to allow others in. However I wonder about the methodology of ranking, or to be more precise the concern that it has become self-perpetuating, broken only by raters rushing to see the new or the greatly upgraded.
With all respects to raters, many of whom are on this site and are friends of mine, I'd suggest that a flying visit to a course isn't the best way of judging a course's overall merit even though the "first impression" judgement is the same that most other visitors will make.
I'd suggest instead taking a leaf out of the Eurovision Song Contest (yes, seriously !) and having a local "competition" to decide what courses go through for the final judgement/ranking with only local golfers deciding on the local rankings. That way you would at least have a more considered judgement, assuming of course that the locals were a good bit more familiar with the local candidates than an out of town rater would be.
I'm not sure how it would work in practice, but the local ranking would have some sort of weighting when being ranked overall.
Of course the tricky bit would be how many candidates from a local area should be put forward when you think of the strength of depth that Ayrshire or East Lothian has for instance, compared to other areas.
Niall
Well, if you don't have a problem with the results, whats the problem?
I reckon once a new editor comes into a ranking system it will take 4-5 cycles to get the ranking to properly reflect what the new regime represents. I spose you could take issue with the impact of editor, but I think the lists are more or less operating in a very similar manner and the results are becoming more similar.
It is highly interesting that a few editors have recognized that to differentiate their publication they must think outside the box with different rankings other than the traditional top 100. These new rankings have been far more entertaining and useful for me.
Ciao
-
I am not sure RND would make my Top 100 if I played all the contenders. But it is a high quality course regardless.
Ciao
UK golf visitor £5 RND tax?! :)
Atb
-
As most of you know I love Westward Ho! Some greens demand an aerial attack and others need to be played along the ground. It has bumpy turny rolly polly fairways and interesting greens. 1, 2, and 18 are on heavy ground but are still good holes. One is a very fun par five with options on the second shot. 2 is just ok and 18 a card wrecker. 3-10 are just terrific. I don't know if it belongs in the top 100 GB&I but it contends.
I hope the new holes came out well. I haven't seen them yet.
-
I am not sure RND would make my Top 100 if I played all the contenders. But it is a high quality course regardless.
Ciao
UK golf visitor £5 RND tax?! :)
Atb
English golf visitor £5 tax...fer sure. Inflation...£10.
Ciao
-
Well, if you don't have a problem with the results, whats the problem?
I reckon once a new editor comes into a ranking system it will take 4-5 cycles to get the ranking to properly reflect what the new regime represents. I spose you could take issue with the impact of editor, but I think the lists are more or less operating in a very similar manner and the results are becoming more similar.
It is highly interesting that a few editors have recognized that to differentiate their publication they must think outside the box with different rankings other than the traditional top 100. These new rankings have been far more entertaining and useful for me.
Ciao
I don't have a problem as such but I do think that it could be better and what I'm proposing would hopefully do that. With the best will in the world to raters, they are trying to distinguish the top 100 out of how many ? 200 to 300 possible candidates perhaps ?
Again with the best will in the world, how many do they actually see and how many get any more than a single play. More or less making a judgement based on a fleeting glance. And yet how often do we say on this site that you need to play a course a number of times to unlock its secrets and to see how good it is. The converse is true with courses where there initial appeal lies in their aesthetics and once you've played them a number of times you realise that they aren't nearly as good as you initially thought.
Weighting opinion based on local opinion might go some way to addressing that.
Niall
-
Well, if you don't have a problem with the results, whats the problem?
I reckon once a new editor comes into a ranking system it will take 4-5 cycles to get the ranking to properly reflect what the new regime represents. I spose you could take issue with the impact of editor, but I think the lists are more or less operating in a very similar manner and the results are becoming more similar.
It is highly interesting that a few editors have recognized that to differentiate their publication they must think outside the box with different rankings other than the traditional top 100. These new rankings have been far more entertaining and useful for me.
Ciao
I don't have a problem as such but I do think that it could be better and what I'm proposing would hopefully do that. With the best will in the world to raters, they are trying to distinguish the top 100 out of how many ? 200 to 300 possible candidates perhaps ?
