Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025

[Rob Marshall]

https://golf.com/travel/courses/best-public-golf-courses-america-2024-25/

[Michael Felton]

It's interesting looking at the state-to-state disparity in public courses vs all courses. For example, NY has 2 courses in this top 100 (Bethpage Black and Bethpage Red) and 14 courses in the Golf.com Top 100 (US), with Shinnecock and NGLA leading the way.


Compare with Florida which I think has 9 on this list and only 3 on the Golf.com Top 100 list (Seminole, TPC and Streamsong Red).


Then California has 13 on the Golf.com list and 11 on this list, so is a lot more evenly balanced.

[Alex_Hunter]

Such a shame for Cape Arundel to be ranked only at 63. I think it is far and away better than that. The preoccupation of raters with length and difficultly of the golf course is likely what has led to its mediocre ranking.

[astavrides]

Missed this post, probably because it didn't generate much discussion for some reason.
Notable new courses: Lido at #4, Pinehurst10 at #15, Sedge Valley #22, Cabot Citrus Karoo #32, The Park #36, Landmand #46, Fields Ranch East #69, La Costa North #89

[Dan_Callahan]

Such a shame for Cape Arundel to be ranked only at 63. I think it is far and away better than that. The preoccupation of raters with length and difficultly of the golf course is likely what has led to its mediocre ranking.

Cape Arundel gets a lot of love on here, but I think it has a ton of flaws. And as someone who grew up in New England, I am definitely partial to courses in the northeast. But a round of golf at Arundel on a busy day means keeping your head on a swivel at all times. It’s way too tight, and balls are crossing fairways at all angles. Also, I love quirky greens with lots of movement, but the greens at Arundel are over the top. I get that greens are the defense on a short course. Even so, there’s a line between tricky and absurd. And too many are in the absurd bucket, in my opinion, unless they holes are cut in forgiving areas, which has never been the case when I’ve played there, and that would sort of defeat the purpose of having wild contours. Beautiful setting, and probably more fun when there are only a few groups out there.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Lido at #4 deserves a wow. I am tickled to see Bandon Trails move up. I always thought it was the second-best course at the resort.

[Alex_Hunter]

Such a shame for Cape Arundel to be ranked only at 63. I think it is far and away better than that. The preoccupation of raters with length and difficultly of the golf course is likely what has led to its mediocre ranking.

Cape Arundel gets a lot of love on here, but I think it has a ton of flaws. And as someone who grew up in New England, I am definitely partial to courses in the northeast. But a round of golf at Arundel on a busy day means keeping your head on a swivel at all times. It’s way too tight, and balls are crossing fairways at all angles. Also, I love quirky greens with lots of movement, but the greens at Arundel are over the top. I get that greens are the defense on a short course. Even so, there’s a line between tricky and absurd. And too many are in the absurd bucket, in my opinion, unless they holes are cut in forgiving areas, which has never been the case when I’ve played there, and that would sort of defeat the purpose of having wild contours. Beautiful setting, and probably more fun when there are only a few groups out there.

Interesting. I've only played it once (in June of this year) but I had neither experience. It was a fairly busy day when we were there and didn't have any issues with balls flying to other parts of the course and my friends certainly are below average golfers, they made out ok. I didn't think the greens were too tricked up. For sure some parts like the aggressive fall off on the front of the par 3 13th it can get you but with the green speeds at what they are I didn't find them offensive. Short and quirky can work well together and Cape Arundel is one of the best in that regard.


On the other hand I've just returned from a trip to North Carolina where I played Southern Pines, Mid Pines and Pine Needles. I adore Southern Pines, architecturally it is fantastic use of land, but those greens are cooked. Many are too extreme, especially given the speed they were at.


Cape Arundel waxes those three for me.

[Tom_Doak]

Notable new courses: Lido at #4, Pinehurst10 at #15, Sedge Valley #22

Swept the medals!  We've had a pretty good couple of years.

