Irish Golfer Magazine Top 100 2017

Kevinmarkham

I've seen all the comments in the Golf Digest Ireland thread... but I'm starting a new one for Irish Golfer. As has been pointed out, I was one of the six panellists.

If you have questions or comments, fire them over - I'll do my best to answer them. I won't respond to abusive posts... life's too short so go and vent your frustration on a golf course!

Kevin,

A couple of questions just out of interest.

How many are on the judging panel?
How many people play/rate each course?
Is it based on the course condition when played or is history taken into account?
Are previous years rankings taken into account or is it a clean slate every year?
What is the breakdown in terms of marking?

Obviously something like this is subjective to individuals opinions but would be great to know at least there was some form of science behind it.

Kevinmarkham

Exactly wrote: »

How many are on the judging panel?
How many people play/rate each course?
Is it based on the course condition when played or is history taken into account?
Are previous years rankings taken into account or is it a clean slate every year?
What is the breakdown in terms of marking?

How many are on the judging panel?
6

How many people play/rate each course?
6 - as has been pointed out, not every panellist has played every course recently. I've played most of them in the past two years but certainly not all of them. Doing so is a huge commitment/challenge and, to be fair, I'm in the very privileged position to be able to go and see/play as many as I do.

Is it based on the course condition when played or is history taken into account?
It has to be a bit of both, and obviously there are some courses that have changed in terms of condition over recent years. Three/four years ago, Mount Juliet was in a shabby state but today it's excellent again; I love Charleville (not in the 100) but I've been told the condition is poor at the moment. Swings and roundabouts.


Are previous years rankings taken into account or is it a clean slate every year?
This was Irish Golfer's first Top 100 ranking so it was a 'clean slate'. Inevitably, if new panellists come onboard things will change and the rankings will shift year after year. Combined with course improvements/changes there will be a shift in next year's rankings. As there should be. Everyone pounds on about how subjective it is... and my response is: of course its subjective. You've got six golfers expressing opinions and scoring courses based on those opinions and their experiences. How else can it be done! My top 10 is not going to be the same as anybody else's so there has to be compromise in the process.

What is the breakdown in terms of marking?
1. Course Layout & Design (35% weighting)
2. Quality of test / playability (25% weighting)
3. Condition & presentation (20% weighting)
4. Club facilities & visitor experience (10% weighting)
5. Visual appeal (10% weighting)


Hope that helps.

Rumple Stillson

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

How many are on the judging panel?
6

How many people play/rate each course?
6 - as has been pointed out, not every panellist has played every course recently. I've played most of them in the past two years but certainly not all of them. Doing so is a huge commitment/challenge and, to be fair, I'm in the very privileged position to be able to go and see/play as many as I do.

Is it based on the course condition when played or is history taken into account?
It has to be a bit of both, and obviously there are some courses that have changed in terms of condition over recent years. Three/four years ago, Mount Juliet was in a shabby state but today it's excellent again; I love Charleville (not in the 100) but I've been told the condition is poor at the moment. Swings and roundabouts.


Are previous years rankings taken into account or is it a clean slate every year?
This was Irish Golfer's first Top 100 ranking so it was a 'clean slate'. Inevitably, if new panellists come onboard things will change and the rankings will shift year after year. Combined with course improvements/changes there will be a shift in next year's rankings. As there should be. Everyone pounds on about how subjective it is... and my response is: of course its subjective. You've got six golfers expressing opinions and scoring courses based on those opinions and their experiences. How else can it be done! My top 10 is not going to be the same as anybody else's so there has to be compromise in the process.

What is the breakdown in terms of marking?
1. Course Layout & Design (35% weighting)
2. Quality of test / playability (25% weighting)
3. Condition & presentation (20% weighting)
4. Club facilities & visitor experience (10% weighting)
5. Visual appeal (10% weighting)


Hope that helps.

It's such a difficult task to rank courses, especially when you are creating a list of 100.

Just regarding the marking system, perhaps you could explain the difference between course layout and design and quality of test/playability? This accounts for 55% of the weighting but I would have thought they broadly cover the same criteria?

Rumple Stillson

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

It's such a difficult task to rank courses, especially when you are creating a list of 100.

Just regarding the marking system, perhaps you could explain the difference between course layout and design and quality of test/playability? This accounts for 55% of the weighting but I would have thought they broadly cover the same criteria?

