Golf Digest Irelands Top 100 courses for 2010

dublinbhoy62

Came across this article today in Irish Golf Desk. Was a little surprised to see that some of the courses which were in the top 100 for 2009 dropped and the reason why. Good to see Concra Wood up there as it deserves it. What are your opinions on the top 100 and also the reasons why Golf Digest have given for omitting some good courses which i thought would have moved up the table this year?




http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2010/11/4/golf-digest-irelands-top-100-ranking-2010.html

ipitydafool

I wouldnt even classify these as rankings, they are a complete and utter joke. No Heritage in the Top 100, Old Head of Kinsale barely makes it into the top 50, the lads who came up with these rankings must have been on drugs. Probably the biggest laugh of the lot is the fact that the Killarney Lackabane course made it onto the list and Mahony Points's isn't.It is 3 times the course Lackabane is. You can also see what courses have made the list because they advertised with Golf Digest and who those who have stopped have either been taken off or are down massively. This should never come into it.

dublinbhoy62

Have to agree with that statement, some of the courses which have been omitted from the top 100 are top class and i was disappointed as i expected them to move up this year.

couerdelion

Golf Digest wrote:

Notable absentees include The Heritage (ranked 19th in 2009), Fota Island (23rd), New Forest (61st), Castleknock (63rd) and Moyvalley (86th) amongst others. In a controversial move, Golf Digest Ireland has decided that “all golf clubs that we were aware of being in receivership, at the time of publication, were not considered in these rankings.”

Interesting to see golf digest doesn't consider some of these clubs because of their financial status.

MasterKZG

Where is Macreddin GC on the list???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

AGC

ipitydafool has it spot on. Pay for advertising, you get in top 100, simple as.

GreeBo

I find it strange that Dublin courses like Castle and Grange rocketed down the list (-19 & -14) when if anything they have vastly improved since last year.
Did 19 new courses appear or did other courses dramatically improve...and if now how? Redesign?

IMO a report this "open" becomes worthless.
/end bitter rant

thegen

GreeBo wrote: »

I find it strange that Dublin courses like Castle and Grange rocketed down the list (-19 & -14) when if anything they have vastly improved since last year.
Did 19 new courses appear or did other courses dramatically improve...and if now how? Redesign?

IMO a report this "open" becomes worthless.
/end bitter rant

No they had big marketing budgets!!!!!

Har44

Might have missed this before but Golf Digest are saying that Castleknock is in receivership? I knew they had not achieved their target membership etc. but from reviews I have read here the course is still in great nick and it still operates well?

royalcarlowgc

Pretty happy as a member of Carlow GC , ranked 24.

But then I go down the list and see:

Mount Wolseley 76. Down 34! (Unbelievable course, monster off the blues)

Old Head of Kinsale 47, Down 18! (Played in last week before it closed, greens were as a fast as ive played this year!)

Honestly how is Seapoint 26, and the Valley (Portrush) 44?

Huntelaar

It's laughable that St. Anne's is in it! Pretty sure most people would have that place in their bottom 3.

Anyone know if they advertise with Golf Digest!?!?

scout353

Have to agree with the posts on the link with advertising and rankings!

Killeen Castle is the highest new entrant at 15 and who was producing the programme for the Ladies Irish Open this year........the good old folks from GD!
And the chairman of thejudging panel is the same guy who was instrumental getting the Solheim Cup for Killeen Castle!!

There are lots of clubs that seem to be have dropped in ranking and yet they have had major improvements!

Down this way, Tramore has added nine holes, it's new redesigned old course is fantastic and yet it dropped four places!

Faithlegg is a new entrant at 92 yet Rosslare has dropped a massive 22 places and is now 98th.

I also see that Knightsbrook has also dropped a huge amount - down 35 places to 79th

And Mt Wolseley is down 34 places to 76th.

IMO this devalues the rankings altogether and makes them worthless!

Sir Shankalot

scout353 wrote: »

Have to agree with the posts on the link with advertising and rankings!

Killeen Castle is the highest new entrant at 15 and who was producing the programme for the Ladies Irish Open this year........the good old folks from GD!
And the chairman of thejudging panel is the same guy who was instrumental getting the Solheim Cup for Killeen Castle!!

I share some of your cynicism in regard to how some of these courses are ranked but you are way off re Killeen Castle. It is there on merit - I played there twice this summer and it is one of best courses I have played in Ireland

The_Architect

Marketing has nothing to do with how these courses are ranked.

