Golf Digest World Top 100

[David Jones]

Over the years there have been some very good lists and I would argue the latest Golf magazine ones may be the best yet. This Golf Digest World list is just nonsense though. I wrote a blog about it when it came out a couple of years ago decrying the methodology and lack of transparency. I can't be bothered this time to be honest.


However, the discussion of Cape Wickham is one I am more than happy to join!


Last year I played 12 courses in the Sandbelt and Tasmania and our group too had CW at the top. If truth be told though, we weren't a bunch of architecture junkies. We were more your average players who enjoy the exhilaration of playing great courses and we feasted on so many delights when we were out there.


Cape Wickham just had it all - challenging but playable holes, beautiful turf, great views. I recognise that not all of those virtues are in everyones' choice of what should make a golf ranking list, but for us it came out top.


Having said that, we adored Barnbougle and were in awe of Royal Melbourne. The other 9 courses would all have been great as the centrepiece of many other trips. I


I do struggle with Cape Wickham coming out as 60th in the recent Golf magazine list. I struggle to see it out of the top 20 and it is a shoe in for top 30 for me. However, of course, subjectivity is what makes these things thrive and kick off threads like this....

[Tom_Doak]

I do struggle with Cape Wickham coming out as 60th in the recent Golf magazine list. I struggle to see it out of the top 20 and it is a shoe in for top 30 for me. However, of course, subjectivity is what makes these things thrive and kick off threads like this....

This is the part I struggle with.  60th in the world is a pretty good ranking for any course, new or old.  For someone to complain about a newish course being rated that high is ridiculous.


I wouldn't be complaining if Tara Iti was ranked 60th in the world.  I understand that, at the end of the day, what matters is if it's still there [or higher] five or ten years down the road.  Cape Wickham probably has a better chance of improving its ranking than most courses do . . . Barnbougle has been there for 10+ years and isn't going away.




One of the things about these lists is that there are multiple pecking orders playing themselves out -- within the list, raters are having arguments about what's the best course in Australia, what are the best courses that I've designed, etc.  I cannot see a course in Australia ever eclipsing Royal Melbourne.  I am shocked that Tara Iti did, but I think that being in New Zealand instead helped make that possible.

[Anthony Butler]

A number of credible people In the golf industry

The fact that a few writers say something loudly is not necessarily a reliable indicator of consensus opinion.  Wickham is behind Barnbougle and Tara Iti on the GOLF Magazine ranking, too.

Tom,
I believe you are referring to people like Matt Ginella... who is a writer and may have used a ! or two when describing how pleasantly surprised he was by CW during a recent trip... I have noticed that a number of people have subsequently chipped in on this thread with the same opinion on CW... although being a Snr. Member on GCA.com probably doesn't qualify you as being a member of the 'golf industry'. 

The industry does however extend further than members of the media. My input on CW comes mostly from people in Australia who have made a trip to CW since it opened.. the very same people also raved about Tara Iti if it makes you feel any better... Only one of these people is an active rater.

Since I'm not in the habit of cozying up to American hedge fund billionaires it's unlikely I'll get to experience TI in person... I do plan on playing CW when in Australia at the end of the year, so at least I'll be able to compare BD with CW at that point. I'd love to sneak in a trip to BD to play Lost Farm as well.

[David Jones]

I do struggle with Cape Wickham coming out as 60th in the recent Golf magazine list. I struggle to see it out of the top 20 and it is a shoe in for top 30 for me. However, of course, subjectivity is what makes these things thrive and kick off threads like this....

This is the part I struggle with.  60th in the world is a pretty good ranking for any course, new or old.  For someone to complain about a newish course being rated that high is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be complaining if Tara Iti was ranked 60th in the world.  I understand that, at the end of the day, what matters is if it's still there [or higher] five or ten years down the road.  Cape Wickham probably has a better chance of improving its ranking than most courses do . . . Barnbougle has been there for 10+ years and isn't going away.