Just one other thing that I noticed, 20% of the weighting is allocated to course presentation and condition, why not involve someone who is involved in green keeping? After all, presenting a course and producing good conditioned surfaces is the realm of the head green keeper.

PARlance

Nice to see Mulranny getting a special mention at 101 Kevin!

A talking point in the other thread was the inclusion of Grange Castle. The reasoning in the magazine cited it being a very good pay & play course. Was it scored more favourably because it is Council owned?

spacecoyote

Were you given a shortlist of courses to score or was every course in the country rated after which it was whittled down?

First Up

Under what conditions were courses assessed - e.g in dry weather only or after rain? Did how well courses drain etc factor in the ratings?

Seve OB

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Three/four years ago, Mount Juliet was in a shabby state but today it's excellent again;

Having played MJ a good bit over the years I have to say I was really impressed with the conditioning last week. Seems like they have done a bit of a job on drainage but it was still a bit soft around the place especially in the rough! But much better than it was a few years ago... I like the new clubhouse too.

Benicetomonty

Disappointed to see one of the two most exclusive clubs in the country top the ranking. Granted its been a while since Ive played it, but Im of the belief that not only is Portmarnock not the best course in the country, it may not even be the best in Leinster - The Island would be a better track in the eyes of many.

I enjoyed reading the rationale for the bias towards links courses; as much as I love parkland golf, there really is nothing like it. There should probably be two separate lists from the get go to be honest

For the record, Carne, County Down, Ballybunion and The European Club are 4 of my favourites. The K Club is the best parkland Ive played, followed by Druids Glen and probably Concra Wood. Wasnt blown away by Mt Juliet having played it for the first time this summer.

Dayor Knight

Sorry if it's obvious, but where can I see the actual list? Thanks.

OK, lads, I see it now, another thread......

BigChap1759

Kevin, first of all huge thanks for taking the time to post and explain the rationale behind the rankings.

Secondly, have you played Margarets in the last year and what do you think of the changes and improvements since your rating in Hooked?

HighLine

Quoted from other thread...

HighLine wrote: »

Fully agree with all of this. Genuinely baffled by Druids Glen being so far down. Perhaps Kevin who posts on here and was on the panel could shed some light? Just going by his comments on social media, he seems to be a big fan of the place.

Kevinmarkham

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

Just regarding the marking system, perhaps you could explain the difference between course layout and design and quality of test/playability? This accounts for 55% of the weighting but I would have thought they broadly cover the same criteria?

Not really - I guess you could compare 'quality of test' with that old cliche of 'every club in the bag'. It's about variety of shot-making and challenges. The 'playability' is - for me - about the accessibility of the course. Royal County Down does not score high on playability whereas Portmarnock (and Grange Castle) do.

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

Just one other thing that I noticed, 20% of the weighting is allocated to course presentation and condition, why not involve someone who is involved in green keeping? After all, presenting a course and producing good conditioned surfaces is the realm of the head green keeper.

Very good point. Something to be recommended for next time. Just not sure how many travelling greenkeepers there are.

PARlance wrote: »

A talking point in the other thread was the inclusion of Grange Castle. The reasoning in the magazine cited it being a very good pay & play course. Was it scored more favourably because it is Council owned?

Yea, saw that alright. Grange Castle was included on a number of levels. Condition is fabulous, the design and layout are strong, it is exceptionally playable... but the fact that it's a pay-and-play certainly played a part.

spacecoyote wrote: »

Were you given a shortlist of courses to score or was every course in the country rated after which it was whittled down?

There were something like 130/140 courses on the list. I'd say there are 75 or so that will always make it and then you've got 50 to choose from. Choosing a top 20 is easy compared to picking 80 to 100.

First Up wrote: »

Under what conditions were courses assessed - e.g in dry weather only or after rain? Did how well courses drain etc factor in the ratings?

No, none of that was relevant... not something you can really consider because it all depends on when you play a course. Just too difficult to assess fairly.

Dayor Knight wrote: »

Sorry if it's obvious, but where can I see the actual list? Thanks.

www.irishgolfer.ie/top100

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Kevin, first of all huge thanks for taking the time to post and explain the rationale behind the rankings.

Secondly, have you played Margarets in the last year and what do you think of the changes and improvements since your rating in Hooked?

I did the photography two years back and I was there earlier this year. Place looks fabulous and the changes they're making continue to push the course along. Hooked review to be updated!

Kevinmarkham

HighLine wrote: »

Quoted from other thread...

