GOLF Magazine 2022 - 23 Top 100 U.S. Course Rankings

[Mike Bodo]

As an InsideGOLF subscriber, I got a sneak peak to the magazines 2022 - 23 Top 100 U.S. course rankings. No surprise to see Pine Valley maintain its supremecy at no. 1. In fact, the Top 5 are the same as in 2020 - 21. However, where it gets interesting are the rankings for courses 6 - 10. Sand Hills flip-flops positions with ANGC and goes from 7th to 6th. Merion and Fisher's hold their respective places at 8 and 9. But LACC (North) leapfrogs both Pebble and Pinehurst #2 to go from 12th to 10th.


I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this. Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Another fascinating feature of the article was comparing the 1995 and 2022 lists. Forty-nine courses from 1995 have gone off the list. Many newer courses fell off while renovated golden age courses came on.

[Jake McCarty]

For the record, I am a panelist. Take the opinions of well-traveled members over mine as a panelist. They know the courses better and can have a more developed opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this.

That is just not how it works.  Very few of the raters would have played Augusta National in the past two years, or changed their grade on it if they did.  So it's probable that a few panelists [maybe but probably not the same ones referenced above] went back to Sand Hills or saw it for the first time, and gave it their highest rating.  The way the voting works, it's really about how many panelists vote for each course among their top three, and "top 3" is a very arbitrary and fickle list.

Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?

I suspect that part of the reason is that the renovations to greens like the 8th at Pebble have not been warmly received, so Pebble Beach has fallen a bit in some people's minds.  [I haven't seen the changes myself.]  But Augusta, Pebble and Pinehurst are all courses that have been resting a little on their forever status as top-10 courses, and panelists today are a little less scared to question that status than they used to be.

[Terry Lavin]

As a member of several of the clubs on the list I disagree with the guesses. I find this list to have too much groupthink. Only a few of the raters,  played my courses this past year and made a judgement. Why should I care?

I am a panelist btw.


For the record, I am a panelist. Take the opinions of well-traveled members over mine as a panelist. They know the courses better and can have a more developed opinion.

You’ve properly summed up this issue with one cobbled-together word: “groupthink.”


There are ebbs and flows in the various rankings but there’s little doubt that there’s a lot of common denominator judgments involved in the process. You wind up with an overwhelming number of like-minded comrades who wind up moving the list in a certain direction.


I’m just speculating, and hopefully not being a contrarian.

[Matt_Cohn]

Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?

The restoration was 12 years ago, so that's had plenty of time to take hold. It was #35 before the restoration; since 2013 it's been 19, 20, 13, 12, 10 on this list, with no major changes in that time. Incidentally, Riviera has gone from 21 to 14 in the same time period with no major changes. Maybe SoCal is just getting its due. To me, LACC at #10 is not obviously overrated.

[Jake McCarty]

Fixed.

[Joel_Stewart]

The restoration was 12 years ago, so that's had plenty of time to take hold. It was #35 before the restoration; since 2013 it's been 19, 20, 13, 12, 10 on this list, with no major changes in that time. Incidentally, Riviera has gone from 21 to 14 in the same time period with no major changes. Maybe SoCal is just getting its due. To me, LACC at #10 is not obviously overrated.

Agree that LACC is deserving and the country is going to see it at the 2023 US Open.


Riviera up 3 to 14th a bit of a mystery since it’s the only major club in Los Angeles that has not been restored and it needs it. They do have a relatively new superintendent that has the course in pristine condition. If they’re going to host the Olympics in 2028 the owners will need to get moving fairly soon.

[Mike Bodo]

Let me throw another question out to the group of educated and experienced professionals given I am nothing more than a fan and aficianado. Is Pine Valley forever destined to be rated the single best course in the U.S. without question or fail all things being equal? And by it continually being voted #1 each year by virtually every respected golf publication are we saying it represents the ultimate achievement in golf course design and architecture?


The converse of this, does Pine Valley receive the plaudits and praise it does because it has withstood the test of time and no modern age course has the legs or longevity yet to challenge its ranking? If so, given the template Pine Valley has provided and the tools accessible to modern day architects, why has the design world been unable to achieve loftier heights from something that was created over 100 years ago?


This boggles my mind given the talent pool of designers there are in the industry currently. I suppose one can compare it to fine art, in that the works of the old impressionists will always be in higher demand than their modern contemporaries, but if Pine Valley were to have been built last year would it still be valued and rated as highly as it is today and would people seek out to play it as much as they do say any course at Bandon Dunes? Perhaps not.