It's interesting to see what has happened to the ratings (in Golf Magazine) of modern courses that are now in the top 50. Most of them entered at a position within a few of where they are now (thanks Darius for keeping the ranking history on his site) -


Sand Hills - entered in 1997 at position number 17, currently 13
Pacific Dunes - entered in 2001 at 26, now 24
Friar's Head - entered in 2005 at 74 but was 33 in 2007 and is now 26
Tara Iti - entered in 2017 at 29,  now 27
Barnbougle Dunes - entered in 2005 at 49 and now 35
Cape Kidnappers  - entered in 2005 at 27 and now 44
Cabot Cliffs - entered in 2017 at 50, now 43


Cape Wickham entered in 2017 at 72 and is now up to 60


So while I totally understand your point Tom regarding 60 being a great achievement and 5-10 years time being important, history would suggest it will be something of an outlier if it goes significant higher.

[Tom_Doak]

Since I'm not in the habit of cozying up to American hedge fund billionaires it's unlikely I'll get to experience TI in person... I do plan on playing CW when in Australia at the end of the year, so at least I'll be able to compare BD with CW at that point. I'd love to sneak in a trip to BD to play Lost Farm as well.

If it's wealthy Americans you want to avoid, yes you should probably stay away from Tara Iti.  But if it's just billionaires, keep in mind that Cape Wickham is now owned by a Vietnamese billionaire [via one of his holding companies].  He'd be charging as much as Tara Iti, if he could, but I don't know that King Island is ever going to have that kind of cachet.




P.S.  I believe that BOTH Cape Wickham and Barnbougle [and Lost Farm] are held back in the rankings a bit because of the wind.  Some here have dismissed it, because they didn't get a super-windy day . . . but both places are prone to those and when a panelist visits on a barely-playable day, the course's ranking will suffer a little bit.  Barnbougle with moderate winds would probably be the top-ranked course that I've built -- see Ran's ranking of it -- but the winds are often beyond moderate. 


Barnbougle, though, seems to me the most playable of the three when the wind is ripping, and that could well be why it is ranked highest of the three.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm glad people are chiming in with great discussion on these courses.

But given all of them are in the top 100, and all apparently deserving of such, isn't it a bit trivial to nitpick and snipe on which ones should be higher than the others?

[Jeff Schley]

I'm glad people are chiming in with great discussion on these courses.

But given all of them are in the top 100, and all apparently deserving of such, isn't it a bit trivial to nitpick and snipe on which ones should be higher than the others?

Kalen..... is that tongue in cheek?  Isn't that what a lot of this site "discusses" the nitpicking of exactly, scientifically proves why one course is better than another?   

[Kalen Braley]

Not really.

I mean, all of these courses have grasped the proverbial brass ring.  The nitpicking and such, always felt a bit over the top.  Its like going to the bar and having 4 super hot girls who want to hook up with you and your posse and you guys start haggling over if the redhead or brunette is hottest.  I mean c'mon everyone is #winning! 


Unless its just boredom!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwEIze5MA7A

[Anthony Butler]

If it's wealthy Americans you want to avoid, yes you should probably stay away from Tara Iti.  But if it's just billionaires, keep in mind that Cape Wickham is now owned by a Vietnamese billionaire [via one of his holding companies].  He'd be charging as much as Tara Iti, if he could, but I don't know that King Island is ever going to have that kind of cachet.

If I want to avoid wealthy Americans altogether, I'm living in the wrong zip code. My across the street neighbor is the only child of the 4th wealthiest person in Massachusetts and George Colony who started Forrester lives the next street over... I'm quite happy being their poor neighbor though...

P.S.  I believe that BOTH Cape Wickham and Barnbougle [and Lost Farm] are held back in the rankings a bit because of the wind.  Some here have dismissed it, because they didn't get a super-windy day . . . but both places are prone to those and when a panelist visits on a barely-playable day, the course's ranking will suffer a little bit.  Barnbougle with moderate winds would probably be the top-ranked course that I've built -- see Ran's ranking of it -- but the winds are often beyond moderate. 

Barnbougle, though, seems to me the most playable of the three when the wind is ripping, and that could well be why it is ranked highest of the three.

The same applies to New South Wales, but you seem to have a plan in place to moderate the negative impact of heavy winds on the playability of the course... It will be interesting to see if it impacts the rankings once the work is completed.

[Paul Rudovsky]

To my mind, there is a bigger issue with the Golf Digest ("GD") list.  This is not a World list despite GD’s headlines…it includes courses from all parts of the world except the USA (they do admit this in fine print).  In the years of 1979, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2012 GD published this type of list and appropriately titled them “Overseas 100 Greatest” (it is really Overseas + Canada + Latin America…or World less USA...but Overseas is a reasonable approximation). 
In 2014 and 2016 GD published World 100 Greatest lists covering the entire world.