Quoted from other thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLine
Fully agree with all of this. Genuinely baffled by Druids Glen being so far down. Perhaps Kevin who posts on here and was on the panel could shed some light? Just going by his comments on social media, he seems to be a big fan of the place.

Yes, I love the place and in my own personal ranking I would put it higher... but when you have six people working on it that's six opinions that have to be considered.

Seve OB

Would be interesting to know other courses that were reviewed which didn't cut the grade.

I'm not saying Greystones should be on there bit it is IMO a lot better than at least a few courses in there. As you are also a member Kevin I'd be interested to know if it was considered? Regards condition it has to be one of the best presented courses in the country with fairways like carpets, excellent greens nice and pacy and good drainage underfoot. Mind you I would say the condition this year in general was not as well presented as in previous years. Any opinions on the recent hatchet jobs to keep the local bonfires lit for Halloween? IMO a disaster.

First Up

Kevinmarkham wrote:

No, none of that was relevant... not something you can really consider because it all depends on when you play a course. Just too difficult to assess fairly.

Well then I hope the courses were compared after being played under broadly similar conditions.

It would be very unfair on courses/clubs that have invested in good drainage to have that overlooked in a comparison with places that haven't, because they were both examined after a long dry spell instead of after some typical Irish wet weather.

Comparing courses based on ideal playing conditions is not an accurate or complete assessment.

Rumple Stillson

First Up wrote: »

Well then I hope the courses were compared after being played under broadly similar conditions.

It would be very unfair on courses/clubs that have invested in good drainage to have that overlooked in a comparison with places that haven't, because they were both examined after a long dry spell instead of after some typical Irish wet weather.

Comparing courses based on ideal playing conditions is not an accurate or complete assessment.

On average, the west of Ireland receives twice as much rain as the east. Is it fair to reward clubs because of their geographical location?

First Up

Rumple Stillson wrote:

On average, the west of Ireland receives twice as much rain as the east. Is it fair to reward clubs because of their geographical location?

Its about which are the best places to play. Course conditions are a legitimate criteria in ranking them.

Some west of Ireland courses are superb because they made the necessary investment. Some didn't. That difference deserves to be acknowledged.

Kevinmarkham

Seve OB wrote: »

Would be interesting to know other courses that were reviewed which didn't cut the grade.

I'm not saying Greystones should be on there bit it is IMO a lot better than at least a few courses in there. As you are also a member Kevin I'd be interested to know if it was considered? Regards condition it has to be one of the best presented courses in the country with fairways like carpets, excellent greens nice and pacy and good drainage underfoot. Mind you I would say the condition this year in general was not as well presented as in previous years. Any opinions on the recent hatchet jobs to keep the local bonfires lit for Halloween? IMO a disaster.

Would you believe, Seve, I've played Greystones exactly once this year... and there's people giving out about €50 rounds of golf! I'm guessing I've played the most expensive round of anyone this year.

No, Greystones was not on the list. The others considered - or 20 of them anyway - are included in the magazine as a "you almost made it" type category. For me the up and down nature of the back nine lets the course down... not to mention the loss of that 12th hole. But you're right about the conditioning... although I still argue that the green speed and firmness are wrong for the course.

To be honest, the fact that I know Greystones so well may work against it!

Kevinmarkham

First Up wrote: »

Well then I hope the courses were compared after being played under broadly similar conditions.

It would be very unfair on courses/clubs that have invested in good drainage to have that overlooked in a comparison with places that haven't, because they were both examined after a long dry spell instead of after some typical Irish wet weather.

Comparing courses based on ideal playing conditions is not an accurate or complete assessment.

I assess courses on the quality of the golf experience. If a course is often wet (and I can think of a couple of top parklands that are) then that works against them in my rating.

Rumple Stillson

First Up wrote: »

Its about which are the best places to play. Course conditions are a legitimate criteria in ranking them.

Some west of Ireland courses are superb because they made the necessary investment. Some didn't. That difference deserves to be acknowledged.

Course condition is of course important and any investment in drainage is going to feed into that.

Course reviews should be based on how the course plays during the playing season. No amount of investment in drainage is going to make somewhere like Westport play as well in the winter as say Lutrellstown. The volume of rainfall is incomparable.

First Up

Kevinmarkham wrote:

I assess courses on the quality of the golf experience. If a course is often wet (and I can think of a couple of top parklands that are) then that works against them in my rating.