[Ronald Montesano]

Can we say that Pine Valley has maintained a stranglehold despite a certain architect's efforts to undo its greatness and stamp his bunker style on it? In 2022, it may only be a few bunkers. If the current board continues to allow it, how many more bunkers (and elements) will be effed in the coming years?

[Kevin Pallier]

Interesting to see Pebble Beach fall outside the Top10 for the first time ever (re: either Golf Digest / Golf Magazine)! 


Big increase re: Hanse recently renovated courses
Baltusrol +28 places back inside Top50
Oakland Hills +16 places back into Top20


Green's work at Congressional obviously well received back well inside Top100


Surprise for mine, Sheep Ranch debuted last time at 80 and nearly fell out?

[Tim Gallant]

I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this.

That is just not how it works.  Very few of the raters would have played Augusta National in the past two years, or changed their grade on it if they did.  So it's probable that a few panelists [maybe but probably not the same ones referenced above] went back to Sand Hills or saw it for the first time, and gave it their highest rating.  The way the voting works, it's really about how many panelists vote for each course among their top three, and "top 3" is a very arbitrary and fickle list.

Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?

I suspect that part of the reason is that the renovations to greens like the 8th at Pebble have not been warmly received, so Pebble Beach has fallen a bit in some people's minds.  [I haven't seen the changes myself.]  But Augusta, Pebble and Pinehurst are all courses that have been resting a little on their forever status as top-10 courses, and panelists today are a little less scared to question that status than they used to be.

I have read your book too many times to know how smart you are. I consider you to be a true genius! In other words, your opinion counts for more than mine.

Jake, you kind of blow-up your own argument in this last statement Like you, I'd value Doak's one play of a course more than a casual member's 100x plays of that same course. So for this list, do you value the opinions of the panellists listed, knowing that for a lot of them, tehy probably only saw the courses they rank once or twice?


https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/


If yes, then you'll probably find the list as a nice guide of courses worth seeking out if that's your thing. If not, then this list is just a random ranking of courses

[Jake McCarty]

I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this.

That is just not how it works.  Very few of the raters would have played Augusta National in the past two years, or changed their grade on it if they did.  So it's probable that a few panelists [maybe but probably not the same ones referenced above] went back to Sand Hills or saw it for the first time, and gave it their highest rating.  The way the voting works, it's really about how many panelists vote for each course among their top three, and "top 3" is a very arbitrary and fickle list.

Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?

I suspect that part of the reason is that the renovations to greens like the 8th at Pebble have not been warmly received, so Pebble Beach has fallen a bit in some people's minds.  [I haven't seen the changes myself.]  But Augusta, Pebble and Pinehurst are all courses that have been resting a little on their forever status as top-10 courses, and panelists today are a little less scared to question that status than they used to be.

I have read your book too many times to know how smart you are. I consider you to be a true genius! In other words, your opinion counts for more than mine.

Jake, you kind of blow-up your own argument in this last statement Like you, I'd value Doak's one play of a course more than a casual member's 100x plays of that same course. So for this list, do you value the opinions of the panellists listed, knowing that for a lot of them, tehy probably only saw the courses they rank once or twice?


https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/


If yes, then you'll probably find the list as a nice guide of courses worth seeking out if that's your thing. If not, then this list is just a random ranking of courses

[Ian Andrew]

I think this is my last panel. I’m ready to step aside and let someone else - better travelled than me - vote instead. I’ve already sent my note.


Btw, my glaring omission is Sand Hills. Funny that course came up and what one panelist might do to the rankings.


I’ve seen a lot including South America courses, but we all have holes in our travels.

[Sean_A]

As a member of several of the clubs on the list I disagree with the guesses. I find this list to have too much groupthink. Only a few of the raters,  played my courses this past year and made a judgement. Why should I care?

I tend to trust people who are well-traveled and belong to X and Y, to give their judgment on X vs Y rather. the person who is well traveled and played each once. Or let's say there were three, and to that: weigh opinions don't just count them.


I am a panelist btw.


For the record, I am a panelist. Take the opinions of well-traveled members over mine as a panelist. They know the courses better and can have a more developed opinion.

Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

A few things;


I have never called a club and mentioned I’m a Golf Magazine rater. So if I played your course, you won’t know. I had plenty of access before this panel. We all get our access differently. Golf is smaller industry than you think.


