Golf Digest Ireland has released the Volvo-sponsored “Top-100 Ranked Irish Golf Cours

carnsoreboxer

http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2011/11/14/golf-digest-irelands-top-100-ranking-2012.html

Johnny_Fontane

knightsbrook down to 85!

oh well....

sign of the times I guess!

Kevinmarkham

I reckon they're an improvement on last year - although the whole NAMA thing is going to raise its head again - but there will be plenty of people who won't be happy about some elements of it.

My own thoughts are on my blog, here

tang1

Said it last year and i'll say it again, no disrespect to any of its members on here, but how St Annes makes it into the top 100 I dont know. Its a better course than Macreddin, Rathcore, Portarlington as Kevin says in his blog. IMO i dont think so.

charlieIRL

just realised i've only played 5 courses out of 100!! Need to sort that out!!

blue note

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

I reckon they're an improvement on last year - although the whole NAMA thing is going to raise its head again - but there will be plenty of people who won't be happy about some elements of it.

My own thoughts are on my blog, here

Excellent blog - looking forward to flicking through it!

On the top 100 - I always wonder how much they really mean. In my view, getting in does mean something and certainly being near the top does - where I suspect much of the discussion is focussed.

I tend to just think that, if a course is at 50, it's around the same standard as 15 or 20 either side of it - people can get too hung up on which finished one place above another.

It's nice to see my own course get in at no. 48 (Tramore). There has been an additional 9 added and the old 18 redesigned, so I'm glad they're getting some recognition for it.

And just to pick out one of the unavoidable anomolies of these things - Castleknock at no. 99!?! WTF?!!

Tones69

Carlow down to 29, she should be top 10

Kevinmarkham

blue note wrote: »

And just to pick out one of the unavoidable anomolies of these things - Castleknock at no. 99!?! WTF?!!

Thanks for the feedback on the blog, blue_note

I agree with you completely about the middle ranking courses all being very much at parity - how one is picked another is anyone's guess.

I take it you'd like to see Castleknock higher? How far up would you suggest. I didn't like the place much - felt very scrunched up and over-designed. Some nice holes and touches, but feels confined.

Tones69

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback on the blog, blue_note

I agree with you completely about the middle ranking courses all being very much at parity - how one is picked another is anyone's guess.

I take it you'd like to see Castleknock higher? How far up would you suggest. I didn't like the place much - felt very scrunched up and over-designed. Some nice holes and touches, but feels confined.

Interested to see what you thought of Carlow kev? My home course the past 5 months, really like it, just missing water really (apart from on 10)

Kevinmarkham

Tones69 wrote: »

Interested to see what you thought of Carlow kev? My home course the past 5 months, really like it, just missing water really (apart from on 10)

Certainly I think it should be higher up the list. It is more natural than the parkland's above it - which is in its favour - but it doesn't have the big shiny production & marketing values - which means it doesn't get noticed in the same way. It's the grand old lady that everyone knows is there but doesn't pay enough attention too. And I get the impression that Carlow is happy to keep it that way. It's top 20 material and I don't reckon it needs more water than its got.

thewobbler

There is an argument that as so many of the major parklands are much of a muchness, then these lists are pointless - and should be replaced with more focused top 10s, like 'top 10 for views', 'top 10 for all handicaps', 'top 10 old timers', etc.

Personally I find Dundalk a very enjoyable course. But it offers nothing more than the 15 odd courses ranked below it (and in some cases, decidedly less) that I've played.

Westport has more bland holes than you can shake a stick at. True, it also has a couple of the best holes in Ireland - but surely that's not enough for a lofty ranking?

Interestingly, Druids Glen doesn't seem to be flavour of the month anymore. It's freefalling in these lists without doing anything wrong. I guess that's the problem with parkland golf; time seems to do it a disservice in rankings; whereas links only seem to go in one direction.