Sir Shankalot

The_Architect wrote: »

Marketing has nothing to do with how these courses are ranked.

So if a club is buying ad space in Golf Digest you don't think it will influence the ranking?? Just like the banks that paid large fees to the rating agencies - all above board, no vested interest!

I am not saying that if ABC Golf Club spends 100 grand on advertising it is going to get ranked above Royal County Down but I think you are being a bit naive to suggest that it does not play a part, especially towards the latter half of the rankings.

thegen

The_Architect wrote: »

Marketing has nothing to do with how these courses are ranked.

Do you really think that?

The_Architect

The ranking is entirely independent. I can promise you that.

It's just a nice fit to "believe" that it isn't when the rankings don't tally with personal beliefs.

thegen

The_Architect wrote: »

The ranking is entirely independent. I can promise you that.

It's just a nice fit to "believe" that it isn't when the rankings don't tally with personal beliefs.

Sorry, dont buy into it. Too many large swings from last year. Are you one of the judges??????????

Sir Shankalot

The_Architect wrote: »

The ranking is entirely independent. I can promise you that.

It's just a nice fit to "believe" that it isn't when the rankings don't tally with personal beliefs.

Personal opinions will always come into it and it will sound like St Annes is getting a real bashing on this thread but as an example let's look at St Annes ranking of 71 versus say another comparable links course Laytown & Bettystown of 86. This is quite frankly ludicrous - I have played both and L&B is vastly superior. In addition, there was a senior cup qualifier in St Anne's this year and is was absolutely slated for the condition it was in

People are not always looking for a conspiracy - sometimes the truth is too hard to ignore

The_Architect

The swings were most likely because the panel changed in size and personnel.

All magazine rankings are independent. They have to be if they don't wish to completely undermine themselves.

The_Architect

Sir Shankalot wrote: »

Personal opinions will always come into it and it will sound like St Annes is getting a real bashing on this thread but as an example let's look at St Annes ranking of 71 versus say another comparable links course Laytown & Bettystown of 86. This is quite frankly ludicrous - I have played both and L&B is vastly superior. In addition, there was a senior cup qualifier in St Anne's this year and is was absolutely slated for the condition it was in

People are not always looking for a conspiracy - sometimes the truth is too hard to ignore

Condition is not as important a factor in ranking golf courses as most on here would seem to believe.

However, I'd also place L&B ahead of St.Annes. But when you're talking about positions in the lower reach of a Top 100 and there are only 450 courses in the country, then it's hardly a crime.

Much of the courses in the lower reaches are much of a muchness in terms of quality. All very good rounds of golf.

Mister Sifter

The_Architect wrote: »

The swings were most likely because the panel changed in size and personnel.

All magazine rankings are independent. They have to be if they don't wish to completely undermine themselves.

No they aren't. I know for a fact that what you are saying is not true.

The_Architect

Mister Sifter wrote: »

No they aren't. I know for a fact that what you are saying is not true.

Maybe I should have said the ones that matter.

I'm sure you are right that some rankings are no more than advetorials for the clubs involved. But those rankings have probably already undermined themselves and are not taken seriously. The only ones I ever look at are independent.

These being:

Golf Magazine Top 100 World
Golf Digest Top 100 American
Golf Digest Top 100 outside America
Golf Week Modern & Classic
Golf Digest Ireland Top 100
Golf World Top 100 GB&I

The top100golfcourses.co.uk website is quite good too. But it takes in to account the public reviews which enables conflicts of interest to shine a bit, not to mention opinions that aren't really based in knowledge.

scout353

Sir Shankalot wrote: »

I share some of your cynicism in regard to how some of these courses are ranked but you are way off re Killeen Castle. It is there on merit - I played there twice this summer and it is one of best courses I have played in Ireland

I too have played Killeen Castle but I do not think it deserves to be straight in at 15 and the third best parkland course in the country!

I would also disagree with ranking Lough Erne so high - there are too many poor holes on that course.

However, if the purpose is to provoke debate then the rankings achieve their purpose!

tang1

Has Fota Island gone down hill that much that it doesn't deserve a place in the top 100?? It has staged two Irish Opens in the past, or is there another reason for in being outside the top 100?? Played it a few years back now and then it was head and shoulders above alot of courses on the list for this year.