Nobody has ever told me how to vote or whether my vote is in line with others. You all seem to assume that is the case. But perhaps the list is just the list.


I like modern a little more than others. I vote for Tobacco Road - flaws and all. It’s a hot mess, but far more interesting than a lot of more popular courses. Interesting and unusual still moves my needle over pedigree or popularity.

[Mike Bodo]

Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.

Ciao

I think that's a major part of the problem. While I'm a huge fan of just about all golden age arhcies and courses and am a member at one, I feel too much defernce is given to them in the rankings simply because, well, they're old and revered because of it. Does it necessarily equivocate still to the best examples we have of great golf architecture in the U.S. despite the plethora of excellent courses that followed them - in particular those built the past two plus decades? And if Pine Valley is the "gold standard" by which all other courses in the U.S. are judged, then what type of course needs to be designed/built that hasn't to date in order to surpass it? Is this even achievable?


I think much of the problem is the lens through which courses are evaluated. IMO, history and longevity should not even factor into a courses rating. It should be viewed from the perspective that if every course in the country had been deigned and built today, where would it rank - all amenities aside if we're approaching this purely from a design and playability perspective.


Again, I'll go back to my argument given the group of uber talented designers we have in existence today, the knowledge they've gained from studying the past legendary course architects, the techology and tools they have at their disposal and the massive budgets some have to work with on certain projects; how is it we've not been able to design a course in this country more challenging, aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable than the Top 10 courses in the rankings - Sand Hills nothwithstanding?


I would hope politics doesn't play into this, but as with many things in the life, I'm sure there's some element of that involved here as well.

[Tim Martin]

Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.

Ciao

I think that's a major part of the problem. While I'm a huge fan of just about all golden age arhcies and courses and am a member at one, I feel too much defernce is given to them in the rankings simply because, well, they're old and revered because of it. Does it necessarily equivocate still to the best examples we have of great golf architecture in the U.S. despite the plethora of excellent courses that followed them - in particular those built the past two plus decades? And if Pine Valley is the "gold standard" by which all other courses in the U.S. are judged, then what type of course needs to be designed/built that hasn't to date in order to surpass it? Is this even achievable?


I think much of the problem is the lens through which courses are evaluated. IMO, history and longevity should not even factor into a courses rating. It should be viewed from the perspective that if every course in the country had been deigned and built today, where would it rank - all amenities aside if we're approaching this purely from a design and playability perspective.


Again, I'll go back to my argument given the group of uber talented designers we have in existence today, the knowledge they've gained from studying the past legendary course architects, the techology and tools they have at their disposal and the massive budgets some have to work with on certain projects; how is it we've not been able to design a course in this country more challenging, aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable than the Top 10 courses in the rankings - Sand Hills nothwithstanding?


I would hope politics doesn't play into this, but as with many things in the life, I'm sure there's some element of that involved here as well.

Mike-Just to play devil’s advocate is there a modern in your opinion that surpasses Pine Valley?

[Mike Bodo]

Mike-Just to play devil’s advocate is there a modern in your opinion that surpasses Pine Valley?

Tim, I've not had the pleasure or opportunity to play PV, but it's on the bucket list. Know that I'm not trying to diminish its significance or place in the pantheon of golf course architecture. From all accounts I've read and images/videos I've seen, it's stunning and impressive without a doubt. All I'm saying is that in the 100+ years since it's been built are we really saying nothing that's come after it measures up and that PV is the holy grail of U.S. golf course architecture still to this day? That could very well be the case and I'll be totally accepting of it if it is. But I question if some of the courses built the last 30 years are being held back in the rankings simply due to their lack of longevity and history and aren't being judged on a level playing field?

[Tom_Doak]

There are three different thread topics going on here at once:


a) Pine Valley
b) The makeup of the top 10
c) Groupthink


It's hard to comment on one without thread-jacking the other, but I will try to sort through them.


a) Is PV destined to always stay #1 ?  Probably, with the panel we have.  If we had a bunch of women golfers or 20-handicaps or people who didn't care about history, it certainly wouldn't be #1, because they'd find it much too difficult.  But then their opinions would be dismissed.  That isn't so much groupthink of one panel, as groupthink of good golfers generally, that if you don't think Pine Valley is great, your opinion is meaningless.  [Note:  Pine Valley is a 10 in The Confidential Guide and has always been one.]