Dtoffee

Wonder if your clubs advertising spend in 'golf digest' would have any influence on the outcome ........ give me Kevin Markham's opinions any day, at least he played the courses.

zztop

Moyvaley...........a big field:mad:

Gophur

What's all the fuss about? Such a "survey" is absolutely irrelevant. Whether a Golf Course is #21 or #81 doesn't matter one jot.

Some people worry about the most insignificant things.

saintastic

Dtoffee wrote: »

at least he played the courses.

From today's Irish Times:

"Under a panel chaired by former chairman of Fáilte Ireland Pádraig Ó hUiginn, and including a number of professionals, former amateur internationals, course designers, the scoring system employed was: shot-making variety (20 points), design (10 points), wow factor (10 points), memorability (10 points), condition (10 points), playability (10 points), degree of difficulty/fairness (10 points)."

conno16

Gophur wrote: »

What's all the fuss about? Such a "survey" is absolutely irrelevant. Whether a Golf Course is #21 or #81 doesn't matter one jot.

Some people worry about the most insignificant things.

Not sure I'd agree with you there. These lists influence many a golf tourist. Kevin markham can't be online 24/7 you know

saintastic

I think these lists are handy as well. It's a good starting list of clubs you'd like to play.

For example, I really want to play Adare/Tralee and Lahinch. I'll defo play Adare next season.

randomer

I'm glad to see Casteknock back on the list, but also think it should be higher. However, given that it didn't make the list last year, it would be strange for it to enter much higher up the list.

Dtoffee

saintastic wrote: »

From today's Irish Times:

"Under a panel chaired by former chairman of Fáilte Ireland Pádraig Ó hUiginn, and including anumber of professionals, former amateur internationals, course designers, the scoring system employed was: shot-making variety (20 points), design (10 points), wow factor (10 points), memorability (10 points), condition (10 points), playability (10 points), degree of difficulty/fairness (10 points)."

Wonder did they all play every course this year for the latest listings. Interesting, 80 points max and course condition is only worth 10 points, surely thats a basic criteria.

I know of at least one of the 100 that has been in terrible condition all year, to the point that it was a joke with more grass in the bunkers than on the heavily sliced greens.

To each his own, but I like to play golf on a course that is firstly and foremost in good condition.

Redzah

Good to see Doonbeg move up 13 spots to 23 which in my opinion is one of the most under rated courses in the country. It should easily be in the top 10 and is as good as any of the links courses in the country, it just isn't 100 years old!

Gophur

X-factor for Golf Courses, eh?

It's a small wonder some Facebook boyo didn't just up up a list and ask for "likes" ?

WHIP IT!

Dtoffee wrote: »

Wonder if your clubs advertising spend in 'golf digest' would have any influence on the outcome ........ give me Kevin Markham's opinions any day, at least he played the courses.

Wasn't going to say anything on this thread, but may as well jump in here... I happened to be one of the 'regular club golfers' who reviewed courses for GD this year. And thoroughly enjoyable it was too.

To answer the above query, we were instructed to pay absolutely no attention to how much an individual course advertised with the magazine or whether it advertised at all.

We were told to rate the course on the 18 holes only... fancy locker-rooms; 9th-tee vendors; a free sleeve of golf balls on arrival - all this was irrelevant... we were asked to beware of having our rating skewed by the receipt of a warm welcome (of which I got many) on arrival at a GC and also, likewise, a frosty reception (of which I got one or two as well)...

So there you have it, as plain as I can make it - I have no idea if any or all of the courses I happened to review advertise with GD... my job was the 18 holes that made up the course.

bailey99

Redzah wrote: »

Good to see Doonbeg move up 13 spots to 23 which in my opinion is one of the most under rated courses in the country. It should easily be in the top 10 and is as good as any of the links courses in the country, it just isn't 100 years old!

