[Brent Carlson]

Is it worth discussing why a significant majority of British & Irish courses went down in the rankings with four falling out (two brand new ones coming in)?

I'd like to, however is there a list that shows last year's ranking vs. this years?  I can't find it and they haven't put previous ranking next to this years. Hard to compare without alot of effort.

Jeff,


It was in my post above.  UK Golf Guy does a nice job breaking it down.


https://www.ukgolfguy.com/golf-blog

[Joel_Stewart]

I’d like to see stated alongside the name of each of these courses the annual maintenance budget and the number of full-time and seasonal staff employed on the maintenance crew.
Just saying.

Atb

That would be great added info which might keep members of less salubrious clubs more in tune with reality.

Ciao

Conditioning is not a category at Golf Magazine.  This would be more appropriate with Golf Digest.

[Jeff Schley]

Is it worth discussing why a significant majority of British & Irish courses went down in the rankings with four falling out (two brand new ones coming in)?

I'd like to, however is there a list that shows last year's ranking vs. this years?  I can't find it and they haven't put previous ranking next to this years. Hard to compare without alot of effort.

Thanks Brent I didn't check there. Yes he did a great job on his blog.
Ran FYI it would be nice to include this next time as it gives good background about who is up/down.  Thanks
Jeff,


It was in my post above.  UK Golf Guy does a nice job breaking it down.


https://www.ukgolfguy.com/golf-blog

[Mike Hendren]

Amazingly, I have played 25 of the top 100 courses on the list.   I don't intend to play any others, with the exception of one outstanding invitation.  Frankly, I don't understand the stated desire of many panelists and others to play all courses on some list.  That feels a little cheesy, obnoxious and greedy to me.  We were raised to believe that pigs get fat while hogs go to market.  I'm plenty fat and so grateful to have experienced so many wonderful courses - listed or not.  I'm good (excepting Painswick). 


As for golf architecture, I still apparently don't get Peachtree, Bandon Dunes and The Ocean Course.  As pointed out in my RHCC thread, I guess I really don't know clouds at all.


Bogey

[Andrew Harvie]

I've played 13 on this list. Honestly, I don't get why Jasper isn't included. It's better than at least half of the other ones I've played, including some heavyweight courses.

[Niall C]

Is it worth discussing why a significant majority of British & Irish courses went down in the rankings with four falling out (two brand new ones coming in)?

Ally


It did occur to me as I scanned the list of raters, the vast majority of whom live in the US, that with COVID restricting overseas travel that they simply hadn't been over in a while and therefore a lot of B&I courses and indeed European courses might have slipped out of memory.


Niall

[Sean_A]

I’d like to see stated alongside the name of each of these courses the annual maintenance budget and the number of full-time and seasonal staff employed on the maintenance crew.
Just saying.

Atb

That would be great added info which might keep members of less salubrious clubs more in tune with reality.

Ciao

Conditioning is not a category at Golf Magazine.  This would be more appropriate with Golf Digest.

When talking about the top 100 world I shouldn't think conditioning is an issue...thats the point...no?


Ciao

[PCCraig]

Generally I like the list.


Many "world" lists are really just the USA, GB&I, Mid Ocean, a couple from Canada, and one or two Mexican seaside courses. This has a nice variety in regions and places like mainland Europe that other lists don't really cover.


A few comments:


- I'm kind of surprised that Olympic Lake made the list, just as it seems like a bit of an outlier from the trend of width, playability, etc. and in light of the negative reviews of the more recent work done there.


- What am I missing with Nine Bridges? When I saw the beach bunker and island green I checked to make sure I was still looking at the 2021 list? 


- I like that Peachtree made the list, as I think a lot of RTJ, Sr.'s original work was far more interesting than we give it credit for. It's biggest issue is that his kids screwed so many of them up trying to make them more palatable for professional major championships.


- I think it's a really lovely golf course and club, but I'm struggling a bit with Yeamans at #89 in the world. I just played there ~6 weeks ago and, again, it's a wonderful experience and Urbina's work adding scale is terrific...but I wonder if there are a few too many average holes for such a lofty ranking. Top 100 in the US, absolutely, but world... ?  Personally, I don't know.