b) Back when we first started ranking the courses in order, my one argument in favor of doing so was that there was no more difference between 10th and 11th place, than between 9th and 10th, so listing the courses in groups of ten [as GOLF DIGEST used to do] exaggerated the importance of a course moving up or down.  Augusta, Pebble Beach, and LACC are 9's in The Confidential Guide [and I think they always have been], so to me they're all about even, and if there's only room for two of them in the top ten and the other is eleventh, I don't see it as a big deal at all.


c) However, the system doesn't allow me to vote all the 9's the same.  I have to vote for a top three, and a top ten, and then for 11-25, as if the divisions were that precise.  My rule is never to change my vote on a course if I haven't gone back and changed my mind about it, but if I see a new course this year and think it belongs in the top ten, the voting system forces me to push one course off the side and down to "11-25", even if I don't think anything about it has changed.  That is the point where groupthink comes into play, and people start looking for rationalizations why it should be Pebble instead of Augusta that's voted off the island.

[Sean_A]

Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.

Ciao

I think that's a major part of the problem. While I'm a huge fan of just about all golden age arhcies and courses and am a member at one, I feel too much defernce is given to them in the rankings simply because, well, they're old and revered because of it. Does it necessarily equivocate still to the best examples we have of great golf architecture in the U.S. despite the plethora of excellent courses that followed them - in particular those built the past two plus decades? And if Pine Valley is the "gold standard" by which all other courses in the U.S. are judged, then what type of course needs to be designed/built that hasn't to date in order to surpass it? Is this even achievable?


I think much of the problem is the lens through which courses are evaluated. IMO, history and longevity should not even factor into a courses rating. It should be viewed from the perspective that if every course in the country had been deigned and built today, where would it rank - all amenities aside if we're approaching this purely from a design and playability perspective.


Again, I'll go back to my argument given the group of uber talented designers we have in existence today, the knowledge they've gained from studying the past legendary course architects, the techology and tools they have at their disposal and the massive budgets some have to work with on certain projects; how is it we've not been able to design a course in this country more challenging, aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable than the Top 10 courses in the rankings - Sand Hills nothwithstanding?


I would hope politics doesn't play into this, but as with many things in the life, I'm sure there's some element of that involved here as well.

I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.

I don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.

Ciao

[Jake McCarty]

Mike-Just to play devil’s advocate is there a modern in your opinion that surpasses Pine Valley?

Tim, I've not had the pleasure or opportunity to play PV, but it's on the bucket list. Know that I'm not trying to diminish its significance or place in the pantheon of golf course architecture. From all accounts I've read and images/videos I've seen, it's stunning and impressive without a doubt. All I'm saying is that in the 100+ years since it's been built are we really saying nothing that's come after it measures up and that PV is the holy grail of U.S. golf course architecture still to this day? That could very well be the case and I'll be totally accepting of it if it is. But I question if some of the courses built the last 30 years are being held back in the rankings simply due to their lack of longevity and history and aren't being judged on a level playing field?

Interesting points.

[Mike Bodo]

I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.

I agree 100% that it's difficult, if not impossible, to throw out and ignore history when evaluating and ranking golden age courses. It's an element of their charm and appeal.

I don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.

Ciao

Totally agree with your take on The Loop for the reasons mentioned in a topic you posted on your experience playing there.


BTW, I hope you had a chance to make it to Lafayette Coney Island downtown Detroit during your travels to our state. It's an icon of the city, as is American Coney Island adjacent to it. Had I known you and Ally would be there this summer I would have invited you both to play Sylvania CC as my guests. Cheers!

[Sean_A]

I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.

I agree 100% that it's difficult, if not impossible, to throw out and ignore history when evaluating and ranking golden age courses. It's an element of their charm and appeal.

I don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.

Ciao

Totally agree with your take on The Loop for the reasons mentioned in a topic you posted on your experience playing there.


BTW, I hope you had a chance to make it to Lafayette Coney Island downtown Detroit during your travels to our state. It's an icon of the city, as is American Coney Island adjacent to it. Had I known you and Ally would be there this summer I would have invited you both to play Sylvania CC as my guests. Cheers!

I always make it to Lafeyettes when in Detroit...would never go to American. A few weeks later it was shut down for health reasons!

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

To confirm the dominance of older courses in the raters's minds: Sand Hills, Friar's Head, and Pac Dunes are the only modern courses that have made it to and stayed in the Top 30 over the past 20 years.


One discernable trend is that MacDonald/Raynor courses pretty consistently have moved up over that same period.