I've played, Lahinch, Tralee, Ceann Sibeal, Carne, European Club, Rosslare and Doonbeg, and I can safely say that Doonbeg is the weakest of the lot of them in my opinion. There's about 4 or 5 great links holes there, but its so far away from the top ten in my opinion.

Throw in Ballybunion, Waterville, Royal County Down, Portrush, Baltray, Rosses Point, Ballyliffin, Rossapenna, Enniscrone............Doonbeg would barely make the top 20 links courses in Ireland let alone the top ten overall courses. Get out there and play 10 or 12 really big links courses and judge Doonbeg them.

Dr_Colossus

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Wasn't going to say anything on this thread, but may as well jump in here... I happened to be one of the 'regular club golfers' who reviewed courses for GD this year. And thoroughly enjoyable it was too.

To answer the above query, we were instructed to pay absolutely no attention to how much an individual course advertised with the magazine or whether it advertised at all.

We were told to rate the course on the 18 holes only... fancy locker-rooms; 9th-tee vendors; a free sleeve of golf balls on arrival - all this was irrelevant... we were asked to beware of having our rating skewed by the receipt of a warm welcome (of which I got many) on arrival at a GC and also, likewise, a frosty reception (of which I got one or two as well)...

So there you have it, as plain as I can make it - I have no idea if any or all of the courses I happened to review advertise with GD... my job was the 18 holes that made up the course.

Tell us more, how did you manage to secure this great gig and what courses did you play as part of it and what were your favourites?

Was it a matter of just phoning up a club in question and advising them you were reviewing courses for Golf Digest and that they would foot the green fee bill and in return you'd write and submit a report of your experience? Sounds like a great opportunity to play all the top cources in Ireland if time was on your side.

Agree that the amount of advertising shouldn't have an influence on your ratings but facilities such as fancy locker rooms with complementary towels do add to the experience and wow factor when playing a new course. Also the reception received and overall level of service on offer is a factor in terms of your enjoyment of the day so clubs dishing out frosty receptions with generally indifferent attitudes should be slated for such. However guess if they knew before hand you were reviewing their club on behalf of Gold Digest then that could distort their behaviour towards you.

WHIP IT!

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Tell us more, how did you manage to secure this great gig and what courses did you play as part of it and what were your favourites?

Sure if I told ya that, yis'll all want to do it!

Erm, it was a terribly difficult and taxing chore, I wouldn't recommend it a'tall a'tall... :pac:

Ah no, it was great fun... there was an ad in GD some time back (it was mentioned here at the time actually), I popped in an email staking my claim and bingo bango, got the nod...

We were all given 5/6 courses we had to play and we were free to play and rate as many others as we could on top of that... we were given photographic ID to present upon arrival at each of the courses.

blue note

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback on the blog, blue_note

I agree with you completely about the middle ranking courses all being very much at parity - how one is picked another is anyone's guess.

I take it you'd like to see Castleknock higher? How far up would you suggest. I didn't like the place much - felt very scrunched up and over-designed. Some nice holes and touches, but feels confined.

Definately higher for me, but to be fair my opinion is worth very little - I've only played about 4 on the list.

I've played Tramore (home club) and New Forest, Tullamore and Castleknock all a fair few times. I did find New Forest the weakest of them, so can understand it being lower down the list than the others, but I really like Castleknock. Always found the place to be in excellent condition, I thought it looks very nice, lots of risk / reward temptation on the course - 2 driveable par 4s and par 5's worth going for in two. I just found it a nice level of difficult as well - it's a course where you can score well, or badly, but either way I'd find it fair.