Then fair enough, as long as the sample is big enough to avoid the risk of somewhere with (for example) lousy drainage only being "experienced" in dry weather.

Kevinmarkham

First Up wrote: »

Then fair enough, as long as the sample is big enough to avoid the risk of somewhere with (for example) lousy drainage only being "experienced" in dry weather.

You can't be in all places all of the time, First Up. You just have to do your best.

First Up

Kevinmarkham wrote:

You can't be in all places all of the time, First Up. You just have to do your best.

True, but if you are going to put out something as definitive as an "expert" ranking of courses, it should be based on more than a random sample.

Rumple Stillson

First Up wrote: »

True, but if you are going to put out something as definitive as an "expert" ranking of courses, it should be based on more than a random sample.

Would you advise visiting each course periodically during the year?

First Up

Rumple Stillson wrote:

Would you advise visiting each course periodically during the year?

Yes, and ensuring that courses were played and compared under a range of weather conditions and times of year.

Rumple Stillson

First Up wrote: »

Yes, and ensuring that courses were played and compared under a range of weather conditions and times of year.

Well it certainly would be a very fair and comprehensive way of doing it, not sure it would ever be feasible though. It would require a panel of 10+ people working directly for the publication all year round!

First Up

Rumple Stillson wrote:

Well it certainly would be a very fair and comprehensive way of doing it, not sure it would ever be feasible though. It would require a panel of 10+ people working directly for the publication all year round!

Not necessarily working directly for them. Just a panel contributing to a structured sample.

Ally McIntosh

Good draining courses are hugely important because they feed consistently firm conditions which in turn feed the quality of the golf and experience. That's one of the many reasons links courses score so highly.

In other words, you can have bone dry courses that invest very little in drainage and wet courses that have invested a large amount (think the 2nd K Club course).

So as Kevin implied, he can't consider how good a course is based on drainage investment, just on whether the playing surface adds to the quality of the golf. The panel members have played many of the courses on the list multiple times so they have a decent grip on whether a course is naturally dry or whether it has regular wet spots that affect play.

TitianGerm

Kevin how did you find Bunclody? I see it's 66 on the list and I find that quite a good place especially considering its a relatively new course and still developing.

redzerdrog

Surprised to see Seapoint so far down the list and especially compared to the like of Arklow and Castlmartyr.

Seapoint seems to slipping down the rankings in these lists even though there has been some good developments to the course in recent years

Rumple Stillson

Ally McIntosh wrote: »

Good draining courses are hugely important because they feed consistently firm conditions which in turn feed the quality of the golf and experience. That's one of the many reasons links courses score so highly.

In other words, you can have bone dry courses that invest very little in drainage and wet courses that have invested a large amount (think the 2nd K Club course).

So as Kevin implied, he can't consider how good a course is based on drainage investment, just on whether the playing surface adds to the quality of the golf. The panel members have played many of the courses on the list multiple times so they have a decent grip on whether a course is naturally dry or whether it has regular wet spots that affect play.

I asked Kevin earlier but I'm not quite sure he answered my question as I had hoped, perhaps as an architect you can. What is the difference between layout and design as opposed to quality of test/playability? Is the former more to do with aesthetics or play?

First Up

Ally McIntosh wrote:

So as Kevin implied, he can't consider how good a course is based on drainage investment, just on whether the playing surface adds to the quality of the golf. The panel members have played many of the courses on the list multiple times so they have a decent grip on whether a course is naturally dry or whether it has regular wet spots that affect play.

I'm not suggesting that they base it on investment any more than they use the weather as a mitigating factor.

I'm saying that course conditions - especially in/after bad weather - are a hugely important factor and any ranking that does not include it is incomplete and potentially very misleading.

We get three months good weather at most; people need to know how courses present in the other nine.

Golfgraffix

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

I asked Kevin earlier but I'm not quite sure he answered my question as I had hoped, perhaps as an architect you can. What is the difference between layout and design as opposed to quality of test/playability? Is the former more to do with aesthetics or play?

I would imagine that layout and design would be based on the routing and how the course sits within the local environment, where test/playability would be more based on the strategy of the design from a playing perspective rather than aesthetics.

Rumple Stillson

Golfgraffix wrote: »

I would imagine that layout and design would be based on the routing and how the course sits within the local environment, where test/playability would be more based on the strategy of the design from a playing perspective rather than aesthetics.

That makes sense. On balance, I think the weighting is quite good.

