Not only the amount of new courses is strange. The tumble some of the courses take seem fishy as well. Barnbougle Dunes losing 22 places, Cabot Links going down 51, Bandon Dunes down 28, San Francisco G.C. down 62(!). It feels like they wanted to shake up the rankings just to generate headlines
On one level, it may be at least explained.
BD and LF - Very remote,
Cabot Links - Pretty remote
Bandon Dunes - Remote
SFGC - very exclusive.
Perhaps they just didn't get the data points and others blew by them.
Kalen
How much more remote/expensive to get to is RCD than Bandon and Cabot ? Is it possible that once the wow factor of the new wore off that panelists made a more sober assessment ?
Niall
Niall,
That could of course be true.
I'm a bit biased because RCD has always been my #1, and I'd probably give even more spots to UK and Ireland courses. (even though they are well represented numberswise-just many odd/poor choices)
One thing's for sure, there were WAAAAY more modern monstrosities on this list that I have zero interest in playing than any list I've ever seen.
But I'd also say given the crazy variance from year to year that something odd is in play.
Their credibility fades away with such inconsistent variance and simply makes one wonder who will play where next, be wowed by opulence,service, 500 extra seldom used yards. and green grass, and change the list wildly again
The list looks like something cobbled together by Executive Golfer, not a list from once the most respected golf publication.
The only reason such lists matter to me (negatively) is that in the zero sum game of golf tourism, it sucks that so many asshole traps are perpetuated and therefore patronized while many good/great courses are ignored at a time when every incremental dollar counts.
Otherwise I really wouldn't care as it's nice to leave the great gems affordable and uncrowded, but not if their survival is threatened-and even more importantly it sucks to see the monstrosity model celebrated and therefore copied by more developers.