In 2018 they first published a “World” list that excluded the USA…and after being criticized in many quarters, subsequently published a true World 100 Greatest.

I have no idea if GD plans to publish a true World 100 Greatest later this year.  But I do know that when course/resort owners use ratings from an “Overseas” list and call these ratings “World 100 Greatest”, they are deceiving their customers…as USA courses typically comprise 40-60% of a true World list.  And GD will have enabled any such deception.  Hence…if you see an advertisement or article claiming XYZ course/club is rated #40 on the latest Golf Digest list…you should understand that the course is more like #67 to #100 on a the true World list from these evaluators!  [/size]And any post here that compares a rating from GD 2020 with any true World listing is comparing apples with oranges.
[/size]
[/size]There is nothing wrong with publishing an “Overseas” list…just label it correctly!  In the short term this will probably generate more advertising $$ for GD…but smart businesses look long term. 
[/size]

[David Jones]

To my mind, there is a bigger issue with the Golf Digest ("GD") list.  This is not a World list despite GD’s headlines…it includes courses from all parts of the world except the USA (they do admit this in fine print).  In the years of 1979, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2012 GD published this type of list and appropriately titled them “Overseas 100 Greatest” (it is really Overseas + Canada + Latin America…or World less USA...but Overseas is a reasonable approximation). 
In 2014 and 2016 GD published World 100 Greatest lists covering the entire world.

In 2018 they first published a “World” list that excluded the USA…and after being criticized in many quarters, subsequently published a true World 100 Greatest.

I have no idea if GD plans to publish a true World 100 Greatest later this year.  But I do know that when course/resort owners use ratings from an “Overseas” list and call these ratings “World 100 Greatest”, they are deceiving their customers…as USA courses typically comprise 40-60% of a true World list.  And GD will have enabled any such deception.  Hence…if you see an advertisement or article claiming XYZ course/club is rated #40 on the latest Golf Digest list…you should understand that the course is more like #67 to #100 on a the true World list from these evaluators!  And any post here that compares a rating from GD 2020 with any true World listing is comparing apples with oranges.

There is nothing wrong with publishing an “Overseas” list…just label it correctly!  In the short term this will probably generate more advertising $$ for GD…but smart businesses look long term. 

I think you are absolutely right. It is entirely so that courses can market themselves as ‘Golf Digest x best course in the World’. Gets the GD brand everywhere and the advertising revenue flowing.


I was in the Middle East when the last list came out and the Middle East GD edition had adverts from several courses toasting their meteoric rises. Most visitors will have no idea of the marketing trickery....

[Jeff Schley]

To my mind, there is a bigger issue with the Golf Digest ("GD") list.  This is not a World list despite GD’s headlines…it includes courses from all parts of the world except the USA (they do admit this in fine print).  In the years of 1979, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2012 GD published this type of list and appropriately titled them “Overseas 100 Greatest” (it is really Overseas + Canada + Latin America…or World less USA...but Overseas is a reasonable approximation). 
In 2014 and 2016 GD published World 100 Greatest lists covering the entire world.

In 2018 they first published a “World” list that excluded the USA…and after being criticized in many quarters, subsequently published a true World 100 Greatest.

I have no idea if GD plans to publish a true World 100 Greatest later this year.  But I do know that when course/resort owners use ratings from an “Overseas” list and call these ratings “World 100 Greatest”, they are deceiving their customers…as USA courses typically comprise 40-60% of a true World list.  And GD will have enabled any such deception.  Hence…if you see an advertisement or article claiming XYZ course/club is rated #40 on the latest Golf Digest list…you should understand that the course is more like #67 to #100 on a the true World list from these evaluators!  And any post here that compares a rating from GD 2020 with any true World listing is comparing apples with oranges.

There is nothing wrong with publishing an “Overseas” list…just label it correctly!  In the short term this will probably generate more advertising $$ for GD…but smart businesses look long term. 

