Golf Mag Top 100 US & World - 2011

[John Kirk]

Hey Sean, jkinney,

One of our members posted this on Facebook, a recent Golf Digest article by Geoff Oglivy, who praises Southern Hills in Tulsa.  Not quite related, but not big enough to be its own topic.  Nice read.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2011-08/golf-ogilvy-column-0808

I thought Oakmont was too hard.  Sure is pretty, though.  Pebble, Shinnecock and Southern Hills.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

If, in general, tour caliber players are not good designers why would you want more of them rating the best courses in the world? Just curious.

Greg:

I don't think you have to design courses to be able to rate them.  To rate a course you have to take it for what it is, not what it could have been.  Panelists who try to do the latter are missing the point, and probably fooling themselves, too.

My feeling is that a ranking should be the consensus of as wide-ranging a group as possible.  I don't want to see just what the pros think  -- especially if they are as hostile towards my designs as Jeff Brauer claims .  But I also don't want to see what a homogenous panel of 3-handicaps [GOLF DIGEST] or well-to-do 12-handicap travelers [increasingly, GOLFWEEK and GOLF Magazine] think.   Presumably every architect is trying to design their courses for everybody from pros to 20-handicap women, so the rating panels ought to reflect that same range.  And if you want to call some course truly one of the best in the world, then I think it's more important than ever to get the best players involved.

[David_Elvins]

My feeling is that a ranking should be the consensus of as wide-ranging a group as possible.  I don't want to see just what the pros think  -- especially if they are as hostile towards my designs as Jeff Brauer claims .  But I also don't want to see what a homogenous panel of ...12-handicap travelers [increasingly, GOLFWEEK and GOLF Magazine] think.   Presumably every architect is trying to design their courses for everybody from pros to 20-handicap women, so the rating panels ought to reflect that same range.

As a 12 handicap traveller, I think I have the ability to play holes and courses as a 3 handicapper sometimes and a 25 handicapper sometimes.  Surely this type of golfer is therefor the perfect rater?

[Mark Chaplin]

Is Castle Stuart really better than Ganton, North Berwick and Woodhall Spa??

[Scott Warren]

I'm surprised NSWGC has climbed four places from 38 last time.

I don't think even its biggest fans on here would argue it's the 34th best golf course on Earth!

[Mark Pearce]

Just isolating the UK courses listed in the World 100 and presenting them as a UK Top 20 (or whatever it is) would produce an absurd list, I think.  Cruden Bay, for all it's great holes has no place whatsoever on this list.

[Scott Warren]

Mark,

The Top 25 GB&I, extracted from this list, would be:

TOC 1
Co. Down
Muirfield
Portrush
Dornoch 5
Ballybunion
Turnberry
Carnoustie
Birkdale
St George's 10
Sunningdale (Old)
Lahinch
Portmarnock
Troon
Kingsbarns 15
Castle Stuart
Lytham
Woodhall Spa
Ganton
Loch Lomond 20
Hoylake
Cruden Bay
Walton Heath (Old)
North Berwick
Waterville 25

[Mark Chaplin]

Mark - it does show just how far out of kilter the foreign lists of British & Irish courses are to our own rankings. They also have the following in their World top 100;

Swinley Forest
Machrihanish
Royal Porthcawl
European Club

[David_Elvins]

I suspect that LACC North will move into the second ten in the next ranking. Hanse's restoration is that good.

How would you compare the course post restoration to Pasatiempo post restoration?   I am a little surprised that Pasa has not bounced up the list a bit more than it has.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,

The Top 25 GB&I, extracted from this list, would be:

TOC 1
Co. Down
Muirfield
Portrush
Dornoch 5  You can argue about the top 5 but none of these are outrageous
Ballybunion  Really?  The 6th best course in GB&I?
Turnberry
Carnoustie  I'm a fan but 8th in GB&I is way too high
Birkdale  Really?  Can only think this is an eye-candy selection.
St George's 10
Sunningdale (Old)
Lahinch
Portmarnock
Troon  I haven't played Troon, yet (I hope to correct that next month) but this is higher than most pundits would place it in GB&I.  An Open Championship rota bias appearing here?
Kingsbarns 15  Lunacy
Castle Stuart
Lytham  As per Troon?
Woodhall Spa
Ganton
Loch Lomond 20
Hoylake
Cruden Bay  Above North Berwick?  Way, way too high
Walton Heath (Old)
North Berwick
Waterville 25

[Adam Lawrence]

Mark,

The Top 25 GB&I, extracted from this list, would be:

TOC 1
Co. Down
Muirfield
Portrush
Dornoch 5  You can argue about the top 5 but none of these are outrageous
Ballybunion  Really?  The 6th best course in GB&I?
Turnberry
Carnoustie  I'm a fan but 8th in GB&I is way too high
Birkdale  Really?  Can only think this is an eye-candy selection.
St George's 10
Sunningdale (Old)
Lahinch
Portmarnock
Troon  I haven't played Troon, yet (I hope to correct that next month) but this is higher than most pundits would place it in GB&I.  An Open Championship rota bias appearing here?
Kingsbarns 15  Lunacy
Castle Stuart
Lytham  As per Troon?
Woodhall Spa
Ganton
Loch Lomond 20
Hoylake
Cruden Bay  Above North Berwick?  Way, way too high
Walton Heath (Old)
North Berwick
Waterville 25

WRT Birkdale, I hear what you're saying, but one should consider that the British ranking sources - GW, GM, Top100 - all have it nearer the top in GB&I - second in GW after Turnberry, third on Top100 after RCD and Turnberry, fifth on GM after Muirfield, RCD, Turnberry and St Andrews. I don't agree personally, but it's a common enough view.

[Frank Pont]

Seems the classic European courses are very under represented. Only classic one in is Morfontaine, the other two European entries are newer courses Oitavos Dunes and Valderama.... If courses such as Waterville, European Club, Cruden Bay (where I was an overseas member) and Machrihanish (where I am a member) make it on the list there should be al least 3-5 Continental European classics on the list such as Royal Hague, Falkenstein, Fontainebleau, Zoute, Kennemer on the list.

Explanation is probabaly that so few of the (mostly US) panalists ever make it to the continent, but if they come this way spend their time on the Isles, explaining the UK/Ireland bias in the list.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I tend to agree with you, and also know that the handicap system is set up  so that very few golfers ever play to their handicap over 18 holes.

In music, the big record sellers are always the top rated bands. I find myself wondering why golf course rankings are so askew from other fields, in that how much play a course gets from the paying public (obviously, private side is a bit different) doesn't figure in the rankings.  It wouldn't be a perfect system, but if 40K in a market choose one course, and only 20K pick another, how could the lesser played course be rated higher by the "elites?"

As I mentioned recently, I have that in two states - MN and KS, where I have the 1 and 2 ranked courses (public) and in both cases, the no. 2 ranked course slowly overtook the no. 1 ranked course in play, although generally being considered "easier."  Golfers seem to gravitate to "reasonably difficult" and "high value" courses (i.e., enjoyment per $$$)

Doesn't this over time gravitation rank more than a once every five years visit from a rater with funds to travel?

Just asking.

[Andy Troeger]

My feeling is that a ranking should be the consensus of as wide-ranging a group as possible.  I don't want to see just what the pros think  -- especially if they are as hostile towards my designs as Jeff Brauer claims .  But I also don't want to see what a homogenous panel of ...12-handicap travelers [increasingly, GOLFWEEK and GOLF Magazine] think.   Presumably every architect is trying to design their courses for everybody from pros to 20-handicap women, so the rating panels ought to reflect that same range.

As a 12 handicap traveller, I think I have the ability to play holes and courses as a 3 handicapper sometimes and a 25 handicapper sometimes.  Surely this type of golfer is therefor the perfect rater?

Having been a three that currently is more like a 12, playing good holes or even a good round occasionally does not resemble the thoughts and attitudes toward courses of a true 3 handicap. If you go lights out and shoot 75 you'd be thrilled, they'd be pleased. These groups really do look at all courses in a different manner and I do agree the best panel would have a good variety of the viewpoints.

[Ian Andrew]

With all the work Ian has been putting into Highland Links, I was somewhat surprised that this apparently hasn't been reflected in the rankings.

Don Hyslop:

I can't even vote on Highlands Links anymore, because it's been twenty years [actually 23 or 24] since I was last there.  I suspect that is true for a lot of panelists who vote on it, that they last saw it before Ian did anything.  Perhaps those who travel to Cabot Links will see it again and mark it based on current form.

The major issue has always been the inconsistent conditioning. Opening up the views has helped a number of the settings become more beautiful and the bunker work has improved some of the aesthetics and playability, but the main key to all the work has been getting sunlight to the greens, tees and fairways.

The conditioning began to deteriorate after 1999. The Park Ecologist (no longer there) refused to allow any tree removal and the previous work “underbrushed” but never dealt with any canopy issues. Beginning in 2009 we have remove 6 acres of trees and still have 4 more acres to remove. The removal would be close to 10,000 trees at this point!

The 9th green has gone from 3 hours of total light in the summer to four hours of morning sun and complete sun till very late in the day. There’s a reason why it now has lots of turf. The more complicated issues are the two greens that flood (10 and 12) and the silt built up into the green well. The final issue is the 7th which will require an acre of clearing alone (half acre was already done previously but not where we get morning sun).

The issue for Highlands (rankings or tourism) is to get the course in better shape on a more consistent basis. The rest only adds to the ambiance, but is not near as essential to help Highlands remain on the rankings.

