[Richard Fisher]

https://www.ukgolfguy.com/golf-blog/todays-golf-2024-gbandiranking


The interview with main man Chris Bertram is well worth reading, not least on the subject of quirk...plenty of people on this site will be sorry to see the disappearance of both Worlington and Westward Ho! from what is the longest established GB ranking list of them all.

[Dan_Callahan]

Tough to go wrong with any of those courses (although I think I'd have a different order for the courses in Ireland). Looking at the UK courses, is Ardfin really that good? From what I've heard the whole experience of going there is unlike anything else, but is the course better than Lahinch, Swinley Forest, Cruden, etc?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree that it’s probably still the best list. As you say, it’s the most longstanding but really it is a completely different beast to what it was in the beginning:


It used to have a panel of about 80 industry folks, architects, administrators, ex-pros. Then it was completely shaken up to Chris Bertram as editor (and final decision maker) plus a panel of 20 advisers, all amateur enthusiasts with none from the industry (David J can correct me if that has changed).


I think you can probably argue the same thing with all lists: Once upon a time they were biased towards “championship” venues that had held tournaments and more suited the “good” player. In recent years they’ve over-corrected to quirk, obvious features / touch-points, ease of play and “fun”. Challenge has become a dirty word.


The correct place is somewhere in the middle. Whilst this list is moving more to the latter position, it still feels the most genuine and closest to the way I think. Still a few head-scratchers but there always will be.

[Brian Finn]

The one that often catches my eye is Skibo Castle.  I've read Ran and Sean's reviews, watched the old Shell WWOG (I know there have been many changes since that), and have no real reason to believe it is not great, but it is in very lofty company.  Deal, Prestwick, and Porthcawl are among my personal favorites, and fall just below Skibo Castle on this list.

I'm interested to see the next 100 list.  I don't really care about the order.  As we've discussed many times before (and Chris basically says in his interview), beyond the "untouchables" (top 10, 25...) there are always 200+ courses that could fill the next 75.

[Adam Lawrence]

Chris is a friend, and I talk to him regularly about his list(s).

Everyone has problems with every list, but no-one can doubt the sheer amount of work Chris puts into these rankings. For me it remains the gold standard for British golf.

[David_Tepper]

Speaking of Top 100 lists, the Golf Digest World Top 100 list is out:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/worlds-100-greatest-golf-courses-2024-2025

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm sorry to see Westward Ho! eliminated from the list. The heavy ground on the first couple of holes and the last two work against it. They are, however, very good holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Speaking of Top 100 lists, the Golf Digest World Top 100 list is out:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/worlds-100-greatest-golf-courses-2024-2025

I quickly went through that list and was whip-sawed by some of the changes in position.  One course went from 22nd in the "world" [outside-USA] to 83rd.  Did they change their criteria?  They didn't say, but there were a bunch of wild moves.

[Phil Young]

Can anyone explain to me why American golf courses, at least according to Golf Digest and it's "World" top 100 list, aren't on the planet Earth?

[Tom_Doak]

Looking at the UK courses, is Ardfin really that good? From what I've heard the whole experience of going there is unlike anything else, but is the course better than Lahinch, Swinley Forest, Cruden, etc?

I was at Ardfin the other day.  It's a beautiful place, and I could see how there would be a small subset of golfers who would think it's one of the top 20 golf courses in the world.  But people with handicaps above 5 are going to lose somewhere between two and ten balls on an off day, and that must include the majority of the people who can afford to go there.  I just wonder how those people's votes don't drag it down?

[David Jones]

I agree that it’s probably still the best list. As you say, it’s the most longstanding but really it is a completely different beast to what it was in the beginning:


It used to have a panel of about 80 industry folks, architects, administrators, ex-pros. Then it was completely shaken up to Chris Bertram as editor (and final decision maker) plus a panel of 20 advisers, all amateur enthusiasts with none from the industry (David J can correct me if that has changed).


I think you can probably argue the same thing with all lists: Once upon a time they were biased towards “championship” venues that had held tournaments and more suited the “good” player. In recent years they’ve over-corrected to quirk, obvious features / touch-points, ease of play and “fun”. Challenge has become a dirty word.


The correct place is somewhere in the middle. Whilst this list is moving more to the latter position, it still feels the most genuine and closest to the way I think. Still a few head-scratchers but there always will be.

You're right Ally in that the panel are pretty much all amateur enthusiasts - I think there were just over 25. Although Chris has separate panels for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which feed into this too. But there are only a couple of people on any of those panels who make their money from golf.


I think it's a good list, there are definitely a few I would have a few places differently but nothing too egregious for me.

[Tom_Doak]

Can anyone explain to me why American golf courses, at least according to Golf Digest and it's "World" top 100 list, aren't on the planet Earth?

GOLF DIGEST doesn't do a real whole-world top 100 list.  I don't think they have the same kind of polling or data for the courses outside of the USA to combine the two.  A few years ago they were clearly piggybacking off their affiliates' lists of the top local courses [ie GOLF DIGEST KOREA's top 10 list] and pasting them all together somehow, but I think they've been trying to phase that out.