Nicklaus

Get your hands on a book called 'Hooked' by Kevin Markham. He's a guy who took some time off work and travelled around Ireland in a camper van, playing all of the 18 hole golf courses. His book is subjective but, despite some minor faults, I'd recommend it to any golfer.:rolleyes:

tang1

Kevin Markhams book is an excellant read. He calls a spade a spade and his opinions on the courses are honest and to the point. He should do his top 100 courses, be better than Golf Digests i bet.

Sir Shankalot

tang1 wrote: »

Has Fota Island gone down hill that much that it doesn't deserve a place in the top 100?? It has staged two Irish Opens in the past, or is there another reason for in being outside the top 100?? Played it a few years back now and then it was head and shoulders above alot of courses on the list for this year.

think financial problems/admin or rec'ship as stated on previous post might have come into play

the below link at least explains the who/how of the decision making to a certain extent

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/killeen-castle-straight-in-at-14-in-irish-top100-2413724.html

"Through agreement, 20 clubs were selected that could possibly make it into the top 10. The panel then voted on these courses using a marking system from one to 10, under these headings: Shot making/variety; design variety; memorability; condition; playability (all handicaps); degree of difficulty/fairness."

so these were the main criteria used

tang1

Question answered, thanks 4 that Sir Shankalot, Fota still a top track.

wannapress

The_Architect wrote: »

Maybe I should have said the ones that matter.

I'm sure you are right that some rankings are no more than advetorials for the clubs involved. But those rankings have probably already undermined themselves and are not taken seriously. The only ones I ever look at are independent.

These being:

Golf Magazine Top 100 World
Golf Digest Top 100 American
Golf Digest Top 100 outside America
Golf Week Modern & Classic
Golf Digest Ireland Top 100
Golf World Top 100 GB&I

The top100golfcourses.co.uk website is quite good too. But it takes in to account the public reviews which enables conflicts of interest to shine a bit, not to mention opinions that aren't really based in knowledge.

hmmmm i agree that these are the main lists but i would also include the hsbc/golf monthly rankings imo this is a much clearer list than the golf world list.Also how can Old Head be ranked as 55th best course outside America by Golf Digest yet rank 47th best course in Ireland???? seems to me the Panel have their own little agenda going on.

Jockey 1

Har44 wrote: »

Might have missed this before but Golf Digest are saying that Castleknock is in receivership? I knew they had not achieved their target membership etc. but from reviews I have read here the course is still in great nick and it still operates well?

I recently joined Castleknock Golf Club, along with I believe another 40 people in the last six weeks, and was surprised to see they were out of the top 100 rankings. It was however 'Irish Golf Desk' and not 'Golf Digest ' that got it wrong - see below .....

Castleknock - an apology
By Brian KeoghMonday, November 15, 2010 at 10:21
Castleknock Golf Club is very much alive and kicking.
In our recent piece on the Golf Digest Ireland Top 100 ranking for 2010 readers may have been misled into thinking that the reason Castleknock did not make the list this year was because the club is in receivership.
This is not the case and we apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused.

GreeBo

Jockey 1 wrote: »

I recently joined Castleknock Golf Club, along with I believe another 40 people in the last six weeks, and was surprised to see they were out of the top 100 rankings. It was however 'Irish Golf Desk' and not 'Golf Digest ' that got it wrong - see below .....

Castleknock - an apology
By Brian KeoghMonday, November 15, 2010 at 10:21
Castleknock Golf Club is very much alive and kicking.
In our recent piece on the Golf Digest Ireland Top 100 ranking for 2010 readers may have been misled into thinking that the reason Castleknock did not make the list this year was because the club is in receivership.
This is not the case and we apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused.

Does that mean its not in the top 100 because they dont think its good enough?
I think Id prefer to be in receivership!

Kevinmarkham

I have major misgivings about the ranking system. The whole subject of 'advertising' does loom large and based on conversations I've had with clubs, there is a common belief that if you advertise in the magazine, then your rankings go up, and vice-versa. One club advertised annually and consistently, and they were placed in the top 40 every year. They pulled their advertising and were dumped into the 70s the following year. They received no phone calls, no visits, no requests for course information. I've heard the opposite too, so there's no surprise at conspiracy theories.

The big variations on last year appear to have come from the new personnel and, perhaps, the more defined parameters - as listed by Sir Shankalot. Even so, some of the rankings are completely off target.