Cosign this as well.  Not only do courses get to utilize the niche lists you mentioned, which aren't entirely accurate, but as long as they have been ranked at any point in it's history they use the highest accolades ever given in advertising.  I guess you can't blame them, but Paul I'm sure you can look at the GD list through the years and pick out some courses who back in the 90's or earlier were ranked in one of GD top 100 lists and I wouldn't be surprised if they are still using this in marketing.
I don't care how they publish their lists or how often, but at least be descriptively accurate in your titles for them.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, since GOLF DIGEST has already made it abundantly clear that a big part of their rankings exercise is about generating profit, leaving the language vague so courses can overhype themselves is just another potential profit center.


And the best part is, every time they tout their inflated ranking, it's more free advertising for GOLF DIGEST, instead of the competition.

[Ally Mcintosh]

This should hold no weight because I’ve been to neither Tasmania nor King Island.


But... From photos, I far prefer the look of Barnbougle Dunes over Cape Wickham because it appears to have far more random micro and mid-size undulations. In other words, much more like a links landscape.


Am I right and if so, how do you all factor that in to your qualitative opinions? Some of you clearly think that is trumped by other superior factors at Cape Wickham.

[Tony_Muldoon]

This is the entry for Deal


"78 [NR] ROYAL CINQUE PORTS G.C.Deal, Kent, EnglandTom Dunn (1895), Sir Guy Campbell (1949), Martin Ebert (2007)7,367 yards, par 72

Resting just three miles from Royal St. George's (No. 28), the Royal Cinque Ports links rolls over gentle oceanfront sand dunes with some holes playing off a single prominent ridge that runs the length of the property. Cinque (pronounced sank) Ports hosted two British Opens, in 1909 won by J.H. Taylor, and 1920 won by George Duncan. It was slated to host three others, in 1915, 1938 and 1949, but a combination of a World War and ocean storms forced officials to move the championship elsewhere each time. The present course is far different than Tom Dunn’s original design. Before the 1920 Open, James Braid rearranged the layout, adding several new holes, including all four of the present par 3s. In the process, he abandoned the beloved, blind par-3 fourth, called “Sandy Parlour,” but his replacement fourth, playing off a dune toward the ocean, has become beloved as well."



What did Martin Ebert do in 2007?  Any changes came a decade later.

Braid is not in the 3 credits but as the text made clear the modern course owes much to him.

Pronounced "Sink", not as the French say it.


To my knowledge there's never been more than 3, Par 3's.


I hope these facts are useful in assessing the veracity of the reporting.

[David Davis]

I've been fortunate to visit the three Cape Wickham, Tara Iti and Barnbougle and have played them each multiple times, meaning 2-3 each. I was lucky in that I had really different conditions at Cape Wickham for my 3 rounds and Barnbougle for my rounds there. At Tara Iti, each day was pretty consistently blowing very hard.


I personally rank them Tara Iti, Barnbougle, Cape Wickham and while I really enjoyed them all the first two in my mind truly distance themselves from CW for the following reason. Playability in all conditions and a minimum consistence in their holes.


Here are some example of what I mean. I think there are some design flaws with Cape Wickham given the site and extreme windy conditions that are more the norm than the exception. In these types of conditions it's essential to be able to play the ball on the ground for the most part.


Hole 1: green is raised but shaping of the front part of the green is that of a push-up green, with a jagged rise of about 3-4 ft making a shot on the ground a bit unpractical.


Hole 9: a risk reward par 5 however, unless the wind is against it would take a miracle of a shot, even with a mid iron to carry the canyon and with the little available space to land the ball short of the green in the very firm conditions actually hold the green.


Hole 15: landing area has such a severe tilt to it that it becomes very unlikely that balls will stay on the fairway.
Hole 16: Same as 15 but opposite direction.


In theory the above experiences and observations could be considered objective but to me they hold the course back from being a world top 50 course. I think these points would need to be addressed and softened to be a legitimate top 50 contender. Not a big insult as we are still talking about a World Top 100 Course which means it's great. However, for me Top 50 should not have any real flaws (or they have all been fixed over time).


____________________


I don't see any of the same types of architecture flaws at either Tara Iti or Barnbougle. Tara Iti is interesting and playing in all conditions. Barnbougle as well though admittedly extremely tough in very high winds.


____________________


Ally, the look and feel of both TI and BD are more wild and diverse as you notice from photos.


[size=78%] [/size]