First Up

Rumple Stillson wrote:

That makes sense. On balance, I think the weighting is quite good.

I think the weighting is fine; my issue is something else.

There are courses on that list that are breathtakingly lovely on a summers day but a disaster in October. There are others that may not be as spectacular in July but that still play at 80% - 90% even after bad weather. I can quote examples if you like.

I'd like to know that both courses were tested at both times of year so that a full picture is presented to readers. Otherwise its just a meaningless academic indulgence.

Rumple Stillson

First Up wrote: »

I think the weighting is fine; my issue is something else.

There are courses on that list that are breathtakingly lovely on a summers day but a disaster in October. There are others that may not be as spectacular in July but that still play at 80% - 90% even after bad weather. I can quote examples if you like.

I'd like to know that both courses were tested at both times of year so that a full picture is presented to readers. Otherwise its just a meaningless academic indulgence.

If the course is consistently wet throughout the winter and much of the shoulder seasons, then this will be reflected in the conditioning even during the times of year it is dry and playing well.

Perhaps more weighting on conditioning might satisfy this criteria.

First Up

Rumple Stillson wrote:

Perhaps more weighting on conditioning might satisfy this criteria.

Maybe.

There are courses on that list I wouldn't go near between October and May or even later.

mike12

Every ranking is tough.

I've played courses and gone it's crap.
Often after playing poorly, played it again and played well and my opinion changes.

I love links and have very few parkland courses in my top 20.
Strandhill is one of my favorite courses because I won the first time I played there.

Every ranking you will find our links courses near the top simply because we have some of the best in the world.
If you took any of our parkland and put them any where in the US they would be way down the rankings in most states.
It is almost an impossible task.

slingerz

mike12 wrote: »

Every ranking is tough.

I've played courses and gone it's crap.
Often after playing poorly, played it again and played well and my opinion changes.

I love links and have very few parkland courses in my top 20.
Strandhill is one of my favorite courses because I won the first time I played there.

Every ranking you will find our links courses near the top simply because we have some of the best in the world.
If you took any of our parkland and put them any where in the US they would be way down the rankings in most states.
It is almost an impossible task.

Very valid point about playing performance reflecting opinion about the course.

I wonder would it be better making these lists more regional rather than overall. I'm sure a list of courses closer to me would make it more relatable than courses that i've never heard of or played. hard to compare and contrast those so i have to take the opinion of the experts such as Kevin on board.

Kevinmarkham

slingerz wrote: »

Very valid point about playing performance reflecting opinion about the course.

I wonder would it be better making these lists more regional rather than overall. I'm sure a list of courses closer to me would make it more relatable than courses that i've never heard of or played. hard to compare and contrast those so i have to take the opinion of the experts such as Kevin on board.

This is certainly something I have been looking at - separate to these rankings. But it would be a nice addition to IGM ... probably as a separate piece to the ranking.

Kevinmarkham

First Up wrote: »

There are courses on that list that are breathtakingly lovely on a summers day but a disaster in October. There are others that may not be as spectacular in July but that still play at 80% - 90% even after bad weather. I can quote examples if you like.

Fire ahead - I'd love to see what you have.

First Up wrote: »

I'd like to know that both courses were tested at both times of year so that a full picture is presented to readers. Otherwise its just a meaningless academic indulgence.

Sorry we can't live up to your high standards.

First Up

Kevinmarkham wrote:

Fire ahead - I'd love to see what you have.

OK, one of each;

Summer only - Farnham Castle

Anytime - St Margarets

I played them within 3 days of each other recently. Farnham should have been closed. St Margarets was perfect.

Kevinmarkham wrote:

Sorry we can't live up to your high standards.

I'd have called them minimum standards for a credible ranking but there ya go.

slave1

You're right, everyone's right, it's subjective, it's impossible to pick 'The' Top 100 just 'your' Top 100, but it should be relatively easy to select the top courses.

I'd have links ahead of almost every parkland but that's just me, I know two of my regular golfing buddies that loathe links so they would laugh at all current rankings. For me, Portrush is the best with Lahinch next and my Top 10 are all links.

On the 10% for clubhouse etc. personally I'm only interested in the course so would never care about clubhouse or car park or facilities etc., yes I would care for joining but not in a ranking scenario.

Sure it's all about the effort and I've said it before and I'll say it again, for such a small island isn't it great we have a top 100 even but what's to be achieved in just another Top 100, would you not have gone Top 30 Links and Top 30 Parkland?