Again with the best will in the world, how many do they actually see and how many get any more than a single play. More or less making a judgement based on a fleeting glance. And yet how often do we say on this site that you need to play a course a number of times to unlock its secrets and to see how good it is. The converse is true with courses where there initial appeal lies in their aesthetics and once you've played them a number of times you realise that they aren't nearly as good as you initially thought.
Weighting opinion based on local opinion might go some way to addressing that.
Niall
Wouldn't weighting opinion likely inflate scores for every region? Thus largely negated the relative value of local raters?
One aspect of your idea is intriguing if the local raters controlled which courses make the consideration list. There may be a handful of surprises at the bottom end of the list. It would have to be an awfully trusting editor to give up control in this way. Especially if that editor was fairly well travelled.
Ciao
-
Wouldn't weighting opinion likely inflate scores for every region? Thus largely negated the relative value of local raters?
One aspect of your idea is intriguing if the local raters controlled which courses make the consideration list. There may be a handful of surprises at the bottom end of the list. It would have to be an awfully trusting editor to give up control in this way. Especially if that editor was fairly well travelled.
Ciao
Sean
I don't think the weighting would inflate scores by region, more that it would affect how courses are ranked within the region.
As for an editor, if some individual is able to tip the scales one way or another does that not kind of negate the point of having raters ?
Niall
-
Wouldn't weighting opinion likely inflate scores for every region? Thus largely negated the relative value of local raters?
One aspect of your idea is intriguing if the local raters controlled which courses make the consideration list. There may be a handful of surprises at the bottom end of the list. It would have to be an awfully trusting editor to give up control in this way. Especially if that editor was fairly well travelled.
Ciao
Sean
I don't think the weighting would inflate scores by region, more that it would affect how courses are ranked within the region.
As for an editor, if some individual is able to tip the scales one way or another does that not kind of negate the point of having raters ?
Niall
Well sure, maybe courses change order...small beer..and not necessarily for the best. A good evaluator willing to travel is good regardless of where they live. Although nothing is perfect.
The editor sets the criteria for a list, so yes, the editor is important. Knowingly or not, they can influence the outcome.
Ciao
-
Sean
The "local" rater for the Highlands could feasibly come from Devon for all that it matters, but what matters is that they play the top courses in the Highlands area on a fairly regular basis. Obviously if you live at the other end of the country that might be difficult. The example I often cite is Western and Gailes. The sky will fall in before you see Gailes above Western in any ranking but speak to local golfers and they will likely tell you a different story. They will have played the courses numerous times in different weather/times of year.
So it's not that the local raters are better at the job than your average travelling rater, but it's that they have more experience of the local courses and can make a more knowledgeable assessment. Now how do you translate that into an overall ranking ? I'll leave that for the clever people ;D
Re editors - I've always thought of an editor as someone who changes things "after the fact" ie. after the story is written. Presumably if you set the criteria then you have to simply live with the results ?
Niall
-
Sean
The other thing I meant to say is that with the present system of raters flying around here, there and everywhere, most are doing it on a budget or are time limited so they aren't going to see everything. When time/money is short they are more often than not going to visit courses that are high up in the previous rankings and therefore to an extent the list becomes self-perpetuating. It's only when there is a big new course opened or where a course has had a major revamp/redesign that they stray off the well-trodden path.
That's not a knock on raters, just a realisation of the herculean task they have been set and the limitations on what they can do.
Niall
-
Sean
The "local" rater for the Highlands could feasibly come from Devon for all that it matters, but what matters is that they play the top courses in the Highlands area on a fairly regular basis. Obviously if you live at the other end of the country that might be difficult. The example I often cite is Western and Gailes. The sky will fall in before you see Gailes above Western in any ranking but speak to local golfers and they will likely tell you a different story. They will have played the courses numerous times in different weather/times of year.
