Surprises on 2021 GM World's Best List

[Ronald Montesano]

The obvious starting point is the relationship of this space to the the GM list, as the same chap directs both. That extends to the first name in this article (https://golf.com/travel/surprises-top-100-courses-world-ranking/), who is a a long-time, frequent, and eloquent poster in the DB.

If we back up 10-15 years, would we ever have seen one of the major publications delve beyond the list? Nay.

I wish that more evaluators were interviewed/listed in the piece. I wish that they were more specific on the courses that don't belong, and ones that do but aren't.

I don't understand this quote at all: There seems to be a trend toward the traditional style of golf course, particularly in the United States. We’re now losing some of the wonderful old courses in the U.K. and Asia and Africa, which is a great shame and something that requires some balancing.

What are wonderful old courses if not traditional style?

[Tom_Doak]

That is nothing more than a panelist looking at the results and lamenting there weren't more courses from outside the U.S. included.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’ve played a few US courses in the Top-100. Not many, but a few.


I’ve admired the ones I have played enormously. Spectacular and generally strategic golf courses.


But not one of the was better “golf” than playing on the links. More impressive architecture? Certainly. But better”golf”? No.

[Peter Pallotta]

More impressive architecture? Certainly. But better”golf”? No.

We could very usefully spend the next 6 months discussing and debating nothing but this one short snippet. We won't, but we could.

[Sean_A]

More impressive architecture? Certainly. But better”golf”? No.

We could very usefully spend the next 6 months discussing and debating nothing but this one short snippet. We won't, but we could.

Sounds like a difference between links and parkland discussion.

Tom, yer right. I can't believe this piece was published. The editor should be ashamed.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Me thinks that Sean's comments are somewhat tongue in cheek. I have to say I enjoyed reading the comments and was glad to see that the panel held diverging views. As to John Cornish's comment, I wonder if rather than traditional he meant a standardised course in the US along the lines of the par 72 discussion on other threads ?

Ally

I'm not sure I'd agree with you that US parkland style courses have more impressive architecture. I think a better way of putting it is more obvious architecture/strategy.

Niall

[JMEvensky]

I’ve played a few US courses in the Top-100. Not many, but a few.


I’ve admired the ones I have played enormously. Spectacular and generally strategic golf courses.


But not one of the was better “golf” than playing on the links. More impressive architecture? Certainly. But better”golf”? No.

Guessing I've played more US Top 100 but a lot fewer links than you and I agree with your premise. However one explains it, the "golf" is just better on a links course.


And like Peter, I'd enjoy a discussion on your premise.

[V_Halyard]

Me thinks that Sean's comments are somewhat tongue in cheek. I have to say I enjoyed reading the comments and was glad to see that the panel held diverging views. As to John Cornish's comment, I wonder if rather than traditional he meant a standardised course in the US along the lines of the par 72 discussion on other threads ?

Ally

I'm not sure I'd agree with you that US parkland style courses have more impressive architecture. I think a better way of putting it is more obvious architecture/strategy.

Niall

Elegant Baseline premise:
“Links land is the original/best land for golf. By necessity, parkland delivers a wider variety of strategies forced upon the golf architecture by inland geography, geology and topology. “

Reality:
“Parkland strategy is determined by golfers who have to live inland and GCA’s that have to design on land littered with a bunch of trees, hills, rocks, houses, zoning reviews, water restrictions, cart paths and shitty dirt”

- Cheers to you that do what you do to figure it out.    -VH

[jeffwarne]

Not going to get any argument from me on whether I prefer a lower profile/budget English, Irish or UK links.... to a tired Joan Rivers US parkland supercharged and revived by yet another Committee paying huge $$$$ chasing the latest "keeping up with the Jones" ironically by de"Jonesing" and  en"Hanseing" via "interpretative restoring"...but...

 


which "wonderful old courses" exactly did we lose in Asia and Africa?

[Tom_Doak]

Not going to get any argument from me on whether I prefer a lower profile/budget English, Irish or UK links.... to a tired Joan Rivers US parkland supercharged and revived by yet another Committee paying huge $$$$ chasing the latest "keeping up with the Jones" ironically by de"Jonesing" and  en"Hanseing" via "interpretative restoring"...but...

 


which "wonderful old courses" exactly did we lose in Asia and Africa?

I think that’s a reference to Durban CC and Tokyo GC and Kasumigaseki CC, all of which have been token entries in the top 100 for many years past.  If they were in the UK or America they would have zero support for the list, except maybe Durban which has a few great holes (plus monkeys in the trees!).

[mike_malone]

It’s time to eliminate the 100 limit and just list what are subjectively seen as great.


  I grew up in Delaware and I’m not exactly sure any course is great although Wilmington South and Bidermann could be in a stretch.