- Rock Creek is too low at #83.


- I'm glad they gave Andrew Green credit for his *renovations* of Oak Hill and Inverness.


- I personally haven't been yet (need to) thanks to COVID but friends who I trust their opinion all say they like Cabot Links 7-3 over Cliffs, so I'm surprised to see Cliff so far ahead of Links on this list.


- It sure seems that taking out pretty much every tree on the property and building eye catching bunkers is working to get clubs up the list, as evidenced by Oakland Hills, Southern Hills, Inverness, Oak Hill, etc. This list aside I wonder how much of these changes are just eye candy?

[V_Halyard]

Is it worth discussing why a significant majority of British & Irish courses went down in the rankings with four falling out (two brand new ones coming in)?

1: Ally that is a fair question worthy of discussion. Here are some of my unsubstantiated ponderings and personal opinions. Since much of the popular golf rating and ranking genre was originally based in US editorial and advertising driven publishing houses, it thrived on a majority US readership and US golf courses.  I would propose that as the reason that the panels have been North American heavy for decades. That is changing. Recall this all began with “The Top 100 Hardest…”  they have come a long way.

2: International Travel was COVID-horrible during 2020 and 2021. In contrast, GB&I golf went to quarantine whilst US Domestic golf boomed. It likely presents as an unavoidable statistical anomaly. That said, I have the impression there are active efforts afoot to address the GB&I.

4: GB&I doesn’t have the volume of modern new courses, and the classic GB&I courses thankfully avoided the volume of reconstructive carnage visited upon classics in the US courses. By nature, the GB&I portfolio is neither as dynamic nor volatile. Their restorations are less dramatic and restorative.

As for those on GCA that don't feel the lists are worthy, remember, you are either posting or lurking on a site where we
discuss/argue/post/pontificate on the spiritual/philosophical/financial/artistic/social values of golf  course architecture.
I am amused how many in here fail to realize that we are enamored of a topic so arcane, so obscure, and so boring to the majority of humans, we are the people that clear folks out of the kitchen during a holiday party. And nobody really wants to leave the kitchen during a holiday party.

[PCCraig]

As for those on GCA that don't feel the lists are worthy, remember, you are either posting or lurking on a site where we
discuss/argue/post/pontificate on the spiritual/philosophical/financial/artistic/social values of golf  course architecture.

Agree. I love a well-thought out golf course ranking.

[Joel_Stewart]

A few comments:

- I'm kind of surprised that Olympic Lake made the list, just as it seems like a bit of an outlier from the trend of width, playability, etc. and in light of the negative reviews of the more recent work done there.

It's remarkable any panelist would still vote for Olympic considering the courses that dropped off are all better?  Given 10 rounds at Lost Farm and Olympic how would I split it, 10-0 in favor of Lost Farm yet it dropped off.


It does prove that the rankings can serve as a benchmark for how classic courses are doing.  On a positive side, courses like Baltusrol, Oakland Hills, Old Town Club, etc have made the right decisions and it has paid off.  I still stand by my statement that nobody on this site had ever heard of Cal Club until they made the decision to renovate and it has paid off handsomely for the course.

[Kevin Pallier]

Generally I like the list.

Many "world" lists are really just the USA, GB&I, Mid Ocean, a couple from Canada, and one or two Mexican seaside courses. This has a nice variety in regions and places like mainland Europe that other lists don't really cover.

PCCraig


You are forgetting Australasia with 9 of current list.


Personally, I'm disappointed to see Barnbougle (Lost Farm) drop off. Many down here rate it equal to if not better than Barnbougle (Dunes)

[Paul Jones]

Can someone confirm/deny that Diamante (Dunes) made changes to the back nine to accommodate building a hotel?  Did they just remove a hole and add a new one or did they make massive changes.  This seems similar to Shanqin Bay but instead of the government it was a large hotel company.


That would explain the major drop in the rankings.