So it's not that the local raters are better at the job than your average travelling rater, but it's that they have more experience of the local courses and can make a more knowledgeable assessment. Now how do you translate that into an overall ranking ? I'll leave that for the clever people ;D
Re editors - I've always thought of an editor as someone who changes things "after the fact" ie. after the story is written. Presumably if you set the criteria then you have to simply live with the results ?
Niall
I am definitely in favour of seeing a ranking made up in the way Niall mentions above. I am pretty much fed up of seeing the echo chamber of rankings made up by one or two time visiting experts.
-
Sean
The "local" rater for the Highlands could feasibly come from Devon for all that it matters, but what matters is that they play the top courses in the Highlands area on a fairly regular basis. Obviously if you live at the other end of the country that might be difficult. The example I often cite is Western and Gailes. The sky will fall in before you see Gailes above Western in any ranking but speak to local golfers and they will likely tell you a different story. They will have played the courses numerous times in different weather/times of year.
So it's not that the local raters are better at the job than your average travelling rater, but it's that they have more experience of the local courses and can make a more knowledgeable assessment. Now how do you translate that into an overall ranking ? I'll leave that for the clever people ;D
Re editors - I've always thought of an editor as someone who changes things "after the fact" ie. after the story is written. Presumably if you set the criteria then you have to simply live with the results ?
Niall
Ok, if you have very experienced local raters who also have a sense of the overall quality of courses, sure, why not have them on a panel? I don't think that is easy to accomplish if the editor is seeking diversity, availability and a willingness to become a panellist, but I think editors are on the lookout for raters.
Editors set the candidate courses. I recall having a hard time getting courses on the Golfweek list to be considered for ranking. That to me is where locals can have the biggest impact. You can't rank a course unless it's on the list. Things are changing though. More courses are being considered and a few have been ranked. I also think the realization that 100 courses doesn't tell nearly the complete story has spawned more interesting top whatever lists we have seen the past few years.
Top 100 GB&I is just a matter of pushing courses around the edges. Do you really think there are many courses out there that are dead sure top 100 that haven't been mentioned? Selfishly, I hope so!
Ciao
-
Sean
The "local" rater for the Highlands could feasibly come from Devon for all that it matters, but what matters is that they play the top courses in the Highlands area on a fairly regular basis. Obviously if you live at the other end of the country that might be difficult. The example I often cite is Western and Gailes. The sky will fall in before you see Gailes above Western in any ranking but speak to local golfers and they will likely tell you a different story. They will have played the courses numerous times in different weather/times of year.
So it's not that the local raters are better at the job than your average travelling rater, but it's that they have more experience of the local courses and can make a more knowledgeable assessment. Now how do you translate that into an overall ranking ? I'll leave that for the clever people ;D
Re editors - I've always thought of an editor as someone who changes things "after the fact" ie. after the story is written. Presumably if you set the criteria then you have to simply live with the results ?
Niall
Ok, if you have very experienced local raters who also have a sense of the overall quality of courses, sure, why not have them on a panel? I don't think that is easy to accomplish if the editor is seeking diversity, availability and a willingness to become a panellist, but I think editors are on the lookout for raters.
Editors set the candidate courses. I recall having a hard time getting courses on the Golfweek list to be considered for ranking. That to me is where locals can have the biggest impact. You can't rank a course unless it's on the list. Things are changing though. More courses are being considered and a few have been ranked. I also think the realization that 100 courses doesn't tell nearly the complete story has spawned more interesting top whatever lists we have seen the past few years.
Top 100 GB&I is just a matter of pushing courses around the edges. Do you really think there are many courses out there that are dead sure top 100 that haven't been mentioned? Selfishly, I hope so!
Ciao
I think courses are mentioned but are not considered highly enough by visiting golfers, partly because the status quo has them lower and partly - as Niall states - because the expert raters don’t see what the knowledgable local golfers see week in week out.
Moray (Old) is one course now making its way in to the Top 100 and finding its right spot. But Glasgow Gailes should definitely be in the 100 and - relevant because I just played it for the first time - I was amazed at the quality of Dunbar. It isn’t talked about enough outside of East Lothian.