On a personal note – I played there the last time I was up and the greens are rolling better than they have for a long, long time.

[Anthony Butler]

I'm surprised NSWGC has climbed four places from 38 last time.

I don't think even its biggest fans on here would argue it's the 34th best golf course on Earth!

Scott,

 So I guess you're not  interested in a game the next time I'm in Aus?

In all seriousness I can see your point (sort of). It does seem that the raters are putting more emphasis on physical beauty than you might think seemly...    And that just seems so out of whack with the rest of planet's values... 

I guess it proves however that the raters don't have a Greg Norman bias, since he has been the consulting architect since it began it's rise up the rankings a decade ago... now if we could pull off a MacKenzie-style loan of Tom Doak while he's in Australia consulting with RM, I would expect that NSWGC would be in the top 20 by 2021.

[Greg Tallman]

Tom,

If, in general, tour caliber players are not good designers why would you want more of them rating the best courses in the world? Just curious.

Greg:

I don't think you have to design courses to be able to rate them.  To rate a course you have to take it for what it is, not what it could have been.  Panelists who try to do the latter are missing the point, and probably fooling themselves, too.

My feeling is that a ranking should be the consensus of as wide-ranging a group as possible.  I don't want to see just what the pros think  -- especially if they are as hostile towards my designs as Jeff Brauer claims .  But I also don't want to see what a homogenous panel of 3-handicaps [GOLF DIGEST] or well-to-do 12-handicap travelers [increasingly, GOLFWEEK and GOLF Magazine] think.   Presumably every architect is trying to design their courses for everybody from pros to 20-handicap women, so the rating panels ought to reflect that same range.  And if you want to call some course truly one of the best in the world, then I think it's more important than ever to get the best players involved.

I don't disagree, just thought the comment was somewhat contrary to your prior statements though as you point out they were more aimed at abillity to produce not evaluate.

The players on the panel: Alcott, Furyk, Player, Rose. Throw in a handful of lesser professional level players at some point and the top flight amateurs and you have adecent representation of the better players. Wasn't Baker-Finch on the panel at one time? He seems to have a passion for design and would seemingly make a good panelist. I want to say Lehman, Jack and Aoki... were on the panel in years past as well b ut to be honest given Jack's views and lack of enthusiasm for seeing new things he probably was not a great panelist.

How's that for an aimless ramble?

[Steve Kline]

"What is the point system criteria"

Anthony G. -

There is a brief description of the point system on the magazine's website.

Here is a link: http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,2086053,00.html  

DT

There is no point system per se as Anthony was suggesting. They do not rate diffculty, aesthetics... etc numerically but are free to consider whatever they like in determining where the course fits in their mind:
1-3 (100 points)
4-10 (85)
11-25 (70)
26-50 (60)
51-75 (50)
76-100 (40)
101-150 (30)
151-200 (20)
210-250 (10)
251+ (0)
Remove from ballot (-10)

At least that was the system in 2009

Pine Valley's score was 95.99.  Meaning over 70% of all who ranked it place it among the top 3 in the world. 

Sounds about right, although I did play with an Oakmont member and Golfweek panelist last year who chastised a GCAer for claiming PV was the best course he had ever played. "Pine Valley's maybe Top 10," he said.

I will never get enough of you bringing that up. 

[Anthony Gray]

Tom,

If, in general, tour caliber players are not good designers why would you want more of them rating the best courses in the world? Just curious.

Greg:

I don't think you have to design courses to be able to rate them.  To rate a course you have to take it for what it is, not what it could have been.  Panelists who try to do the latter are missing the point, and probably fooling themselves, too.

My feeling is that a ranking should be the consensus of as wide-ranging a group as possible.  I don't want to see just what the pros think  -- especially if they are as hostile towards my designs as Jeff Brauer claims .  But I also don't want to see what a homogenous panel of 3-handicaps [GOLF DIGEST] or well-to-do 12-handicap travelers [increasingly, GOLFWEEK and GOLF Magazine] think.   Presumably every architect is trying to design their courses for everybody from pros to 20-handicap women, so the rating panels ought to reflect that same range.  And if you want to call some course truly one of the best in the world, then I think it's more important than ever to get the best players involved.

I don't disagree, just thought the comment was somewhat contrary to your prior statements though as you point out they were more aimed at abillity to produce not evaluate.

The players on the panel: Alcott, Furyk, Player, Rose. Throw in a handful of lesser professional level players at some point and the top flight amateurs and you have adecent representation of the better players. Wasn't Baker-Finch on the panel at one time? He seems to have a passion for design and would seemingly make a good panelist. I want to say Lehman, Jack and Aoki... were on the panel in years past as well b ut to be honest given Jack's views and lack of enthusiasm for seeing new things he probably was not a great panelist.

How's that for an aimless ramble?

  Greg,

  Shouldn't there be more golfers of my abilities on the panal?