I've played about a dozen that didn't make the list and I wouldn't really complain about any of their ommisions. Waterford Castle is my favourite that didn't make it - I always enjoy a round there. I see Faithlegg gets a special mention, but it's a course that I never really cared for.

conno16

castleknock v lutrellstown
one is at 99, the other at 39
to me this is pretty bizaare
i play both of these on a regular basis
both courses are pretty evenly matched
castleknock prob shaves it on the overall condition "factor" - but then barely scrapes into the top 100
a little puzzling
39 for luttrellstown overall is a bit much - no way its that high on the overall scale in Irl

CamiloVillegas

i wouldn't play golf if it was just links, its a daft game. .

one or 2 links courses are worthwhile but that imbalance is daft. . 50 links courses, 350 parklands in the land (approx), a poor links beats a good parkland??

i don't like castleknock. Dublin clubs (bar the island) have bigger reputations than they deserve.

luttrellstown is a proper course, go find me another hole like 12th.

its good to have land. . if a course doesn't have space and has driver/wedge holes and reachable par 5s. . its a bit rubbish

mike12

Think the reason links courses score so highly is that Ireland is home to the greatest links courses in the world, there is no comparison in my opinion bar maybe Mount Juliet would get into my top 10.
Anyone hear RCD are doing a 50 quid green fee for the winter?
Mike

FixdePitchmark

mike12 wrote: »

Think the reason links courses score so highly is that Ireland is home to the greatest links courses in the world, there is no comparison in my opinion bar maybe Mount Juliet would get into my top 10.
Anyone hear RCD are doing a 50 quid green fee for the winter?
Mike

Have not, would love it when you think St Annes is 40 quid.

It could be a Royal Winter offer, from 25 Dec to the 26 Dec only.

Hurry up if they are.

Played 21 of them, hope to make it 30 by next year.

RCD , Portmarnock, The Islands. In my sights.

dnjoyce

CamiloVillegas wrote: »

i wouldn't play golf if it was just links, its a daft game. .

one or 2 links courses are worthwhile but that imbalance is daft. . 50 links courses, 350 parklands in the land (approx), a poor links beats a good parkland??

i don't like castleknock. Dublin clubs (bar the island) have bigger reputations than they deserve.

luttrellstown is a proper course, go find me another hole like 12th.

its good to have land. . if a course doesn't have space and has driver/wedge holes and reachable par 5s. . its a bit rubbish

12th in macreddIn is a cracker. Luttrellstown is certainly nice but not sure about 39 on the list.

FixdePitchmark

CamiloVillegas wrote: »

i wouldn't play golf if it was just links, its a daft game. .

one or 2 links courses are worthwhile but that imbalance is daft. . 50 links courses, 350 parklands in the land (approx), a poor links beats a good parkland??

i don't like castleknock. Dublin clubs (bar the island) have bigger reputations than they deserve.

luttrellstown is a proper course, go find me another hole like 12th.

its good to have land. . if a course doesn't have space and has driver/wedge holes and reachable par 5s. . its a bit rubbish

There is only 6 out of top 50 from Dublin, but would agree most Dublin courses are a let down
I'm from (North Side) Dublin and tend to agree with post. Look at North Side of Dublin, Donabate as an area, Swords, about the airport, North West Dublin.
Would not be requesting any of them for your last round of Golf.

Balbriggan a real course.
Castleknock, too open and too easy on back nine, not enough mature grounds. Great greens.
Luttrellstown Great grounds, not in perfect condition since Nama.
Portmarnock links , great track, couple of non holes in the middle , but can't have it all.

Sad to say have played all courses on the north side except the 3 big ones , RCD, The Island, Portmarnock.

The south side scares me.

Real shortage, on North side , lots of nice little courses, but equipment makes them finished. Drive and a PW on most holes.

Hard to get it bang on, look at Lee Valley not in it and that is a Dub saying that.

I've only played 21, so what do I know,

Glasson, Lahinch, Enniscrone my top 3, in no order. Impressed with Heritage (Laois). But need to play more courses.

Should Value not be in scoring system ????

That is a big one for me.

The European ( 5% value at 180 euro).
Enniscrone (70% value at 60 euro).

thewobbler

Actually, Golf Digest have set themselves up so that their rankings are only about the courses. As mentioned earlier, all the nice stuff that makes a day out - clubhouse, food, practice facilities, changing facilities, staff - are (supposed to be) irrelevant. It's all sbout the course, so value shouldn't have any place either.


