Links Magazine World Top 100

[Ryan Book]

You're correct, of course. Apologies.

Numerous have noted the emphasis on Dye, and a few have pointed out that the panel for this exercise was comprised entirely of member of various architect organizations. I'm curious if courses that involved more "oomph" gathered more praise BECAUSE of the emphasized role of the architect. I'm thinking of examples like Whistling Straits and PDGC, where a heavy hand was necessary for such a project. Granted, any self-respecting ranking of courses could not cast out "minimalist" efforts entirely, but they may shade toward land-movers nonetheless.


Another theory, at least on the American side of things, is that few architects have had more direct involvement in the creation of other standalone architects than Dye, and there's a deference there as well. I know the Coores and Doaks aren't members of the ASGCA but I'm sure at least a few of his former employees took part in this exercise.   

Bill Coore is a member of ASGCA, and Ben is an honorary member by virtue of winning the Ross Award (with Bill).

They asked architects from all parts of the world and they came out like they came out.

[David Jones]

Listings like this are imo purely indicative.
They can however, be a useful tool for those wishing to explore different venues.

Of course they change if and when new courses of appropriate merit are built or yee oldies upgraded.
Regrettably I suspect some are influenced by commercial or business arrangements.


A couple of years ago someone took several different rankings and averaged them. This seemed to produce a somewhat more equitable overall ranking than the usual approach.
Atb

Hi Dai,


I used to do an average of 4 rankings on my website, that dwindled to 3, then 2 so I pulled it down.


I really liked Adam's Golf Course Architecture one which I included but it got a bit outdated with new openings. Golf Digest became a disaster and hasn't recovered - a World Top 100 which excludes courses in the USA is no good for anyone apart from the publishers and advertisers.


So I was left with GOLF and Top100. Averaging 2 lists isn't that interesting and frankly I have lost a little heart in the whole thing. I'm getting more cynical about the whole industry of rankings I'm afraid. Maybe I was ridiculously naive before.


However, I am looking forward to discussing the relativities on Te Arai North versus South with you over a cold beer in November!

[Sean_A]

David


When you write that you like a ranking list, what does this mean?


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I used to do an average of 4 rankings on my website, that dwindled to 3, then 2 so I pulled it down.
I really liked Adam's Golf Course Architecture one which I included but it got a bit outdated with new openings. Golf Digest became a disaster and hasn't recovered - a World Top 100 which excludes courses in the USA is no good for anyone apart from the publishers and advertisers.
So I was left with GOLF and Top100. Averaging 2 lists isn't that interesting and frankly I have lost a little heart in the whole thing. I'm getting more cynical about the whole industry of rankings I'm afraid. Maybe I was ridiculously naive before.
However, I am looking forward to discussing the relativities on Te Arai North versus South with you over a cold beer in November!

Looking forward to it!
atb

[David Jones]

David


When you write that you like a ranking list, what does this mean?


Ciao

Hi Sean,


I was specifically referring to the list which Adam did a few years ago. It's still available here -


https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/architects-choice/


I liked the fact that it had an interesting panel which came from a unique point of view. I also liked the fact that it didn't claim to be definitive as some others, rather ridiculously, do. Of course, there were still some odd results in there too from my point of view. But that's just my point of view.


More generally, I find these lists more interesting when I learn something new, and that's more likely to be on one of the value lists, or more obscure country lists, which we see in Golf World over here. Whether a World list has New South Wales or Morfontaine at 34 or 42 is only so interesting...

[Sean_A]

David


When you write that you like a ranking list, what does this mean?


Ciao

Hi Sean,


I was specifically referring to the list which Adam did a few years ago. It's still available here -


https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/architects-choice/


I liked the fact that it had an interesting panel which came from a unique point of view. I also liked the fact that it didn't claim to be definitive as some others, rather ridiculously, do. Of course, there were still some odd results in there too from my point of view. But that's just my point of view.


More generally, I find these lists more interesting when I learn something new, and that's more likely to be on one of the value lists, or more obscure country lists, which we see in Golf World over here. Whether a World list has New South Wales or Morfontaine at 34 or 42 is only so interesting...

Yes, I remember that list. There were some results. I recall Berkshire Red and Tobacco Road were included which was surprising. From that perspective the list was interesting.

