25 best sub-6,000 yd, 50 best 9-hole & 25 best par-3 courses in the World

[Niall C]

Garland

As Tom says its the first pass at putting this list together and no doubt once I start lobbying for Covesea, Killin, Strathtay, Portmahomak, there will be sweeping changes next time round 

Tom

I got to 7.

Robin

Well done on making the list.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Now that I think of it there are a bunch in Europe they missed, based on my research for future travels.  Pine Cliffs in Portugal looks pretty good.

Pine Cliffs is a blast, and one or two really excellent holes, particularly along the cliffs themselves.

Pine Cliffs is a mini Cypress Point....




...maybe.




It’s very good though.

[Mark Pearce]

Looking at these lists brings home a truth.  My lads don't give a stuff about GCA.  Indeed for all three golf is very much a second (or third) sport and not one they're serious about.  They all love Kington, however, which is why two of them will be at BUDA (and the other wanted to be).  One of them was at Alnmouth Village recently and loved it.  All three have really enjoyed themselves at Pine Cliffs.  You don't need to understand good GCA to enjoy it, and good GCA helps make golf fun.

[Sean_A]

Looking at these lists brings home a truth.  My lads don't give a stuff about GCA.  Indeed for all three golf is very much a second (or third) sport and not one they're serious about.  They all love Kington, however, which is why two of them will be at BUDA (and the other wanted to be).  One of them was at Alnmouth Village recently and loved it.  All three have really enjoyed themselves at Pine Cliffs.  You don't need to understand good GCA to enjoy it, and good GCA helps make golf fun.

Do you think the more relaxed atmosphere of these clubs enhances their enjoyment?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Looking at these lists brings home a truth.  My lads don't give a stuff about GCA.  Indeed for all three golf is very much a second (or third) sport and not one they're serious about.  They all love Kington, however, which is why two of them will be at BUDA (and the other wanted to be).  One of them was at Alnmouth Village recently and loved it.  All three have really enjoyed themselves at Pine Cliffs.  You don't need to understand good GCA to enjoy it, and good GCA helps make golf fun.

This last sentence is well said and very true.


This website of industry folks, connoisseurs and just plain nerds tend to analyse things to the n’th degree.... but 90% of people can’t really put in to words why they enjoy a course so much.


From that 90%, maybe 30 or 40% appreciate good architecture without realising fully why... this is the group we are designing for I always think...


The rest really don’t get a kick out of golf courses. They are all about clubs, technology, handicaps, scores and trying to emulate the professionals.

[Mark Pearce]

Looking at these lists brings home a truth.  My lads don't give a stuff about GCA.  Indeed for all three golf is very much a second (or third) sport and not one they're serious about.  They all love Kington, however, which is why two of them will be at BUDA (and the other wanted to be).  One of them was at Alnmouth Village recently and loved it.  All three have really enjoyed themselves at Pine Cliffs.  You don't need to understand good GCA to enjoy it, and good GCA helps make golf fun.

Do you think the more relaxed atmosphere of these clubs enhances their enjoyment?

Ciao

Absolutely.  Elie's the same.  Even as a member of the junior team at Northumberland Cam wouldn't go there except to play and wouldn't hang around afterwards.  At Elie he'd leave early to have lunch at the club.  Our first family visit to Kington was a blast because the kids (and they were kids then) felt completely comfortable.

[Thomas Dai]

Lists and rankings have to start somewhere and these are fine attempts which over time will become more refined. Kind of a shame that only standalone 9-holers were included. Perhaps this might change in the future?
There are probably a few courses that when they were only 9-holes would probably have been contenders for a quality 9-list but when they extended to 18-holes the new holes are not up to scratch which has then devalued the merit of the original 9-holes.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

There are probably a few courses that when they were only 9-holes would probably have been contenders for a quality 9-list but when they extended to 18-holes the new holes are not up to scratch which has then devalued the merit of the original 9-holes.
atb

Two of the courses I rated in the top ten nine-holers in The Confidential Guide (1994) added a second nine and had to be removed from the list - Rolling Rock and Urbana CC.  The first was a hangout for the Mellons designed by Donald Ross, with some of the wildest greens I've seen; the latter was originally built by Pete Dye's father.  P.B. Dye built the additional nine.

[Tom_Doak]

Thinking of Urbana reminded me that the nine hole course where Mes Dye's family spent the summer, at Maxinkuckee, should probably be on the list.  It's just a few mikes from Culver and also a Langford design.

[Tom_Doak]

I must admit to not understanding the description for Welshpool. It reads like the writer has never seen the course. Ditches and pot bunkers? European?

Ciao

That's how the sausage gets made at the big golf magazines.  If you didn't send them a good write-up, they just wrote something vague based on the first thing they found online.  Clearly no one had submitted a review for The Mulligan at Ballyneal, either.

[Sean_A]

I must admit to not understanding the description for Welshpool. It reads like the writer has never seen the course. Ditches and pot bunkers? European?