[John Emerson]

It felt like there were far too many American courses represented and links courses underrepresented.

[V_Halyard]

Generally I like the list.


Many "world" lists are really just the USA, GB&I, Mid Ocean, a couple from Canada, and one or two Mexican seaside courses. This has a nice variety in regions and places like mainland Europe that other lists don't really cover.


A few comments:


- I'm kind of surprised that Olympic Lake made the list, just as it seems like a bit of an outlier from the trend of width, playability, etc. and in light of the negative reviews of the more recent work done there.


- What am I missing with Nine Bridges? When I saw the beach bunker and island green I checked to make sure I was still looking at the 2021 list? 


- I like that Peachtree made the list, as I think a lot of RTJ, Sr.'s original work was far more interesting than we give it credit for. It's biggest issue is that his kids screwed so many of them up trying to make them more palatable for professional major championships.


- I think it's a really lovely golf course and club, but I'm struggling a bit with Yeamans at #89 in the world. I just played there ~6 weeks ago and, again, it's a wonderful experience and Urbina's work adding scale is terrific...but I wonder if there are a few too many average holes for such a lofty ranking. Top 100 in the US, absolutely, but world... ?  Personally, I don't know.


- Rock Creek is too low at #83.


- I'm glad they gave Andrew Green credit for his *renovations* of Oak Hill and Inverness.


- I personally haven't been yet (need to) thanks to COVID but friends who I trust their opinion all say they like Cabot Links 7-3 over Cliffs, so I'm surprised to see Cliff so far ahead of Links on this list.


- It sure seems that taking out pretty much every tree on the property and building eye catching bunkers is working to get clubs up the list, as evidenced by Oakland Hills, Southern Hills, Inverness, Oak Hill, etc. This list aside I wonder how much of these changes are just eye candy?

Oakland Hills was a substantial return and utilization of the scale of the course. Get there and if you recall the previous version, it’s more reclamation than renovation.  That, Old Town and Eastward Ho with it additional tree work were likely the biggest shocks to my system. Recognizing Oakland Hills goes far deeper than tree removal and bunkering. Scale was much better matched to the land features where the previous version occluded the land effect on gameplay. This version celebrates and utilizes the enormity of the natural scale.

[Tim Passalacqua]

A few comments:

- I'm kind of surprised that Olympic Lake made the list, just as it seems like a bit of an outlier from the trend of width, playability, etc. and in light of the negative reviews of the more recent work done there.

It's remarkable any panelist would still vote for Olympic considering the courses that dropped off are all better?  Given 10 rounds at Lost Farm and Olympic how would I split it, 10-0 in favor of Lost Farm yet it dropped off.


It does prove that the rankings can serve as a benchmark for how classic courses are doing.  On a positive side, courses like Baltusrol, Oakland Hills, Old Town Club, etc have made the right decisions and it has paid off.  I still stand by my statement that nobody on this site had ever heard of Cal Club until they made the decision to renovate and it has paid off handsomely for the course.

I’m curious to see if the perception changes in the next few years.  It sounds like Gil might start working on the Lake next fall.  I’m sure there will be more width, fairway bunkers added back, Sam Whiting aesthetics returned to the bunkers (more rugged and shallower), greens enlarged, and I think you’ll see some great details incorporating the sand dune the property sits on.


I’m actually shocked that Olympic doesn’t get more credit and love for being unique. It’s a one of a kind.  No other course is quite like it.  Yes…..it benefits to play the proper shot shape.  It is a championship course that test your game, but it is awfully playable for all handicaps.  The routing across the hill is wonderful and creative.  All in all, it’s fantastic and I hope it gets even better with Gil.

[Michael Chadwick]

I’m curious to see if the perception changes in the next few years.  It sounds like Gil might start working on the Lake next fall.  I’m sure there will be more width, fairway bunkers added back, Sam Whiting aesthetics returned to the bunkers (more rugged and shallower), greens enlarged, and I think you’ll see some great details incorporating the sand dune the property sits on.