I too prefer the off Broadway lists. The top 100 best don’t serve a purpose for me. There have been a slew of good off Broadways recently which gave me the opportunity to add courses to my hit list. I hope more are released.

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

I enjoy reading the various lists. It's fun to see how different publications rate the courses. There are always surprises about which clubs make the list and which ones don't.

[MCirba]

By and large, the "Top 100" lists have generally improved over time and I think both changing tastes, the enlightened second Golden Age, and GolfClubAtlas are all responsible.


One of the first golf books I ever received was the 1982 Golf Digest publication "100 Greatest Golf Courses...And Then Some". 


Definitely some head scratchers in this early Top 100, as well as the top public lists below.  Each image is clickable to expand larger.

[Stewart Abramson]

Each image is clickable to expand larger.

Mike, When I click it enlarges but only shows the left 25% or so of an image

[Kevin_Reilly]

Scroll to the right.

[Stewart Abramson]

Scroll to the right.
[/quote


Weird. That wasn't working before. Now it is.

[Stewart Abramson]

Link to a podcast with George Peper and Joe Passov of Links magazine ( both formerly with Golf Magazine) describing how the Links 100 list came about.  https://youtu.be/ONSrtSi2KFA

Basically, the panelists were members of Golf Course Architect societies in the U.S.,  Europe and Australia. who rated courses that they played or walked with a numerical value from 1-5  (using half point increments so actually 9 possible ratings) with 5 being intended for a very few of the very best courses in the world. They started with 400 candidate courses that are "the current consensus best in the world". The GCAs were told not to rate courses that they have worked on. Joe Passov says that there were no formal guidelines or criteria, and that the "architects don't need an editorial staff to tell them how to rate a golf course". But, then  goes on to say "We could ask them to consider" certain factors and then goes on to list numerous criteria, including variety, flow and balance, testing all the skills, the routing, taking advantage of a good site,  making the most of a not so good site, beauty, setting and  conditioning, among others. It's confusing as they said there were no required criteria. I suppose the implication is  that these are the criteria that they think any expert GCA would use, but  as has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere, there is really no consensus as to how to rate courses,  so I assume that every voter used their own personal criteria

[Tom_Doak]

By and large, the "Top 100" lists have generally improved over time and I think both changing tastes, the enlightened second Golden Age, and GolfClubAtlas are all responsible.


One of the first golf books I ever received was the 1982 Golf Digest publication "100 Greatest Golf Courses...And Then Some". 


Definitely some head scratchers in this early Top 100, as well as the top public lists below.  Each image is clickable to expand larger.

Mike:


Did you notice that Bethpage Black [or any of the others] was not in the top 50 public courses?


I think the 1982 list was about the last time that GOLF DIGEST did their rankings without sending a ballot to a large number of panelists.  The decisions on which courses to move up or down to add to the list were made at a dinner during U.S. Open week with a select group of editors and elite raters [ie players, administrators, and guys in the golf business].  I don't know how much input they had from their panelists, but they weren't sending them a ballot to vote on 400 courses.

[Phil Young]

Mike and Tom, did you notice that between both the Top 100 & the Top 50 Public courses, there are only 5 Tillinghast courses? Considering the lists over the past 20 years, in a number of them there have been 10 or more Tilly courses in the top 100 alone. Also, interesting to me is that Baltusrol Lower is ranked no. 11 right after WFW at no. 10.

[MCirba]

Tom & Phil,


Yes, the lists seem to be RTJ-heavy and AWT-light, again reflective of the time period and relatively early in Pete's Dye's career, whose pivot away from the style popularized by Jones, Dick Wilson, et.al., really launched the new wave, so to speak.


I've always been a public course golfer, but I've only played 14 of the 50 they list and I'm betting conditioning played the biggest role in what courses were chosen, which is probably why Bethpage Black wasn't included.   Strangely we also see Brown Deer Park making the top 10 ahead of Lawsonia.   I may get a chance to compare them this fall to see for myself, which would bring my total played to 16. 

[Tom_Doak]

Also, interesting to me is that Baltusrol Lower is ranked no. 11 right after WFW at no. 10.

Hi Phil:


In those days, they just listed the courses alphabetically within each group, instead of ranking them 10th or 15th or whatever.  So there is only a 1/10 chance Baltusrol was actually 11th.  But in reality, they didn't even use numbers to compile these rankings in 1982.

[Phil Young]

Thanks for that info Tom.