[Paul Jones]

I compared the list to the 2022 Top 100 in US and was surprised how dominate the rankings are with private clubs.  In 2022 Pinehurst 4 was 100 in the US and now 25 in the this year Courses You Can Play for this year.


The comparison is between 2 different years, but from that data 75 of the 100 in the US are private courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I compared the list to the 2022 Top 100 in US and was surprised how dominate the rankings are with private clubs.  In 2022 Pinehurst 4 was 100 in the US and they are 25 in the this year Courses You Can Play for this year.

The comparison is between 2 different years, but from that data 75 of the 100 in the US are private courses.

Actually it's more like 80 out of 100.  Sedge Valley is #22 in this list and didn't make the U.S. top 100 they published last week, using the same votes.

[Steven Wade]

I think Mr. Doak mentioned on a recent podcast that I listened to that often courses that have just opened will get an initial rankings boost because of recency bias. So many raters are excited to see the course, go see it, rank it highly, and voila!, there it is in the rankings. I think Pinehurst #4 was a case study in this.


I will be interested to see where a course like The Lido or Old Barnwell is ranked in 5 years. I’ve played neither, and I’m not assuming they’ll go down. They may follow the Ballyneal trajectory where they seem to climb the rankings year after year.

[Tom_Doak]

I think Mr. Doak mentioned on a recent podcast that I listened to that often courses that have just opened will get an initial rankings boost because of recency bias. So many raters are excited to see the course, go see it, rank it highly, and voila!, there it is in the rankings. I think Pinehurst #4 was a case study in this.

Recency bias also extends to any course that has recently hosted a major championship, and to courses that have recently done a restoration.  Indeed, the GOLF Magazine rankings have promoted the latter by insisting that anyone who saw a restored course before it was restored shouldn't vote on it . . . so the only votes that count are the recent ones.

[Paul Rudovsky]

[Indeed, the GOLF Magazine rankings have promoted the latter by insisting that anyone who saw a restored course before it was restored shouldn't vote on it . . . so the only votes that count are the recent ones.

Tom-- While your statement above is true from a "statistical" standpoint, do you think it was a mistake for GOLF to only consider post-restor/renov evaluations?  Note that the rule you cite really only applies to major restor/renov.  Evaluations are supposed to be of the course in its "present" format, correct?

[Sean_A]

What is a major reno/resto?

Happy Thanksgiving

[Brett Meyer]

My home state of Michigan is well-represented, except for Pilgrim's Run, which should be on the list. But I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Belvedere and Arcadia South. The former is a very nice course with a few excellent holes and a few more excellent greens, but the median hole and green are just good. I don't mind it on the list, but it should be near the bottom. And Arcadia South, while having an excellent set of greens, is just a bit over-designed from tee-to-green, with too much reliance on bunkers that make it feel like you're hitting the same drive repeatedly. I feel the same; on the list, but nearer to the bottom.

Nice to see American Dunes on the list--I don't think that it's gotten as much love as it deserves. There are a few of the best holes in Michigan out there and a few unusual features, like greens that fall away steeply on the par 5s nos. 2 and 13. I think it belongs in the same class as the Forest Dunes's and Greywalls.

One course I've seen recently that I think is underrated is the Pfau Course. I was really impressed; the land is outstanding and there's a lot of variety in the design, with holes falling across the land in different ways (a few blind drives) and good variety in the bunker scheme. It's hard, but not as hard as I was led to believe and nowhere near unreasonably so. There are a few squared-off greens which reminded me of Arcadia South, but I thought this was a better course--the land is just so much better and the design doesn't lean so heavily on bunkering.

Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.

[Sean_A]

I feel same way as Brett about Arcadia South. I never believed Belvedere is better than UofM.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Paul Rudovsky]

What is a major reno/resto?