Ally McIntosh

slave1 wrote: »

You're right, everyone's right, it's subjective, it's impossible to pick 'The' Top 100 just 'your' Top 100, but it should be relatively easy to select the top courses.

I'd have links ahead of almost every parkland but that's just me, I know two of my regular golfing buddies that loathe links so they would laugh at all current rankings. For me, Portrush is the best with Lahinch next and my Top 10 are all links.

On the 10% for clubhouse etc. personally I'm only interested in the course so would never care about clubhouse or car park or facilities etc., yes I would care for joining but not in a ranking scenario.

Sure it's all about the effort and I've said it before and I'll say it again, for such a small island isn't it great we have a top 100 even but what's to be achieved in just another Top 100, would you not have gone Top 30 Links and Top 30 Parkland?

I ranked Portrush first and Lahinch second also. For what it's worth, here's the top-10 I voted:

1. Portrush
2. Lahinch
3. Portmarnock
4. Ballybunion
5. Royal County Down
6. County Louth
7. The European
8. County Sligo
9. The Island
10. Carne

Kevinmarkham

First Up wrote: »

OK, one of each;

Summer only - Farnham Castle

Anytime - St Margarets

I played them within 3 days of each other recently. Farnham should have been closed. St Margarets was perfect.

Farnham Estate? You're going to have to do better than one course, First Up. Give me 10 examples of each and we'll go from there.

I've played famously 'dry' courses in the summer when they've been soaking underfoot. Low and behold, they'd had three days of rain right before I played. I get your point but you're asking for reviewers to be in the right place at the right time for dozens of courses. It's not practical or logistically possible unless your entire focus is on golf courses. And even I don't have that sort of opportunity. I deliberately avoided such factors for Hooked for two key reasons: a) I wasn't going to punish a course because I played it in March or November, and I certainly didn't have the luxury of returning to it in the summer, and b) most visitors and travelling golfers target the spring/summer months when our courses are supposed to be in top condition.

Basically, what I'm saying is you have to be realistic in what's achievable. You have your standards, we have ours. Calling it a 'meaningless academic indulgence' is entirely unnecessary.

Ally McIntosh

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

I asked Kevin earlier but I'm not quite sure he answered my question as I had hoped, perhaps as an architect you can. What is the difference between layout and design as opposed to quality of test/playability? Is the former more to do with aesthetics or play?

To be honest, design infiltrates in to all categories. Layout and design can cover routing, strategy and variety. Playability more to do with ease of walk and the lack of too many ball losing opportunities (including forced carries). Quality of test I put to the back of my considerations other than thinking about the number of different shots I'm asked to play.

If I'm even more honest, you don't rank golf courses by some scientific scoring method - it tends to throw out strange results. You rank them by comparing overall quality from one course to the next.

I award individuality more than some. I left the room for 20 minutes near the end and Corballis and Mulranny were no longer in double figures.

First Up

Kevinmarkham wrote:

Basically, what I'm saying is you have to be realistic in what's achievable. You have your standards, we have ours. Calling it a 'meaningless academic indulgence' is entirely unnecessary.

I don't think it unreasonable to ask that any course being assessed carry a review from say June/July/August and another from say October/November or February/March.

I assume that more than one opinion is already included on each course - why not include the perfectly reasonable criteria that a range of weathers is also covered?

If its just opinions of courses based on ideal conditions then I think academic indulgence is a perfectly valid description.

tommypepper

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

I've played famously 'dry' courses in the summer when they've been soaking underfoot. Low and behold, they'd had three days of rain right before I played. ...
Basically, what I'm saying is you have to be realistic in what's achievable. You have your standards, we have ours. Calling it a 'meaningless academic indulgence' is entirely unnecessary.

Its Ireland..... unless conditioning was factored in at the build stage or a significant long term sanding project was started 5 years or more ago then a parkland is going to struggle. I can only name one course in my area that is open when all others are closed ... Fota.

The average golfer wants to play golf on the weekend. The average parkland should close all bunkers and use the resources to implement a long term sanding project.

Any new courses should make drainage and sand basing their highest priority.

First Up

Kevinmarkham wrote:

Farnham Estate? You're going to have to do better than one course, First Up. Give me 10 examples of each and we'll go from there.

I offered those two to illustrate my point. Farnham is a lovely place in summer; when it was played for its inclusion?