I’m actually shocked that Olympic doesn’t get more credit and love for being unique. It’s a one of a kind.  No other course is quite like it.  Yes…..it benefits to play the proper shot shape.  It is a championship course that test your game, but it is awfully playable for all handicaps.  The routing across the hill is wonderful and creative.  All in all, it’s fantastic and I hope it gets even better with Gil.

Tim, funny enough, on a recent (hilly golf) trip to some Flynn's in Philadelphia, I kept asking myself if there could've been more holes draped along hillsides as opposed to a more frequent pattern of up, down, up, since I was especially drawn to the holes that were at camber, like Rolling Green's terrific par 5 ninth. It actually made me reconsider the uniqueness of Olympic's routing, despite not having yet seen it in person. I too think Hanse will help remind many golfers of that fact, so long as he's given an opportunity by the club. 

[Michael Wolf]

I would find it useful if data was available on how many panelists had visited each course that was on the ballot in the previous two years. Or a simple (NV) behind a course's name if no one from the panel had visited since the previous rankings. Would be interesting to know how many looks places like Hirono, Ellerston, Durban and The Jockey Club are getting these days.


I've long felt that the most overlooked info in the Confidential Guides are the dates listed (in parenthesis) since previous visit.


Michael

[Tom_Doak]

Is it worth discussing why a significant majority of British & Irish courses went down in the rankings with four falling out (two brand new ones coming in)?

Ally


It did occur to me as I scanned the list of raters, the vast majority of whom live in the US, that with COVID restricting overseas travel that they simply hadn't been over in a while and therefore a lot of B&I courses and indeed European courses might have slipped out of memory.

Agree.  The same factor partly explains why so many recently renovated courses have jumped in the rankings - because it had been twenty years since anyone had been to Oakland Hills, and they’d forgotten how good the greens are.

[Tom_Doak]

Yet, Tom is not afraid to tout his rankings on his website.

I’m not afraid to, but actually I do not - there is nothing about these rankings on Doakgolf.com.  (There is on the Renaissance Golf web site, which is up to my associates.)

And to clarify, I don’t think it’s meaningless that I have built seven courses in the top 100 in the world - that’s a pretty good result.    I just think the difference between 38th place and 53rd is meaningless, or between 88th and 138th by extension. 

[John Kirk]

I like the Golf Magazine list a lot.  It's my favorite, which makes sense since I know several members of the rating panel.

My criticism is this, and it may sound like a self-serving one.  The wild and woolly sand-based courses of America, where the game is often played in windy conditions on firm turf, where big mistakes result in creative recovery shots from native grasses and plants, are still underrated.  Most of the top courses in the country are well manicured, tree lined, and feature green, softer surfaces.  These factors reduce the incentive to modify one's approach to hitting shots, such as changing the trajectory of the shot.  At almost all greatest courses, you're still playing regular, "stock shot" golf.  I wonder how much exclusivity and reputation enters the calculus of rating.

I agree that Rock Creek is underrated.  It's built on loamy soil if I'm not mistaken.  In its case it features excellent natural scenery to go with its grand variety of golf holes.  It is a long but gentle walk through the massive ranch park.  It must be that native, unspoiled environment is worth more to me than the typical Golf Magazine rater.


But mostly I'm putting in a word for my home club Ballyneal and my home state resort Bandon Dunes.  The golf is more complicated there, more things to consider.  The shot requirements are far more dramatic in nature.  Let's say the wind is blowing hard off the ocean when you come to #10 and #11 at Pacific Dunes.  The consequences for losing the ball in the wind are substantial.  Does your run of the mill top 100 American park course require this skill, or at least compel the golfer to consider his/her options?


This is a great list, but in my opinion you're still underrating the hilly natural courses built on sand.

[Tim Leahy]

A few comments:

- I'm kind of surprised that Olympic Lake made the list, just as it seems like a bit of an outlier from the trend of width, playability, etc. and in light of the negative reviews of the more recent work done there.

It's remarkable any panelist would still vote for Olympic considering the courses that dropped off are all better?  Given 10 rounds at Lost Farm and Olympic how would I split it, 10-0 in favor of Lost Farm yet it dropped off.


