As GOLF Magazine’s 2015 World Top 100 and US Top 100 rankings are rolled out on Golf.com, we asked Senior Editor and Top 100 Chairman Joe Passov the following questions.
How would you summarize the overall 2015 results? Lots of change or relatively stable? Golf Magazine's 2015-'16 Top 100s reflect just enough surprises and breakthroughs to make the lists continue to be relevant and compelling. Yet, overall, you'd have to say the rankings remained stable. Pine Valley, as always, clings tenaciously to the top spot. Only one outsider cracked the World Top 10--National Golf Links of America, which bumped Merion to the 11th spot--and not a single debut course cracked the Top 60 in the U.S. or World lists. While the internal movement and the new courses on our lists are varied and intriguing, there wasn't enough of either to produce any seismic shifts.
How does the relative paucity of new construction from 2008 through 2014 manifest itself in these latest rankings? For instance, are restorations now making the biggest moves? What's missing from the rankings this year are the spate of fabulous "instant classics" that had provided so much excitement in previous rankings. It wasn't just a matter of "if" or even "when" for courses such as Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Friar's Head, it was how high they would place. We've seen some wonderful work since 2008, but there's been precious little of it. Yet, if I peer into my crystal ball for 2017, I can point to at least a half-dozen new courses that could smash the Top 50 barrier. (Cabot Cliffs, Tara Iti, Cape Wickham--the pressure's on!)
Restorations are mostly helping classic courses retain their lofty positions. Once in a while, you'll see a restoration provide an enormous shot in the arm--take LA North or Pinehurst No. 2, for example. However, those restoration rocket boosts have been pretty rare. That said, what restorations have accomplished in a hugely positive fashion is to call attention to courses outside the Top 100s that deserve fresh looks. Royal Hague in the World list, Essex County, Old Town Club and Mountain Lake in the U.S. list are prime examples of restored courses that are "newly" great.
Credit, too, to the Cal Club in San Francisco. Kyle Phillips' part restoration, part redesign in 2007 has paid off with a World Top 100 breakthrough this year. Before Phillips' work, few outside of the Bay Area had ever heard of the place.
What result(s) surprised you personally the most in the world and US rankings? Our panelists seem to be enamored with the stylings of Seth Raynor. If memory serves, I said this to you in 2013 as well. For no apparent reason, Fishers Island climbed six spots in the 2015 World rankings, Shoreacres five, Camargo 13 places, just to name three. The Creek Club and Mountain Lake came from nowhere to break into the U.S. Top 100. Yale rose 16 spots in the U.S. Top 100.
I was also surprised at the sheer number of debut courses -- and high rising courses -- that check in well under 7,000 yards. Some of them are less than 6,500 yards. One could argue that as charming as some of these courses are, they're simply no match from a challenge standpoint for today's long hitters. Yet I'm identifying a trend: Difficulty is being further and further de-emphasized as a measuring stick of greatness in a golf course, in favor of variety and also what I would call "enticement" -- and what others might call "fun."
I wasn't sure I'd ever see Australia's Ellerston or Thailand's Ayodhya Links crack the Top 100. They've had the necessary numbers for at least four years, but because of their exclusivity and locations, they never had garnered the minimum number of votes. Maybe I'm most surprised at the inclusion of Royal Hague in the Netherlands. It's known locally as Koninklijke Haagsche (an unpronounceable name to me) and it's a club sufficiently low-key that we've had trouble digging up photos. I've only seen it on an old Shell's match from 1963 that featured Byron Nelson and it looked pretty awesome. Kudos to Colt restoration specialist Frank Pont for bringing this one to the fore.
Not all courses along the North Sea are in the United Kingdom. Set amid tumbling dunes, Royal Hague is a most worthy newcomer to the World Top 100 list.From what I can tell, water frequently comes into play at Ayodhya Links. Are you surprised by its inclusion in the World Top 100?On the one hand, I'm surprised that Ayodhya Links broke through into the World Top 100. It's neither seaside, nor sand-based, nor does it possess remarkable terrain or a pedigree architect. In recent years, those have been the necessary ingredients to make an impression on our panelists. On the other hand, some of our most well-traveled panelists had been touting this course for years. By the numbers alone, it actually would have qualified for the World Top 100 in 2011 and 2013, but it lacked the necessary minimum number of votes. I got to play it myself this past year. It's a big, sprawling layout, with yes, an abundance of water. Typically, that's not my cup of tea. However, it's immaculately maintained and plays as firm and fast as anything in Asia. Moreover, the water doesn't come into play that often. Yes, it's there, but often as a small pond or creek in front of a tee box, or as a bird sanctuary off the side of a fairway. OK, it's got an island green on a par-3, but otherwise, there aren't that many long forced carries during the round. Most importantly for me, Ayodhya serves up an amazing set of greens, with incredible variety in the contouring. Chipping and putting are relentlessly challenging, but fair and compelling. What the green tilts and contours also mean is that is asks the player to approach from the correct portion of the amply wide fairways. And at 7,600-plus yards, it's not just wedges and 9-irons coming into these greens. So no great elevation changes or canyons to carry or cliff edges to negotiate, yet it's a handsome, graceful layout that demands superior shotmaking--a fact I had confirmed while playing alongside a former Walker Cup player. Greatness comes in many forms. So do arguments. That's what's so much fun about these lists.