Happy Thanksgiving

Sean--difficult to define precisely but not just a redo of a few greens or bunkers, but a major effort to redefine the course and/or bring it back to the concepts that underlaid its original design.  The GOLF panelists receive a ballot that listed about 610 courses (for the 2024 USA Top 100) and next to the names of (I am guessing) about 60-70 courses it says something like "only rate if you have played since 2017, or June 2023 etc etc." the date the course's last renovation or restoration was completed.

[Ian Andrew]

Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.

This wasn't to debate your opinion. I think most feel like you do and its easy to understand why. I happen to prefer Southern Pines. Did so even before all the renovations. I prefer elevation, love false fronts and enjoy playing up to elevated green sites. It's harder to play. Even to walk. But those choices set up many of the great elevated tee shots that follow. Again, you are in the majority, but thought you might like to hear why on the other side of the fence.

[Chris Hughes]

The "you can play" verbiage is kinda interesting...


I've been fortunate to play The Black close to 100 times and as a NY State resident never paid more than $80...NON-RES folks pay double ($160).  (price hasn't changed in a decade)


Regular folks "can play" The Black, not sure that's the case with any other course in the top-10.

[Tom_Doak]

[Indeed, the GOLF Magazine rankings have promoted the latter by insisting that anyone who saw a restored course before it was restored shouldn't vote on it . . . so the only votes that count are the recent ones.

Tom-- While your statement above is true from a "statistical" standpoint, do you think it was a mistake for GOLF to only consider post-restor/renov evaluations?  Note that the rule you cite really only applies to major restor/renov.  Evaluations are supposed to be of the course in its "present" format, correct?

Paul:


You can't really rate every course in its "present" format . . . you are putting votes down on many courses that you haven't played for years, as is every other panelist.  But renovations are designated for special treatment.

The designation that the renovation is "significant" is a bias in and of itself.

If it was me, I would have kept the old votes and let them slowly be replaced by the new votes, so that a restoration is recognized over time, instead of crossing out all of the old votes and giving recently renovated courses an artificial boost in the rankings.  But then, Ran was on a mission to promote restoration, and I'm not.


I look at this the same as telling panelists to ignore conditioning except for egregious cases . . . I think everyone should rate the course as they encountered it, because that's the best way to reduce all of the biases.

[Peter Sayegh]

Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.

This wasn't to debate your opinion. I think most feel like you do and its easy to understand why. I happen to prefer Southern Pines. Did so even before all the renovations. I prefer elevation, love false fronts and enjoy playing up to elevated green sites. It's harder to play. Even to walk. But those choices set up many of the great elevated tee shots that follow. Again, you are in the majority, but thought you might like to hear why on the other side of the fence.

Ian, I'm with you on the other side of the fence.

[Sean_A]

What is a major reno/resto?

Happy Thanksgiving

Sean--difficult to define precisely but not just a redo of a few greens or bunkers, but a major effort to redefine the course and/or bring it back to the concepts that underlaid its original design.  The GOLF panelists receive a ballot that listed about 610 courses (for the 2024 USA Top 100) and next to the names of (I am guessing) about 60-70 courses it says something like "only rate if you have played since 2017, or June 2023 etc etc." the date the course's last renovation or restoration was completed.

Often times even serious work doesn’t redefine a course. That said, serious tree removal can do this far more often than bunker or green work. Cutting back serious rough can achieve this as well. Yet somehow I don’t think this is what you mean. I agree with Tom. Ratings shouldn’t be dropped unless replaced by a later visit. Let the panellist decide if any work merits a significant score amendment.

Ciao

[Paul Rudovsky]

[
If it was me, I would have kept the old votes and let them slowly be replaced by the new votes, so that a restoration is recognized over time, instead of crossing out all of the old votes and giving recently renovated courses an artificial boost in the rankings.  But then, Ran was on a mission to promote restoration, and I'm not.


I look at this the same as telling panelists to ignore conditioning except for egregious cases . . . I think everyone should rate the course as they encountered it, because that's the best way to reduce all of the biases.