Examples go the other way as well. RCD - for example - isn’t as nearly loved in Ireland as much as its sometimes World No.1 ranking would have you believe.
-
Sean
The "local" rater for the Highlands could feasibly come from Devon for all that it matters, but what matters is that they play the top courses in the Highlands area on a fairly regular basis. Obviously if you live at the other end of the country that might be difficult. The example I often cite is Western and Gailes. The sky will fall in before you see Gailes above Western in any ranking but speak to local golfers and they will likely tell you a different story. They will have played the courses numerous times in different weather/times of year.
So it's not that the local raters are better at the job than your average travelling rater, but it's that they have more experience of the local courses and can make a more knowledgeable assessment. Now how do you translate that into an overall ranking ? I'll leave that for the clever people ;D
Re editors - I've always thought of an editor as someone who changes things "after the fact" ie. after the story is written. Presumably if you set the criteria then you have to simply live with the results ?
Niall
Ok, if you have very experienced local raters who also have a sense of the overall quality of courses, sure, why not have them on a panel? I don't think that is easy to accomplish if the editor is seeking diversity, availability and a willingness to become a panellist, but I think editors are on the lookout for raters.
Editors set the candidate courses. I recall having a hard time getting courses on the Golfweek list to be considered for ranking. That to me is where locals can have the biggest impact. You can't rank a course unless it's on the list. Things are changing though. More courses are being considered and a few have been ranked. I also think the realization that 100 courses doesn't tell nearly the complete story has spawned more interesting top whatever lists we have seen the past few years.
Top 100 GB&I is just a matter of pushing courses around the edges. Do you really think there are many courses out there that are dead sure top 100 that haven't been mentioned? Selfishly, I hope so!
Ciao
I think courses are mentioned but are not considered highly enough by visiting golfers, partly because the status quo has them lower and partly - as Niall states - because the expert raters don’t see what the knowledgable local golfers see week in week out.
Moray (Old) is one course now making its way in to the Top 100 and finding its right spot. But Glasgow Gailes should definitely be in the 100 and - relevant because I just played it for the first time - I was amazed at the quality of Dunbar. It isn’t talked about enough outside of East Lothian.
Examples go the other way as well. RCD - for example - isn’t as nearly loved in Ireland as much as its sometimes World No.1 ranking would have you believe.
Moray Old & Dunbar are about equal quality and would make my current top 100 GB&I...lower 50...so a lot of worthy candidates won't make the list.
I always think what gets shifted out for every course shifted in? In truth, there are what I think at least 130 courses that could be on the list. Once I get below 50ish there are no shoe ins...its splitting hairs on a bald head. I said before, reasonable arguments can be made for every course on this list.
Ciao
-
Sean
Maybe I'm confusing matters by perhaps inferring local raters and the other kind of raters as being a different breed. I imagine just about every rater has a home district where they play most of their golf. Maybe their ratings of courses in their own area should get more weighting than that of raters who are from outwith the area ?
And maybe the way to handle the difficulty of the "editor" not allowing certain courses to be rated is for a panel of local raters to nominate the courses in each area ? All this probably won't make much difference to what course is at no.1, although I note Ally's comments about RCD, however I think it would make the bottom end of the list more interesting and would maybe bring forward a few hitherto "unknown" courses.
Niall
-
Niall
As I said previously, weighting local rater opinions will likely jack up ratings for all areas. I don't much see the point. Although, there are probably some raters who have played some courses tons of times over many years whose opinion could be weighted, assuming there is no membership affiliation. It would take a crafty editor to make the call on these raters. I would probably set the bar quite high, something like 25 plays in the last 7 years and not a member of the club.
I think you are right about identifying courses to be on the list for consideration. If there is a strong concensus of local opinion for a few courses it might be wise for the editor to include them on the list. Again, it might be a tough call as to who is considered a local.
Ciao
-
Niall
As I said previously, weighting local rater opinions will likely jack up ratings for all areas. I don't much see the point. Although, there are probably some raters who have played some courses tons of times over many years whose opinion could be weighted, assuming there is no membership affiliation. It would take a crafty editor to make the call on these raters. I would probably set the bar quite high, something like 25 plays in the last 7 years and not a member of the club.