I'd also go so far as to say that the inclusion of value as part of the 100 points in Kevin Markham's book is one if its few weaknesses.

Id suggest that the courses should be presented out of 100, then the score they attain should be divided by their standard weekend green fee - to provide a separate 'vfm index'. This simple method would remove subjectivity from what should be an objective comparison.

ThunderCat

mike12 wrote: »

Anyone hear RCD are doing a 50 quid green fee for the winter?
Mike

Yea they did it for 50 last year aswell and the winter before it was 75 which is still good. Pretty sure thats the price until March 1st 2012. No playing off mats or temp greens either. The only real difference between playing it in the winter/summer is that they push the gents tees up in the winter. Still not short by any means. Only bad thing about it is that you dont get to play from the elevated tee boxes on hole 4. You are on the same level as the green. Other than that, can't fault it.

Redzah

I'll have to disagree with you there bailey. I've grown up playing links golf on the west coast and have played many times in Lahinch, Ballybunion, Tralee, Waterville, Rosses Point, Enniscrone, Strandhill, Doonbeg as well as Portmarnock and European Club so I have 'got out there' and played a lot of the irish links courses. In my opinion, Doonbeg has some of the best links holes in the country and is both a better and more enjoyable golf course than many of the courses I have named above with only 1 or 2 average holes due to a rare breed of snail.

bailey99 wrote: »

I've played, Lahinch, Tralee, Ceann Sibeal, Carne, European Club, Rosslare and Doonbeg, and I can safely say that Doonbeg is the weakest of the lot of them in my opinion. There's about 4 or 5 great links holes there, but its so far away from the top ten in my opinion.

Throw in Ballybunion, Waterville, Royal County Down, Portrush, Baltray, Rosses Point, Ballyliffin, Rossapenna, Enniscrone............Doonbeg would barely make the top 20 links courses in Ireland let alone the top ten overall courses. Get out there and play 10 or 12 really big links courses and judge Doonbeg them.

Kevinmarkham

thewobbler wrote: »

I'd also go so far as to say that the inclusion of value as part of the 100 points in Kevin Markham's book is one if its few weaknesses.

Ironically, value for money was one of my key goals. Take the Palmer course at the K Club. I like the course itself, but at €380 (as it was for the 1st edition), Value For Money was 1 out of 10.

What is it about value for money that doesn't work for you? Should it be excluded all together or is your suggestion about the vfm index your preference? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and not a bit upset - sniff - by your comments.

FixdePitchmark

I think value for money should be in. But I can understand the argument that it does not in any way change how goos or bad a course is.

It would just be a personal consideration for me. I'm not going to pay over 60 euro for any game, well I will , but would need to be Old Head, Portrush, etc.

FixdePitchmark

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Ironically, value for money was one of my key goals. Take the Palmer course at the K Club. I like the course itself, but at €380 (as it was for the 1st edition), Value For Money was 1 out of 10.

What is it about value for money that doesn't work for you? Should it be excluded all together or is your suggestion about the vfm index your preference? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and not a bit upset - sniff - by your comments.

380 euro, God above. Was this country that mad. Answer YES !

thewobbler

Kevin, you'll be delighted to know that your book is that good I keep it in the bathroom for my quiet time. This is most definitely a compliment by the way!

Anyway, the way I see it is that every mark you give in every other category is an intangible, and based purely on your (learned) subjective opinion. But pounds, shillings and pence aren't subjective. There's a common denominator that €50 is always €50.

I'd suggest that a course which gains 90/100 and costs €50, is always twice as much value as a course that earns 90/100 and costs €100. If in all other shapes and forms these courses are equal, then this has to be the case.