It does prove that the rankings can serve as a benchmark for how classic courses are doing.  On a positive side, courses like Baltusrol, Oakland Hills, Old Town Club, etc have made the right decisions and it has paid off.  I still stand by my statement that nobody on this site had ever heard of Cal Club until they made the decision to renovate and it has paid off handsomely for the course.

I’m curious to see if the perception changes in the next few years.  It sounds like Gil might start working on the Lake next fall.  I’m sure there will be more width, fairway bunkers added back, Sam Whiting aesthetics returned to the bunkers (more rugged and shallower), greens enlarged, and I think you’ll see some great details incorporating the sand dune the property sits on.


I’m actually shocked that Olympic doesn’t get more credit and love for being unique. It’s a one of a kind.  No other course is quite like it.  Yes…..it benefits to play the proper shot shape.  It is a championship course that test your game, but it is awfully playable for all handicaps.  The routing across the hill is wonderful and creative.  All in all, it’s fantastic and I hope it gets even better with Gil.

+1
Although the list loses credibility in my mind ranking Pebble outside the top 10. If you offered golfers a round at Pebble vs any of the top 10, Pebble wins 7 out of 10 with the exceptions being Cypress. Augusta National, and maybe Pine Valley.

[Brent Carlson]

I like the Golf Magazine list a lot.  It's my favorite, which makes sense since I know several members of the rating panel.

My criticism is this, and it may sound like a self-serving one.  The wild and woolly sand-based courses of America, where the game is often played in windy conditions on firm turf, where big mistakes result in creative recovery shots from native grasses and plants, are still underrated.  Most of the top courses in the country are well manicured, tree lined, and feature green, softer surfaces.  These factors reduce the incentive to modify one's approach to hitting shots, such as changing the trajectory of the shot.  At almost all greatest courses, you're still playing regular, "stock shot" golf.  I wonder how much exclusivity and reputation enters the calculus of rating.

I agree that Rock Creek is underrated.  It's built on loamy soil if I'm not mistaken.  In its case it features excellent natural scenery to go with its grand variety of golf holes.  It is a long but gentle walk through the massive ranch park.  It must be that native, unspoiled environment is worth more to me than the typical Golf Magazine rater.


But mostly I'm putting in a word for my home club Ballyneal and my home state resort Bandon Dunes.  The golf is more complicated there, more things to consider.  The shot requirements are far more dramatic in nature.  Let's say the wind is blowing hard off the ocean when you come to #10 and #11 at Pacific Dunes.  The consequences for losing the ball in the wind are substantial.  Does your run of the mill top 100 American park course require this skill, or at least compel the golfer to consider his/her options?


This is a great list, but in my opinion you're still underrating the hilly natural courses built on sand.

John,


I certainly agree with your opinion of Ballyneal.  To me the list has more of an age bias than a soft and green bias.  Using Golfweek terminology Ballyneal is the 7th best course in the world built since 1960 (by my calculations) per Golf Mag.  Per Golfweek it's the 4th best modern in the USA behind Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Friars Head; elite company indeed.  Modern courses seem to have a tougher time climbing into the top 25.  Will that change?  Time will tell.

[Kevin Pallier]

Although the list loses credibility in my mind ranking Pebble outside the top 10. If you offered golfers a round at Pebble vs any of the top 10, Pebble wins 7 out of 10 with the exceptions being Cypress. Augusta National, and maybe Pine Valley.

Tim


Actually I think quite the opposite. The list gains credibility in my opinion for ranking Pebble outside the Top10.


For mine far too long - Pebble has been a sacred cow - yes it has some great views and some great holes - but it has some lesser holes as well and many gloss over that. Don't get me wrong I think PB is a very good course and sits comfortably within the Top20-30 courses in the World but Top10 - no way.

[Matt MacIver]

Having played three of the top 20, including Turnberry, I think (hope) it is over-rated as a top 20 world course. Doesn’t give me much hope going forward and tackling the rest.


PS and I LOVED Turnberry my only visit in 2007.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()