Some private clubs discretely go about work without directly seeking attention for what they accomplish. How does GOLF do its best to insure that work at places like Inverness and Sunningdale New is both recognized and credited?We're occasionally criticized for how we do rankings at GOLF because of the small number of panelists we use to evaluate courses worldwide. Let's just say I like to think we emphasize quality over quantity. Every one of our panelists can rightly be celebrated for their knowledge of courses, their passion for design and their willingness and ability to travel. We might miss a few, but hardly ever. The world is a much smaller place than it was. Thanks to web sites such as yours, and to other outlets, those who are in the know have superior access to what's going on out there with respect to new courses and renovations. Even if folks are whispering about a place, our panelists are quickly on the job. Our panelists are sufficiently well connected so that even the most low-profile of private clubs receives visits, in many cases unannounced. These folks run regularly in these circles, so that the Invernesses, Sunningdales and others of that ilk are properly recognized and credited.
That said, we're cognizant that restorations and other course alterations are coming at us faster than ever. To that end, we reinstituted a measure that we had employed until just a few years ago, whereby ballot courses played more recently are given extra weight when the final scores are tallied. We will be further refining that system for 2017.
However, we don't drop course evaluations that are 10 years or older the way some other publications do. As Tom Doak likes to say, the bones of a course generally don't change all that much, regardless of what you do to it. That's not an exact quote, but I'm in agreement. Just because we have an evaluation that's 16 years old doesn't mean it shouldn't count. It just means we should reward more recent visits in a small, but meaningful way.
In addition, because there are so many renovations in the works, and because there weren't many new courses to shake up the rankings, we added a few more voting panelists to this year's process. I was curious to see if these additions resulted in major changes to the rankings. It was significant to welcome some new blood aboard, and we placed great emphasis on adding panelists from underrepresented regions, as well as adding individuals who traveled extensively to underreported regions, notably Asia. In the end, as the results testify, there wasn't much significant change, but it was healthy to have a number of fresh sets of eyes to help evaluate.
As you did in 2013, please share with us which five internationals were on the cusp to make the World Top 100. In order, Royal Melbourne (East), Loch Lomond, Prestwick, Royal Abderdeen (Balgownie) and in a virtual tie, St. Enodoc's Church course and Bermuda's Mid Ocean. Royal Melbourne has jumped back and forth in recent years from the World Top 100 and could easily find its way back in for 2017. Loch Lomond has fallen steadily, though my theory is that it's not as much do to with the course quality as it is the difficulty of outsiders gaining access. Royal Aberdeen and Prestwick were close in 2013 as well. Royal Aberdeen enjoyed a nice little bump this year, perhaps due to its hosting the 2014 Scottish Open. I'll be curious as to how Gullane fares in 2017, following its success as the Scottish Open venue this past July, after our vote had closed.
I will be too as I was extremely impressed by Gullane when I saw it for the first time last fall. Moving on, is there a minimum number of votes a course must receive to be eligible for entry into the World Top 100? If so, how many? Would a course have made it in if it had received a few more votes (assuming the votes were of a similar grade)?I've held fast to a minimum of 10 votes. While it's small sample, it's equal to ten percent of our typical overall vote count of 100 votes. This ensures that a deserving, though obscure or distant course gets a fair shake. Ellerston famously would have gained the Top 100 in 2013 if we hadn't had a panelist retire on the eve of the vote, one who had played the course. That left only nine votes. Funny, though. He wasn't a fan of the course, yet even with his poor grade attached to it, Ellerston would have made it through. Thracian Cliffs, Gary Player's seaside course in Bulgaria checked in at Number 83, but wasn't included as it only received five votes. Sperone, in Corsica, would have come close. Again, though, it yielded just five evaluations.
In the U.S. rankings, I was so certain that White Bear Yacht Club, a Donald Ross design in suburban Minneapolis was going to find the Top 100 that I requested photos, but it stalled at nine votes. There are no guarantees, however. I've seen plenty of examples just like these over the years, where more voters showed up during the next cycle -- only to push the course downward in the next rankings. I'll let you know about these three courses in 2017.
As always, thank you for your time!