By making value a subjective category, it makes value more of an experience than a measurement, and is in effect bonus marks for good experiences. Or maybe it's just a case that I understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

FixdePitchmark

thewobbler wrote: »

Actually, Golf Digest have set themselves up so that their rankings are only about the courses. As mentioned earlier, all the nice stuff that makes a day out - clubhouse, food, practice facilities, changing facilities, staff - are (supposed to be) irrelevant. It's all sbout the course, so value shouldn't have any place either.


I'd also go so far as to say that the inclusion of value as part of the 100 points in Kevin Markham's book is one if its few weaknesses.

Id suggest that the courses should be presented out of 100, then the score they attain should be divided by their standard weekend green fee - to provide a separate 'vfm index'. This simple method would remove subjectivity from what should be an objective comparison.

Was thinking that way, anybody want to do it in Excel. (no). Will when I have too much time, need to get back to I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here !

FixdePitchmark

Give your top 3 for value ? (in top 100)

Kevinmarkham

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

380 euro, God above. Was this country that mad. Answer YES !

That's €21.11 per hole. You'd want to be hitting a lot of shots for that price.

Kevinmarkham

thewobbler wrote: »

Anyway, the way I see it is that every mark you give in every other category is an intangible, and based purely on your (learned) subjective opinion. But pounds, shillings and pence aren't subjective. There's a common denominator that €50 is always €50.

I'd suggest that a course which gains 90/100 and costs €50, is always twice as much value as a course that earns 90/100 and costs €100. If in all other shapes and forms these courses are equal, then this has to be the case.

By making value a subjective category, it makes value more of an experience than a measurement, and is in effect bonus marks for good experiences. Or maybe it's just a case that I understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I see where you're coming from. I'd never looked at it like that. For me, vfm is all part of the experience (as per K Club at €380 vs. Rathcore at €20), and will influence where a person might be inclined to play, based on the money they have to spend. Take Carton House with its two very different courses for the same price - in that instance, vfm is an important consideration: one scores 8, the other 10 (I accept that it is extremely subjective as the Monty course is not well liked as it is seen as too difficult and bare).

"If in all other shapes and forms these courses are equal"... I know you're not being literal, but I honestly don't think any two courses can be equal. I've never done a search through my scores, but even if two courses scored identically across all 8 categories, I would not call them equal - you would always find a reason to play one over another, would you not?

Kevinmarkham

I nice boost for the ego - I was invited onto the RTE Radio 1 Saturday Sport show over the weekend, to discuss the GDI Top 100 Ranking. Linton Walsh, the mag's editor was there too, outlining the ranking process, while Greg Allen was explaining what he saw as the pitfalls.

You'll find some more detail on my blog if you're interested.

thewobbler

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

I nice boost for the ego - I was invited onto the RTE Radio 1 Saturday Sport show over the weekend, to discuss the GDI Top 100 Ranking. Linton Walsh, the mag's editor was there too, outlining the ranking process, while Greg Allen was explaining what he saw as the pitfalls.

You'll find some more detail on my blog if you're interested.

Nice one Kevin. Talking golf is a great gig to get; I'm envious.


Re your earlier point that no two courses are the same, you're correct. This though I guess is the whole point of ranking them - so that you can split your 90/100s from your 80/100s.

If I was to wake in a (normal, summer) morning and fancy a different track, I'd be looking at:

1. How far will I drive? (let's say 1 hour max)

2. Is it a treat? (let's say yes, so it's only the 90s and above)

3. That exercise leaves just 3 courses, all at 92/93 in terms of the (subjective) quality that I'm expecting.

4. One of them is €50, the other two are €100.

5. The €50 course is the clear winner. I'm going to enjoy it as much as the others, but for half the money. Instead if walking around course Y saying "it's great, but is it worth the money" I'd be walking course X feeling I'm robbing them.

% / € = V !

mike12

Another list but only has Courses in the Republic.
http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/country.asp?id=4
Seem to favours the links courses.