[Thomas Dai]

Folks can argue about the positions and merits of various courses but imo what listings such as these do is highlight to folks courses worth playing many of which they may otherwise never have even heard of.
Atb

[David Jones]

Speaking of Top 100 lists, the Golf Digest World Top 100 list is out:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/worlds-100-greatest-golf-courses-2024-2025

I really dislike this list. The idea that it is a world list but doesn't include courses in the US is totally nonesensical. It's purely a commercial decision I assume - they sell adverts to clubs on the back of these rankings with their 'world top 100' status. But some of the positions, omissions and movements tell me it's not one to spend too much time on...






'

[Dan_Callahan]

Looking at the Golf Digest list, is any course's high ranking more dependent on its location than Old Head?

[Thomas Dai]

Speaking of Top 100 lists, the Golf Digest World Top 100 list is out:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/worlds-100-greatest-golf-courses-2024-2025

I really dislike this list. The idea that it is a world list but doesn't include courses in the US is totally nonesensical. It's purely a commercial decision I assume - they sell adverts to clubs on the back of these rankings with their 'world top 100' status. But some of the positions, omissions and movements tell me it's not one to spend too much time on...

I must say this list and some of the accompanying narrative made me chuckle.
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

I agree that it’s probably still the best list. As you say, it’s the most longstanding but really it is a completely different beast to what it was in the beginning:


It used to have a panel of about 80 industry folks, architects, administrators, ex-pros. Then it was completely shaken up to Chris Bertram as editor (and final decision maker) plus a panel of 20 advisers, all amateur enthusiasts with none from the industry (David J can correct me if that has changed).


I think you can probably argue the same thing with all lists: Once upon a time they were biased towards “championship” venues that had held tournaments and more suited the “good” player. In recent years they’ve over-corrected to quirk, obvious features / touch-points, ease of play and “fun”. Challenge has become a dirty word.


The correct place is somewhere in the middle. Whilst this list is moving more to the latter position, it still feels the most genuine and closest to the way I think. Still a few head-scratchers but there always will be.

You're right Ally in that the panel are pretty much all amateur enthusiasts - I think there were just over 25. Although Chris has separate panels for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which feed into this too. But there are only a couple of people on any of those panels who make their money from golf.


I think it's a good list, there are definitely a few I would have a few places differently but nothing too egregious for me.

Are any of my fellow Americans included in the process? If not, I do not understand the love for Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. Neither can hold a candle to The Island, Rosses Point, Baltray, or Brora to name just a few other seaside courses (used because KB and CS are not links) let alone the heathland courses ranked below them or Gleneagles Kings.

[Mike Worth]

Looking at the Golf Digest list, is any course's high ranking more dependent on its location than Old Head?

Lofoten. 

[Brian Finn]

I agree that it’s probably still the best list. As you say, it’s the most longstanding but really it is a completely different beast to what it was in the beginning:

It used to have a panel of about 80 industry folks, architects, administrators, ex-pros. Then it was completely shaken up to Chris Bertram as editor (and final decision maker) plus a panel of 20 advisers, all amateur enthusiasts with none from the industry (David J can correct me if that has changed).

I think you can probably argue the same thing with all lists: Once upon a time they were biased towards “championship” venues that had held tournaments and more suited the “good” player. In recent years they’ve over-corrected to quirk, obvious features / touch-points, ease of play and “fun”. Challenge has become a dirty word.

The correct place is somewhere in the middle. Whilst this list is moving more to the latter position, it still feels the most genuine and closest to the way I think. Still a few head-scratchers but there always will be.

You're right Ally in that the panel are pretty much all amateur enthusiasts - I think there were just over 25. Although Chris has separate panels for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which feed into this too. But there are only a couple of people on any of those panels who make their money from golf.

I think it's a good list, there are definitely a few I would have a few places differently but nothing too egregious for me.

Are any of my fellow Americans included in the process? If not, I do not understand the love for Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. Neither can hold a candle to The Island, Rosses Point, Baltray, or Brora to name just a few other seaside courses (used because KB and CS are not links) let alone the heathland courses ranked below them or Gleneagles Kings.

The fact that Kingsbarns caters directly to Americans does not preclude it from being highly ranked on a UK-based list. 

On my most recent trip to the area, I played Kingsbarns for the first time and found it to be excellent.  In talking to many locals, it was universally praised.  When I played at Scotscraig, two different members told me they thought it was the best course in Fife. What may shock you even more is that a few locals I spoke to thought Dumbarnie was even better than Kingsbarns. 

Do I generally prefer the older, more natural, "true links" courses?  Yes, I do, but I also love Kingsbarns. 

Sometimes I am shocked at some people's inability to (at least try to) see things from other people's perspective.

[Ira Fishman]

Brian,


We played Kingsbarns because of the views of people on here who I have tended to find our tastes are similar. I thought it a good course and of course scenic. My expectations were not overly high so it was not a case of it falling short. I just did not find it as strategic or compelling as the ones I mentioned plus a few others I didn’t. It has some very strong holes, but also several weak ones. And, yes, it bothered me that it was cleverly constructed so that people would have good rounds there. It also did not help that it was painfully slow which should not affect one’s view of a course but I like to play fast and because Castle Stuart also was very slow I assumed (safely I think) that that would be the norm.


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()