Ciao

That's how the sausage gets made at the big golf magazines.  If you didn't send them a good write-up, they just wrote something vague based on the first thing they found online.  Clearly no one had submitted a review for The Mulligan at Ballyneal, either.

It's really bad when pot bunker is mentioned for a bunker free course 😮.

I think the real problem is one sentence can't do justice for these courses.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

It's really bad when pot bunker is mentioned for a bunker free course 😮.

I think the real problem is one sentence can't do justice for these courses.

Ciao

That is pretty bad.  But that's why I write books 😉

[archie_struthers]

 




Perhaps not quite up to snuff with these beauties but Seaview Bay Course is a gem. Excellent short par fours and a couple tough par threes on this seaside gem right here in South Jersey. It's often very busy but catch it late fall and you will love it.


They say its over 6,000 but I'm not buying in LOL

[Tim Martin]

Perhaps not quite up to snuff with these beauties but Seaview Bay Course is a gem. Excellent short par fours and a couple tough par threes on this seaside gem right here in South Jersey. It's often very busy but catch it late fall and you will love it.


They say its over 6,000 but I'm not buying in LOL

+1

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

[jeffwarne]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

But surely, few in the society groups actually play the 7000 yard tees.


Some of the longest courses (setupwise)that groups I have escorted to the UK and Ireland have been on the "shorter" gem status courses because they actually let us play the back tees-example Northwest Golf Club which is 6300 plus from the blue tees-and has many interesting challenging long and very short holes from those tees.


At the tourist stops, especially those on the rota, the visitor tees are usually far short of that, which as an overall yardage I have no quibbles(some of my favorite courses are short), but many holes and strategies are compromised-to say nothing of variety- by moving the tees up three to four sets in the interest of keeping the tourists moving.
Troon was a glaring example of this

[Peter Bowman]

Why does Corballis never get any love? It's got to be one of the least hidden of any hidden gems. But I never read it mentioned anywhere.

Does it go by another name or am I missing something?

Michael

Corballis was an excellent course. So quirky.  I played there last summer and found it to be as memorable as Ballybunion and Lahinch.  I agree that should be on the Top short courses list

[Tim Martin]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

But surely, few in the society groups actually play the 7000 yard tees.


Some of the longest courses (setupwise)that groups I have escorted to the UK and Ireland have been on the "shorter" gem status courses because they actually let us play the back tees-example Northwest Golf Club which is 6300 plus from the blue tees-and has many interesting challenging long and very short holes from those tees.


At the tourist stops, especially those on the rota, the visitor tees are usually far short of that, which as an overall yardage I have no quibbles(some of my favorite courses are short), but many holes and strategies are compromised-to say nothing of variety- by moving the tees up three to four sets in the interest of keeping the tourists moving.
Troon was a glaring example of this

Jeff-I played a course recently where I had to move up three sets of tees so I could get to the landing areas. At the 6300 yard distance the par three holes did not play as intended.

[jeffwarne]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

But surely, few in the society groups actually play the 7000 yard tees.


Some of the longest courses (setupwise)that groups I have escorted to the UK and Ireland have been on the "shorter" gem status courses because they actually let us play the back tees-example Northwest Golf Club which is 6300 plus from the blue tees-and has many interesting challenging long and very short holes from those tees.


At the tourist stops, especially those on the rota, the visitor tees are usually far short of that, which as an overall yardage I have no quibbles(some of my favorite courses are short), but many holes and strategies are compromised-to say nothing of variety- by moving the tees up three to four sets in the interest of keeping the tourists moving.
Troon was a glaring example of this

Jeff-I played a course recently where I had to move up three sets of tees so I could get to the landing areas. At the 6300 yard distance the par three holes did not play as intended.

Did they intend to suck?
That's the problem as the scale grows. (and why I steadily rant about hot equipment even as my own grows cold)
Bad architecture or poor sites are utilized due to the impossible mantra of "playing the correct set of tees"(as if all 12 handicaps play the same game at the same scale)
On most classic courses, designed not because they were geniuses or softies, but rather because the scale(due to lower tech) was smaller(and environmental restrictions less), players could use different "landing areas" and share the same or similar teeing areas, because they weren't trying to suit the 70 yard and 320 yard carry, or "protect" against the 350 yard drive.


Shennecossett as we both know is all the course one needs-your grandmother can get it around yet it's a great test for experts.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

But surely, few in the society groups actually play the 7000 yard tees.


Some of the longest courses (setupwise)that groups I have escorted to the UK and Ireland have been on the "shorter" gem status courses because they actually let us play the back tees-example Northwest Golf Club which is 6300 plus from the blue tees-and has many interesting challenging long and very short holes from those tees.


At the tourist stops, especially those on the rota, the visitor tees are usually far short of that, which as an overall yardage I have no quibbles(some of my favorite courses are short), but many holes and strategies are compromised-to say nothing of variety- by moving the tees up three to four sets in the interest of keeping the tourists moving.
Troon was a glaring example of this

They want a golf course that says it is 7000 yards, that plays 5500.