I think you are right about identifying courses to be on the list for consideration. If there is a strong concensus of local opinion for a few courses it might be wise for the editor to include them on the list. Again, it might be a tough call as to who is considered a local.
Ciao
I do think this is a good idea. I also agree that those rating should not be members (or at least members should be spread evenly).
Yes all areas get jacked up evenly. But that’s not the point. It’s finding out what those in a certain region believe is the order in their region. After that, how it fits in to an overall list can be left to a master panel once they keep the region in order.
-
Niall
As I said previously, weighting local rater opinions will likely jack up ratings for all areas. I don't much see the point. Although, there are probably some raters who have played some courses tons of times over many years whose opinion could be weighted, assuming there is no membership affiliation. It would take a crafty editor to make the call on these raters. I would probably set the bar quite high, something like 25 plays in the last 7 years and not a member of the club.
I think you are right about identifying courses to be on the list for consideration. If there is a strong concensus of local opinion for a few courses it might be wise for the editor to include them on the list. Again, it might be a tough call as to who is considered a local.
Ciao
I do think this is a good idea. I also agree that those rating should not be members (or at least members should be spread evenly).
Yes all areas get jacked up evenly. But that’s not the point. It’s finding out what those in a certain region believe is the order in their region. After that, how it fits in to an overall list can be left to a master panel once they keep the region in order.
I guess. But I am not one to fuss over the ordinal ranking. The ballpark works fine with a certain degree of passing the eye test. I would like editors to engage raters when a there is a "anomaly" in their ratings. But again, that takes time which editors likely don't have. It's much better for the punter to realise the shortcomings of these lists and not become overly invested in their value.
Ciao
-
Niall
As I said previously, weighting local rater opinions will likely jack up ratings for all areas. I don't much see the point. Although, there are probably some raters who have played some courses tons of times over many years whose opinion could be weighted, assuming there is no membership affiliation. It would take a crafty editor to make the call on these raters. I would probably set the bar quite high, something like 25 plays in the last 7 years and not a member of the club.
I think you are right about identifying courses to be on the list for consideration. If there is a strong concensus of local opinion for a few courses it might be wise for the editor to include them on the list. Again, it might be a tough call as to who is considered a local.
Ciao
I do think this is a good idea. I also agree that those rating should not be members (or at least members should be spread evenly).
Yes all areas get jacked up evenly. But that’s not the point. It’s finding out what those in a certain region believe is the order in their region. After that, how it fits in to an overall list can be left to a master panel once they keep the region in order.
I guess. But I am not one to fuss over the ordinal ranking. The ballpark works fine with a certain degree of passing the eye test. I would like editors to engage raters when a there is a "anomaly" in their ratings. But again, that takes time which editors likely don't have. It's much better for the punter to realise the shortcomings of these lists and not become overly invested in their value.
Ciao
It’s just another way to arrive at a result, one that is arguably “more accurate”, if there is such a thing.
What makes me laugh is that when rankings do come out from respected local sources, those who rank on a world scale complain and say things like “they clearly don’t know what they’re talking about in xyz region”; even though they have only seen many of the courses once or twice whilst the locals play them all the time.
-
Niall
As I said previously, weighting local rater opinions will likely jack up ratings for all areas. I don't much see the point. Although, there are probably some raters who have played some courses tons of times over many years whose opinion could be weighted, assuming there is no membership affiliation. It would take a crafty editor to make the call on these raters. I would probably set the bar quite high, something like 25 plays in the last 7 years and not a member of the club.
I think you are right about identifying courses to be on the list for consideration. If there is a strong concensus of local opinion for a few courses it might be wise for the editor to include them on the list. Again, it might be a tough call as to who is considered a local.
Ciao
I do think this is a good idea. I also agree that those rating should not be members (or at least members should be spread evenly).
Yes all areas get jacked up evenly. But that’s not the point. It’s finding out what those in a certain region believe is the order in their region. After that, how it fits in to an overall list can be left to a master panel once they keep the region in order.