  Anthony

[Greg Tallman]

Tom,

If, in general, tour caliber players are not good designers why would you want more of them rating the best courses in the world? Just curious.

Greg:

I don't think you have to design courses to be able to rate them.  To rate a course you have to take it for what it is, not what it could have been.  Panelists who try to do the latter are missing the point, and probably fooling themselves, too.

My feeling is that a ranking should be the consensus of as wide-ranging a group as possible.  I don't want to see just what the pros think  -- especially if they are as hostile towards my designs as Jeff Brauer claims .  But I also don't want to see what a homogenous panel of 3-handicaps [GOLF DIGEST] or well-to-do 12-handicap travelers [increasingly, GOLFWEEK and GOLF Magazine] think.   Presumably every architect is trying to design their courses for everybody from pros to 20-handicap women, so the rating panels ought to reflect that same range.  And if you want to call some course truly one of the best in the world, then I think it's more important than ever to get the best players involved.

I don't disagree, just thought the comment was somewhat contrary to your prior statements though as you point out they were more aimed at abillity to produce not evaluate.

The players on the panel: Alcott, Furyk, Player, Rose. Throw in a handful of lesser professional level players at some point and the top flight amateurs and you have adecent representation of the better players. Wasn't Baker-Finch on the panel at one time? He seems to have a passion for design and would seemingly make a good panelist. I want to say Lehman, Jack and Aoki... were on the panel in years past as well b ut to be honest given Jack's views and lack of enthusiasm for seeing new things he probably was not a great panelist.

How's that for an aimless ramble?

  Greg,

  Shouldn't there be more golfers of my abilities on the panal?

  Anthony

Undoubtedly. World in general needs more like Tony Orange.

[Steve Kline]

Jeff Brauer - "It wouldn't be a perfect system, but if 40K in a market choose one course, and only 20K pick another, how could the lesser played course be rated higher by the "elites?""

The obvious answer is the greens fee. What if the first course you mentioned was Southern Pines (pretty cheap to play) and the second Pinehurst #2? #2 is clearly a better course even if has a third or quarter of the rounds played on it. The number of rounds is almost meaningless as to the quality of the design. Just as the most played song on a jukebox doesn't mean it is the best song.

[jkinney]

Hey Sean, jkinney,

One of our members posted this on Facebook, a recent Golf Digest article by Geoff Oglivy, who praises Southern Hills in Tulsa.  Not quite related, but not big enough to be its own topic.  Nice read.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2011-08/golf-ogilvy-column-0808

I thought Oakmont was too hard.  Sure is pretty, though.  Pebble, Shinnecock and Southern Hills.

Beam me up, Scotty !!....Thanks for the link, John. Those were interesting comments from Ogilvy.

[Jim Colton]

Here's a video of Travelin' Joe (at Diamante!) talking about potential future additions to top 100. Streamsong x2, Renaissance Club after the three new holes and Cabot Links.

http://www.golf.com/golf/video/article/0,28224,2086340,00.html

If Joe's crystal ball is right plus Tom's wish that Raters see the light on RCCC comes true, Doak could have 8 courses in the top 100.

[Scott Warren]

Anthony B:

Scott,

 So I guess you're not  interested in a game the next time I'm in Aus?

In all seriousness I can see your point (sort of). It does seem that the raters are putting more emphasis on physical beauty than you might think seemly...    And that just seems so out of whack with the rest of planet's values... 

I guess it proves however that the raters don't have a Greg Norman bias, since he has been the consulting architect since it began it's rise up the rankings a decade ago... now if we could pull off a MacKenzie-style loan of Tom Doak while he's in Australia consulting with RM, I would expect that NSWGC would be in the top 20 by 2021.

I don't think it's a focus on "physical beauty", because NSWGC has always been beautiful. I can understand a thought that it's ranked high in part because of that, but I don't reckon you can attribute the climb from 38 to 34 to that necessarily.

It's well established that I love NSWGC, and I know you do too, but do you think 34 in the world is too low, too high or about right?

[Kevin Pallier]

The Top 25 GB&I, extracted from this list, would be:

TOC 1
Co. Down
Muirfield
Portrush
Dornoch 5
Ballybunion
Turnberry
Carnoustie
Birkdale
St George's 10
Sunningdale (Old)
Lahinch
Portmarnock
Troon
Kingsbarns 15
Castle Stuart
Lytham
Woodhall Spa
Ganton
Loch Lomond 20
Hoylake
Cruden Bay
Walton Heath (Old)
North Berwick
Waterville 25

Scott

Whilst I haven't seen Castle Stuart - 3 that I dont think should be in the Top25 are Portmarnock, WH (O), Waterville

I would replace them with Sunningdale (New), Swinley and St. Georges Hill

Whilst I have a different mix of the other courses - for mine they are representative.