And how can you rank a course if you haven't played it? Have all the reviewers played all of these courses? Of course not, so there is a quest for a middle ground, and as can be seen from the current top 100, that middle ground is not satisfactory.

The rankings that really annoy me are
(Should be way higher)
Concra Wood
Old Head
Narin & Portnoo
Clandeboye
Strandhill
Ballybunion (Cashen)

(Should be way lower, or not in at all)
Dun Laoghaire
Dundalk
St Anne's
Powerscourt East

And I wouldn't put Royal Dublin anywhere near where it is, but that's reputation for you.

The_Architect

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

I have major misgivings about the ranking system. The whole subject of 'advertising' does loom large and based on conversations I've had with clubs, there is a common belief that if you advertise in the magazine, then your rankings go up, and vice-versa. One club advertised annually and consistently, and they were placed in the top 40 every year. They pulled their advertising and were dumped into the 70s the following year. They received no phone calls, no visits, no requests for course information. I've heard the opposite too, so there's no surprise at conspiracy theories.

The big variations on last year appear to have come from the new personnel and, perhaps, the more defined parameters - as listed by Sir Shankalot. Even so, some of the rankings are completely off target.

And how can you rank a course if you haven't played it? Have all the reviewers played all of these courses? Of course not, so there is a quest for a middle ground, and as can be seen from the current top 100, that middle ground is not satisfactory.

The rankings that really annoy me are
(Should be way higher)
Concra Wood
Old Head
Narin & Portnoo
Clandeboye
Strandhill
Ballybunion (Cashen)

(Should be way lower, or not in at all)
Dun Laoghaire
Dundalk
St Anne's
Powerscourt East

And I wouldn't put Royal Dublin anywhere near where it is, but that's reputation for you.

Kevin,

What I’d be interested in here is why?

Why do you think Powerscourt East should be way lower (it fell 22 places) whilst you are happy with Powerscourt West entering at No.38?
Why do you think Concra Wood deserves to be higher than its new entry of No.39?
Why do the low placings of Narin and Portnoo (up 30) and Strandhill (New Entry) annoy you so much?

I happen to agree with you on a couple of these but at least I see them trending the right way.

LuckyGent88

the main problem i have with this list is that the Cashen Course in BallyB is as high as it is in the list. IMO, its a fantastic all round test of golf. there is a lot of variety in the holes which bring a fair and enjoyable test of one's game.

Also, i think that Lahinch is better than the old course in BallyB....its a harder test while still being fair.

Kevinmarkham

The_Architect wrote: »

Kevin,

What I’d be interested in here is why?

Why do you think Powerscourt East should be way lower (it fell 22 places) whilst you are happy with Powerscourt West entering at No.38?
Why do you think Concra Wood deserves to be higher than its new entry of No.39?
Why do the low placings of Narin and Portnoo (up 30) and Strandhill (New Entry) annoy you so much?

I happen to agree with you on a couple of these but at least I see them trending the right way.

I guess 'trending' the right way is a start, but - for example - the fact that Strandhill finally appears in the top 100 this year makes a mockery of previous rankings. Concra Wood should be in the top 20 and, to be blunt, Powerscourt East shouldn't even be in the top 100 at all.

Then again, when reviewing the criteria used, it proves that we all rate courses from different perspectives. And that's important I suppose. Personally, I look at these rankings with amused, and often frustrated, detachment.

The_Architect

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

I guess 'trending' the right way is a start, but - for example - the fact that Strandhill finally appears in the top 100 this year makes a mockery of previous rankings. Concra Wood should be in the top 20 and, to be blunt, Powerscourt East shouldn't even be in the top 100 at all.

Then again, when reviewing the criteria used, it proves that we all rate courses from different perspectives. And that's important I suppose. Personally, I look at these rankings with amused, and often frustrated, detachment.

Kevin, why do you think Powerscourt East should not be in a Top 100 yet you are happy with Powerscourt West at No.38? I suspect many posters on here would look upon that with bemusement. You certainly have them the right way round in my opinion though.

The only reasoning I've seen in this thread behind all the outrage is merely "I like this course but I don't like this course".

That doesn't really stand up.

thegen

On what is a good course and what is a bad course I think we will all have to agree to disagree. It is a matter of personal choice. Something I think is good the next man will think is terrible.

Kevin's book is point in fact. Although his real criteria in rating a course is not design, condition, clubhouse etc, it is the "Golf Expierence".

This I feel is what most people on here are rating courses by.