I guess. But I am not one to fuss over the ordinal ranking. The ballpark works fine with a certain degree of passing the eye test. I would like editors to engage raters when a there is a "anomaly" in their ratings. But again, that takes time which editors likely don't have. It's much better for the punter to realise the shortcomings of these lists and not become overly invested in their value.
Ciao
It’s just another way to arrive at a result, one that is arguably “more accurate”, if there is such a thing.
What makes me laugh is that when rankings do come out from respected local sources, those who rank on a world scale complain and say things like “they clearly don’t know what they’re talking about in xyz region”; even though they have only seen many of the courses once or twice whilst the locals play them all the time.
It's reasonable to expect for each rater to see courses differently even when using the same criteria. I don't see why it should be a given that a local rater is more reliable than an international rater.
For instance, I am noticing what I sense is an increase among younger folks who travel a bit to place conditions high on their list. That in and of itself opens a huge can of worms not only between is a course in good nick, but what does good nick mean among various types of courses. It's easy for me to ignore these issues unless there are extreme circumstance. I simply dismiss these opinions, but it doesn't mean I am right. It's right for me.
The same line of thought can apply to championship pedigree, test of golf, design strategy etc.
I accept that the concept of an arbitrary top 100 is flawed from the start just due to the number 100! The number should be whatever it is. A bit like the cut in golf, top whatever and ties makes the cut. Folks would be outraged if player X made the cut over player Y just because when they were on the same score. That's a bit how I feel about top 100. It's marketing decision. So I accept that lists are primarily about marketing. Given this, there really isn't a need to dig awfully deep into the matter. I'd like to see a list of a small group with nothing to sell or gain. Everybody seems to have an angle.
Ciao
-
Just played Belfry. Other that that cute 10th and maybe 18th, the rest of this highly Americanized, over watered course leaves me cold. Top 100 head scratcher....
Also played other top 100s - Parkstone (wonderful), Sheringham (nice but tougher walk on these old legs), Woodbridge (back nine except #18 is quite good), Aldeburgh (small but highly effective bunkering), Remedy Oaks (no thanks), Sherwood Forest (hard to find a more bucolic sublime setting).
Off to Moortown and the northlands...
-
Niall
It’s not quite the same as your “local golfer” concept, but National Club Golfer’s rankings do give more weight to panellists’ views on courses that they’ve played a number of times, and to how long ago they last played it.
[size=1rem]“All panellists who had played a course submitted a ranking. However, we value more the rankings of panellists who have either played a course recently, played a course several times or both. We multiplied rankings by:[/size]
[size=1rem]x2 If the course was most recently played in the last 10 years OR the reviewer has played the course 3 times or more [/size]
[size=1rem]x3 If the course was most recently played in the last 3 years OR the reviewer has played the course 5 times or more [/size]
[size=1rem]x4 If the reviewer has played the course 3 times or more and most recently within the last 10 years [/size]
[size=1rem]x5 If the reviewer has played the course 5 times or more and most recently within the last 10 years OR the reviewer has played the course 3 times or more and most recently within the last 3 years [/size]
[size=1rem]x6 If the reviewer has played the course 5 times or more and most recently within the last 5 years”[/size]
]It’s hard to argue that it produces a meaningfully different result to the other rankings but, interestingly given your and Ally’s earlier comments, it is the only one to include Glasgow Gailes and Dunbar (albeit that it also has Western Gailes much higher than other lists). Personally, I enjoy reading these lists but take them all with a huge pinch of salt as far as the order is concerned. The ‘fun’ and ‘value’ lists are just as interesting to me as they’re much more likely to include a course I wasn’t aware of before that might be worth seeing if I happen to be in the area.
-
Aldeburgh (small but highly effective bunkering), Remedy Oaks (no thanks),
Sad to report they currently share the same Architects and changes are coming to the former. The membership believe its only a couple of holes ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Moray (Old) is one course now making its way in to the Top 100 and finding its right spot. But Glasgow Gailes should definitely be in the 100 and - relevant because I just played it for the first time - I was amazed at the quality of Dunbar. It isn’t talked about enough outside of East Lothian.