FixdePitchmark

mike12 wrote: »

Another list but only has Courses in the Republic.
http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/country.asp?id=4
Seem to favours the links courses.

Have not worked out when that was done, big differences.

The_Architect

That list sucks up information from other lists including the Golf Digest Ireland one.

Good resource though.

ThunderCat

thewobbler wrote: »

Nice one Kevin. Talking golf is a great gig to get; I'm envious.


Re your earlier point that no two courses are the same, you're correct. This though I guess is the whole point of ranking them - so that you can split your 90/100s from your 80/100s.

If I was to wake in a (normal, summer) morning and fancy a different track, I'd be looking at:

1. How far will I drive? (let's say 1 hour max)

2. Is it a treat? (let's say yes, so it's only the 90s and above)

3. That exercise leaves just 3 courses, all at 92/93 in terms of the (subjective) quality that I'm expecting.

4. One of them is €50, the other two are €100.

5. The €50 course is the clear winner. I'm going to enjoy it as much as the others, but for half the money. Instead if walking around course Y saying "it's great, but is it worth the money" I'd be walking course X feeling I'm robbing them.

% / € = V !

I see your point but if 2 courses are both rated as 92/100 and course A is 50euro and course B is 100euro then chances are you will enjoy course B more because course A may have scored 8/10 for value and course B only 3/10 for value, but in order to be ranked the same (92/100) then course B would have picked up superior points in course location, or conditioning or course design which would lead to the better golf experience if you can overlook the green fee and not let it impact on your enjoyment.

thewobbler

Ah, but this is my point entirely Thundercat. Cost shouldn't be an influencing factor when deciding how good a course is, but it should be the sole dictating factor when determining the value that a course represents.

If we devise a system whereby the price of a round is removed from the analysis of the course, then each course can be more objectively evaluated against each other course.


I'll give you a simple example. Lough Erne and Concra Wood are much of a muchness in terms of quality. They've similar views and voyages. I prefer Concra as a layout, but only by the slimmest of margins, while Lough Erne is ahead on conditioning. Both would hit the 90s in my rankings, with a hair's breadth between them.

But if I was living in Cavan, and picking one to visit, it would be Concra every time. Not because it's a better experience, but because at 35EUR a go, it's much better value. This doesn't make Concra a better course, just a better value course.

ThunderCat

thewobbler wrote: »

Ah, but this is my point entirely Thundercat. Cost shouldn't be an influencing factor when deciding how good a course is, but it should be the sole dictating factor when determining the value that a course represents.

If we devise a system whereby the price of a round is removed from the analysis of the course, then each course can be more objectively evaluated against each other course.


I'll give you a simple example. Lough Erne and Concra Wood are much of a muchness in terms of quality. They've similar views and voyages. I prefer Concra as a layout, but only by the slimmest of margins, while Lough Erne is ahead on conditioning. Both would hit the 90s in my rankings, with a hair's breadth between them.

But if I was living in Cavan, and picking one to visit, it would be Concra every time. Not because it's a better experience, but because at 35EUR a go, it's much better value. This doesn't make Concra a better course, just a better value course.

Yea to be fair, you are right. This day and age the green fee is pretty much the be all and end all. And I totally see your point about evaluating a course without factoring in the green fee, but the tricky part about that is that the green fee is tied in to the other factors regardless. For example, the condition of the fairways, greens and bunkers would suffer at a course charging cheap green fees due to a greater volume of traffic whereas at a course charging high green fees the condition of the fairways, greens and bunkers would be better as there is less traffic on it as less people are willing to pay the high fee. So you can remove the price from the equation but the conditioning is still linked to it. Not always the case, but I'd imagine there is a bit of truth to it all the same and going by the model thats in Kevins book, the conditioning counts for 30/100 points.

And I have to agree, Concra Wood is a lovely course. Havnt played Loch Erne yet but I hear its a great place to play and a great place to stay.