Kevinmarkham

The_Architect wrote: »

The only reasoning I've seen in this thread behind all the outrage is merely "I like this course but I don't like this course".

That doesn't really stand up.

Of course that stands up. That's the whole point of rankings and the whole point of subjectivity. My book is entirely subjective and many golfers would disagree with me over my reviews for places like Portmarnock, Royal Dublin, Castleknock. I was, apparently, ridiculed in the Belfast Telegraph for my thoughts on Scrabo. But that's the point of the book and, as TheGen points out, it's my take on the 'golfing experience' that matters most to me.

I have to disagree with you: the "I like this course but I don't like this course" focus of this thread is exactly as it should be. We all have favourites and, as everyday golfers, our opinions matter just as much as a panel of experts - probably moreso.

In answer to your Powerscourt question: the East has maybe six good, memorable holes, while the rest fade quickly. I think the West is too high at 38, but it's close enough. It is a far more memorable and enjoyable experience than the East course and none of the guys I play golf with ranks East ahead of West. And I could list 100 courses that I would rate more highly without even looking at the book. I imagine you could too.

The_Architect

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Of course that stands up. That's the whole point of rankings and the whole point of subjectivity. My book is entirely subjective and many golfers would disagree with me over my reviews for places like Portmarnock, Royal Dublin, Castleknock. I was, apparently, ridiculed in the Belfast Telegraph for my thoughts on Scrabo. But that's the point of the book and, as TheGen points out, it's my take on the 'golfing experience' that matters most to me.

I have to disagree with you: the "I like this course but I don't like this course" focus of this thread is exactly as it should be. We all have favourites and, as everyday golfers, our opinions matter just as much as a panel of experts - probably moreso.

In answer to your Powerscourt question: the East has maybe six good, memorable holes, while the rest fade quickly. I think the West is too high at 38, but it's close enough. It is a far more memorable and enjoyable experience than the East course and none of the guys I play golf with ranks East ahead of West. And I could list 100 courses that I would rate more highly without even looking at the book. I imagine you could too.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that "I like this more than that" is the essence of the thread. I just like to hear the reasons. If they are "It rained the day I played, the greens were in bad condition (because they had just been verticut) and the service in the club house was poor" then I don't give that opinion much weight.

I think your brief description on Powerscourt does hold up. The West course is a better course. The green complexes are far superior, I much prefer the shaping and the holes themselves have much more variety and strategy.

couerdelion

The_Architect wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I agree that "I like this more than that" is the essence of the thread. I just like to hear the reasons. If they are "It rained the day I played, the greens were in bad condition (because they had just been verticut) and the service in the club house was poor" then I don't give that opinion much weight.

I think your brief description on Powerscourt does hold up. The West course is a better course. The green complexes are far superior, I much prefer the shaping and the holes themselves have much more variety and strategy.

If it rained or the greens had just been verticut then that would be temporary and I agree it shouldn't be taken into account.
Bad service in the club house does matter though. In a game where the mental state is so important, being wound up by bad service does impact upon the enjoyment of a course.

Perhaps the rankings and how they are done should be weighted. They say they rated them on the following:

• Shot Making/Variety
• Design Variety
• Memorability
• Condition
• Playability (all handicaps)
• Degree of difficulty/fairness

It all seems a bit sterile and precise and not really about the 'experience'. I guess it could be argued that these all make up the experience but there are additional things. I'm looking forward to playing Killeen Castle next year, mainly after reading a review in Kevins blog about how the bags were taken and they got tees and markers. Now I know any club could do that and the cost of a round means you are paying for them, but it's that something extra and adds to the experience of playing a club. Similarily the quality of a clubs changing rooms, the food, the quality of service in the bar, the friendliness of the pro in the shop etc.

The_Architect

Couerdelion.

What you have said is all well and good and hard to disagree with.

But it has no impact on the quality of the course.

bobob

Just wondering had anyone played in Ballinrobe golf club in the west ?? Watched the gui interpro's there last year and played twice since. In my opinion it is well worthy of a place in the top 50. Some of the other courses we played in the west - Castlebar Westport and Claremorris would'nt be anywere near the quality of Ballinrobe. I'm a member of a club in Wicklow which is rated in the top 20 but feel that Ballinrobe would fit there instead of in the 90's. Both rounds were very enjoyable and the greens are truer than any I have experienced in the past couple of years. Thought i'd put it out there to see what you guys think !