Examples go the other way as well. RCD - for example - isn’t as nearly loved in Ireland as much as its sometimes World No.1 ranking would have you believe.
This is a strange discussion and if I were editing a list, I'd have no idea what to do with any of it. Are you not going to put Royal County Down in a top 100 list because some of the locals don't love it?
Local golfers may have different tastes, but some are also just contrarians who want to knock down the places the tourists love.
It could well be that Royal County Down is too testing to be the kind of course you want to play over and over. That is probably true for a bunch of highly ranked courses. But if you start leading the discussion that way, you'll begin to question what qualities are favored in the rankings, and eventually to the idea of questioning the idea of rankings altogether.
-
Moray (Old) is one course now making its way in to the Top 100 and finding its right spot. But Glasgow Gailes should definitely be in the 100 and - relevant because I just played it for the first time - I was amazed at the quality of Dunbar. It isn’t talked about enough outside of East Lothian.
Examples go the other way as well. RCD - for example - isn’t as nearly loved in Ireland as much as its sometimes World No.1 ranking would have you believe.
This is a strange discussion and if I were editing a list, I'd have no idea what to do with any of it. Are you not going to put Royal County Down in a top 100 list because some of the locals don't love it?
Local golfers may have different tastes, but some are also just contrarians who want to knock down the places the tourists love.
It could well be that Royal County Down is too testing to be the kind of course you want to play over and over. That is probably true for a bunch of highly ranked courses. But if you start leading the discussion that way, you'll begin to question what qualities are favored in the rankings, and eventually to the idea of questioning the idea of rankings altogether.
I’m not sure I agree, Tom.
In my experience, knowledgable local golfers have zero interest in knocking what the tourists love. What tourists love is not even on their radar.
I’m not talking about Mr. Never Played Golf Out of my County… I’m talking about well travelled golfers from an area who have extensive experience of their area.
Niall refers to a groundswell of Ayrshire golfers preferring Glasgow Gailes over Western Gailes. I can certainly see why. But rankings (prepared by people who tend to know the courses far less) would never look at them in that order. I think it particularly interesting when local rankings differ from international ones. And I think that is worth not overlooking. I don’t think it has anything to do with challenge either…
It doesn’t mean that a course like RCD is out of a top-100. But it might mean it’s not No.1 or 2 or 3.
Different opinions. It’s just that some opinions are better than others.
-
Just played Belfry. Other that that cute 10th and maybe 18th, the rest of this highly Americanized, over watered course leaves me cold. Top 100 head scratcher....
Also played other top 100s - Parkstone (wonderful), Sheringham (nice but tougher walk on these old legs), Woodbridge (back nine except #18 is quite good), Aldeburgh (small but highly effective bunkering), Remedy Oaks (no thanks), Sherwood Forest (hard to find a more bucolic sublime setting).
Off to Moortown and the northlands...
I like Woodbridge and it may be a top 100 course. Regardless, it's well worth playing. The 18th is a bit awkward. Feels like the club ran out of room.
Sherwood is sneaky good. I have always felt it doesn't gets it due.
Ciao
-
Just played Belfry. Other that that cute 10th and maybe 18th, the rest of this highly Americanized, over watered course leaves me cold. Top 100 head scratcher....
Also played other top 100s - Parkstone (wonderful), Sheringham (nice but tougher walk on these old legs), Woodbridge (back nine except #18 is quite good), Aldeburgh (small but highly effective bunkering), Remedy Oaks (no thanks), Sherwood Forest (hard to find a more bucolic sublime setting).
Off to Moortown and the northlands...
I like Woodbridge and it may be a top 100 course. Regardless, it's well worth playing.
Sherwood is sneaky good. I have always felt it doesn't gets it due.
Ciao
Sherwood has just appointed Martin Ebert to develop a course masterplan. Not a hugely inspiring choice from my perspective but it will be interesting to see what he comes up with.