[Peter Bowman]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

But surely, few in the society groups actually play the 7000 yard tees.


Some of the longest courses (setupwise)that groups I have escorted to the UK and Ireland have been on the "shorter" gem status courses because they actually let us play the back tees-example Northwest Golf Club which is 6300 plus from the blue tees-and has many interesting challenging long and very short holes from those tees.


At the tourist stops, especially those on the rota, the visitor tees are usually far short of that, which as an overall yardage I have no quibbles(some of my favorite courses are short), but many holes and strategies are compromised-to say nothing of variety- by moving the tees up three to four sets in the interest of keeping the tourists moving.
Troon was a glaring example of this

Jeff-I played a course recently where I had to move up three sets of tees so I could get to the landing areas. At the 6300 yard distance the par three holes did not play as intended.

Did they intend to suck?
That's the problem as the scale grows.
Bad architecture or poor sites are utilized due to the impossible mantra of "playing the correct set of tees"(as if all 12 handicaps play the same game at the same scale)
On most classic courses, designed not because they were geniuses or softies, but rather because the scale was smaller(and environmental restrictions less), players could use different "landing areas" and share the same or similar teeing areas, because they weren't trying to suit the 70 yard and 320 yard carry, or "protect" against the 350 yard drive.


Shennecossett as we both know is all the course one needs-your grandmother can get it around yet it's a great test for experts.

You hit the nail on the head about some of these old courses not having multiple sets of tees.  One such example is my very own Hooper.  Mens Front 9 tees and Mens Back 9 tees, and Ladies tees, and the Senior and Beginner tees later added in to support the new golfers and short hitters.  We've found it is fun factor that brings golfers back, not long holes

[Chris_Blakely]

Thinking of Urbana reminded me that the nine hole course where Mes Dye's family spent the summer, at Maxinkuckee, should probably be on the list.  It's just a few mikes from Culver and also a Langford design.

Maxinkuckee may not be on the list because the first two holes and last I believe are quite plane and were not remodeled by Langford & Moreau.

[Chris_Blakely]

I was glad to see Eagle Springs golf Resort in Eagle, Wisconsin on the list.


I played there earlier this year and right from the first tee with the blind shot to one of the wildest greens anywhere, I knew it was going to be a treat.  That is followed up by one of the most extreme volcano holes that I have played.


Chris

[Tim Martin]

Sadly to the majority of golfers LENGTH is very important as a factor to where they play. A golf course under 6000 yards is like a bad smell to most, most under the 6000 try their utmost to get the 6 infront.


Not something I personally agree with I am much more with the 'minority' view of the GCA, but I do the bookings for socitey groups and stay and play and the split between our 7000 yarder to the shorter course is 90-10. Also I try and book for Painswick and it is about 0.2% of the business.

But surely, few in the society groups actually play the 7000 yard tees.


Some of the longest courses (setupwise)that groups I have escorted to the UK and Ireland have been on the "shorter" gem status courses because they actually let us play the back tees-example Northwest Golf Club which is 6300 plus from the blue tees-and has many interesting challenging long and very short holes from those tees.


At the tourist stops, especially those on the rota, the visitor tees are usually far short of that, which as an overall yardage I have no quibbles(some of my favorite courses are short), but many holes and strategies are compromised-to say nothing of variety- by moving the tees up three to four sets in the interest of keeping the tourists moving.
Troon was a glaring example of this

Jeff-I played a course recently where I had to move up three sets of tees so I could get to the landing areas. At the 6300 yard distance the par three holes did not play as intended.

Did they intend to suck?
That's the problem as the scale grows.
Bad architecture or poor sites are utilized due to the impossible mantra of "playing the correct set of tees"(as if all 12 handicaps play the same game at the same scale)
On most classic courses, designed not because they were geniuses or softies, but rather because the scale was smaller(and environmental restrictions less), players could use different "landing areas" and share the same or similar teeing areas, because they weren't trying to suit the 70 yard and 320 yard carry, or "protect" against the 350 yard drive.


Shennecossett as we both know is all the course one needs-your grandmother can get it around yet it's a great test for experts.

You hit the nail on the head about some of these old courses not having multiple sets of tees.  One such example is my very own Hooper.  Mens Front 9 tees and Mens Back 9 tees, and Ladies tees, and the Senior and Beginner tees later added in to support the new golfers and short hitters.  We've found it is fun factor that brings golfers back, not long holes

It eliminates the age old question “Did you play the Black, Blue, Green, Gold, Silver, Red or Mango tees?” Hooper has a low key atmosphere and a wonderful nine holes. Approach on # 1 is a standout.

[JBovay]

These are really cool lists. I play most of my golf nowadays on a sub-6000 yard course that's a lot of fun (not all of them are!) and I've been wanting to see something like that list for a while. Thanks to Ran and Golf magazine for publishing them!