But in Pa. or New York or Scotland there are too many that miss the cut.

[Ira Fishman]

It’s time to eliminate the 100 limit and just list what are subjectively seen as great.


  I grew up in Delaware and I’m not exactly sure any course is great although Wilmington South and Bidermann could be in a stretch.


But in Pa. or New York or Scotland there are too many that miss the cut.

Living in the DC suburbs, I had the same thought. But when I checked the first four volumes of the CG, I was surprised that there are only 162 courses that at least one of the authors ranked as an 8 or above.


Ira

[mike_malone]

I think 7 can be great.

[Ira Fishman]

I think 7 can be great.

I put away the volumes so I will to count another day plus look at the names. But I agree--I was using the DS definition.

[Tom_Doak]

It’s time to eliminate the 100 limit and just list what are subjectively seen as great.


  I grew up in Delaware and I’m not exactly sure any course is great although Wilmington South and Bidermann could be in a stretch.


But in Pa. or New York or Scotland there are too many that miss the cut.

Living in the DC suburbs, I had the same thought. But when I checked the first four volumes of the CG, I was surprised that there are only 162 courses that at least one of the authors ranked as an 8 or above.


Ira

Is that right?  That's interesting.  I think we hold back a bit because an 8 is now some sort of proxy for "I think it is a top 100 course" in which case 162 candidates for 100 spots would be about right.  But it is artificially limiting, at the same time.


Just sorted my own list of courses seen [1677 in all] and here are the results:


10's  - 14
 9's   - 25
 8's   - 61  [which is exactly 100 courses  ]
 7's - 176
 6's - 320  [so that is 596 courses out of 1677, a little stingy on the Bell curve -- but "5" is not the average course in the world]

[Mark Mammel]

My personal preference is for links courses- the gaunt fairways with their rolls and wrinkles, the sheep-shaped bunkers, the greens as slick as sunrise. And as I enjoy the discussion I would like to wish all a happy Thanksgiving, whether it is your national holiday or not. Play away please!

[Jeff Schley]

It’s time to eliminate the 100 limit and just list what are subjectively seen as great.


  I grew up in Delaware and I’m not exactly sure any course is great although Wilmington South and Bidermann could be in a stretch.


But in Pa. or New York or Scotland there are too many that miss the cut.

Living in the DC suburbs, I had the same thought. But when I checked the first four volumes of the CG, I was surprised that there are only 162 courses that at least one of the authors ranked as an 8 or above.


Ira

Is that right?  That's interesting.  I think we hold back a bit because an 8 is now some sort of proxy for "I think it is a top 100 course" in which case 162 candidates for 100 spots would be about right.  But it is artificially limiting, at the same time.


Just sorted my own list of courses seen [1677 in all] and here are the results:


10's  - 14
 9's   - 25
 8's   - 61  [which is exactly 100 courses  ]
 7's - 176
 6's - 320  [so that is 596 courses out of 1677, a little stingy on the Bell curve -- but "5" is not the average course in the world]

Interesting stats. Now can we assume the perfectly round 100 courses you scored 8-10 were your Top 100 given to the GM rankings? Or did you change some of your rankings up/down recently from your printed TCG ratings?

[Tom_Doak]

Just sorted my own list of courses seen [1677 in all] and here are the results:

10's  - 14
 9's   - 25
 8's   - 61  [which is exactly 100 courses  ]
 7's - 176
 6's - 320  [so that is 596 courses out of 1677, a little stingy on the Bell curve -- but "5" is not the average course in the world]

Interesting stats. Now can we assume the perfectly round 100 courses you scored 8-10 were your Top 100 given to the GM rankings? Or did you change some of your rankings up/down recently from your printed TCG ratings?

No, you shouldn't assume that.  It's probably pretty close, but there will inevitably be a few courses where what I LIKE is different than what I think SHOULD BE RANKED IN THE TOP 100.  The Bad Little Nine is one example I noticed.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Ran and I just met for drinks and dinner down in Pinehurst.  When I got home I sent him the first page of a comparison list about a half dozen of us filled out (you included) comparing our Doak scores to Ran's for the Top 350 courses he had played.  He had a good laugh as did I.  You had 12 10's back then (2001) as did Ran but not all for the same courses.  The rest of us were all in a similar range of 10's played (I think I am now up to 18-20) but we were all pretty consistent for the most part in the Top 25 (mostly 10's and 9's and a few 8's).  We all rarely differed in our independent opinions by more than 1 (for example someone said 9 and someone said but there were a few that I think we might all have changed our opinion on 20 years later. 


For me 10's are Top 25 (I list my 10's alphabetically as I can't distinguish), 9's are Top 50, 8's Top 100 and 7's are as far down now as Top 300 or so.