Tom--


Two thoughts:


1.  To some degree, the reader of ratings who may be contemplating player the course (as opposed to the rater who participated in the rating) is most likely looking to find evaluations based on th course's "current" condition (he obviously she understand that weather and course conditions can change very rapidly)


2.  What would you think about a firm, time limit on number of years since last played (irrespective of how many times the rater played the course prior to his last round there)?  Could be 5 years or 10 years of whatever but shouldn't be too long (which would make it meaningless) or too short (which would make it very difficult to have enough ratings for "statistical significance".


Best
Paul

[Alex_Hunter]

Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.

I think there can and should be a distinction between preferred course and better architecturally. Southern Pines lives in that latter category for me. I would rate it higher even if I prefer to play Mid Pines.


Recently having returned from a trip to Southern Pines it was great to get another spin around all 3 of these properties. What I found was that Southern Pines lives on the more extreme side, but as Ian alludes to its strength lives in the variety and challenging design elements. It's architecturally more impressive than Mid Pines and Pine Needles for me even if some of the greens feel overcooked. I prefer the elevation change with its variety of uphill and downhill approaches. I do wish the course had one of the Par 3's at 9 or 14 play slightly shorter.


Whereas Mid Pines has emerged in that group as my favourite. It sits sort of in that middle ground between SP and PN. Greens are challenging and have plenty of spots which you might de-green yourself but certainly don't go as far as the set at SP and aren't as subtle as those at PN. The topography is good and I feel that I would play here more than the others with its happy balance of strategy, challenge and visually stunning moments.

[Brett Meyer]

Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.

I think there can and should be a distinction between preferred course and better architecturally. Southern Pines lives in that latter category for me. I would rate it higher even if I prefer to play Mid Pines.


Recently having returned from a trip to Southern Pines it was great to get another spin around all 3 of these properties. What I found was that Southern Pines lives on the more extreme side, but as Ian alludes to its strength lives in the variety and challenging design elements. It's architecturally more impressive than Mid Pines and Pine Needles for me even if some of the greens feel overcooked. I prefer the elevation change with its variety of uphill and downhill approaches. I do wish the course had one of the Par 3's at 9 or 14 play slightly shorter.


Whereas Mid Pines has emerged in that group as my favourite. It sits sort of in that middle ground between SP and PN. Greens are challenging and have plenty of spots which you might de-green yourself but certainly don't go as far as the set at SP and aren't as subtle as those at PN. The topography is good and I feel that I would play here more than the others with its happy balance of strategy, challenge and visually stunning moments.

I think the reason why I don't think Southern Pines is as good a course as Mid Pines or Pine Needles is the same reason why I don't like it as much: I think severity in moderation is an important part of what makes a course both good and fun and Southern Pines overshoots the mark. I'd level the same criticism at Tobacco Road and I was surprised to find that I was reminded more of that course when I played Southern Pines than Mid Pines or Pine Needles. There are probably 3 too many greens on Southern Pines with severe false fronts. I don't mind 2 or 3 greens like this, but there are probably 6 or 7 and that's too many.

Now I'm not sure that this is an architectural fault because, assuming that the current course covers the available land when it was built, Southern Pines is on a more challenging piece of land than Mid Pines and Pine Needles. It's difficult to build greens with the variety and subtlety of those courses when most of them have to be built on the top or side of a hill. So I think that it was going to be difficult to build as good a course on this land as at Mid Pines, where the land is more gradually sloping, or Pine Needles, where the hills are less severe and the property is more expansive.

There is one green on Southern Pines that reminds me of the best greens on Mid Pines and Pine Needles: the 17th. I would like the course more--and would think it a better course--if there were a few more like it. But again, that just may not have been possible with this land.

I'd also add that the greens are probably the only reason why I'd rate Southern Pines behind the other two. There is a lot of variety from tee to green, with drives falling across slopes in very different ways. It's also the prettiest of the three courses.