New World Top 100 Courses Ranking Golf Magazine

[Schley]

I have played 51 of the top 100, and still claim to be learning as I go, although I have my own opinions certainly. I think Oakmont is the best US Open layout as when playing firm and fast is the hardest course the USGA uses, so I am entertained. I am going back to Oakmont this coming year and anxious to see how my opinion changes my 2nd time around, if any. I am a 14 handicap and my driver is too eratic to play Oakmont and enjoy it to be honest. I can respect it, but since I'm always recovering from somewhere it makes it tough. I could hit 5 wood and find fairways more.

Again if you are asking me is Oakmont better than the other 7 ahead of it for ME? I have played 4 of those 7 and my answer is I think it is better than Royal Melbourne to me as I thought it played tougher, although RM has great bunkers, just fantastic MacKenzie bunkers. I thought RCD was the hardest course I have played in my life. It is just too hard off the tee with gorse, you can't find your ball, way too penal for the bogey golfer, so again for me I would rank Oakmont ahead of that. I definitely enjoyed TOC and NGLA more than Oakmont and have them ahead of it. I think Fisher's Island is a top 10 course in the world IMO. It is a gem, one of my top 5 of all time.

[LICC]

Thanks for sharing your experiences! What do you think about the view I expressed above that the raters seem biased toward older courses?

[raynorfan1]

Realize it's not directed at me, but I think this perceived bias is without merit. Relatively few courses have been built over the past 25 years. I would actually surmise that new courses are overrepresented on the list, based on the volume of construction.

You also have to consider that many courses have had decades to evolve, be renovated and improve.

[LICC]

I actually was looking at it as pre-WWII and post WWII. So not just the last 25 years but the last 75 or so.

[raynorfan1]

Same comment; the Golf Magazine list has a massive bias towards links courses, most of which were built before WWII.

[LICC]

Maybe that is it. But looking at just US courses, you have 7 before you get to a post-WWII course (Sand Hills), then another 6 before the next post WWII course (Pacific Dunes), then Crystal Downs and Friar's Head back-to-back, then another 12 before you get to a post-WWII course (Ballyneal). Only 4 of the top 30.

[Schley]

I don't think it is biased, it is natural selection. In 75 more years a lot of the garbage won't survive and we will have another correction. The golden age of architecture was special and won't be repeated for they were the first to build golf courses and here we are 100 or more years later and they are still there for a reason. Many in the US were private and elite, thus well supported and selected good ground on which to build their club. It was with that pedigree that they were maintained and subsequently revered as the club hired the best GCA of the time, had a good budget, good ground on which to build so they have survived and thrived wiht recent restorations, as they should. So that period is and always will be unique.

In terms of what is build post WWII you really have a time where a couple things have factored in, first most of the golden age architects had retired or died by then. You have large earth moving machines which allowed for move dirt to be moved (not always a good thing), and you had many more people moving into the middle class who could consume more than they previously did. Thus you had municipalities building courses for the everyman, not on great ground and for meager budgets most likely for the golfing public. Many of those haven't survived. The rich and wealthy already had their elite clubs on which to play and didn't need to build more, but it was a period I call the democratization of golf. More average courses at best being built to be enjoyed by the public, not meant to be hosting champtionships. It served it purpose.

So you aren't going to get the same depth normalized to the golden age because of the above factors.

Then you had the gluttonous 80-2000's which were golf communities built like cookie cutters. Fazio made a killing here along with Nicklaus and others. Many of those were not good golf courses, but meant to sell homes and as a result you won't see them ranked highly for they weren't laid out with championship pedigree in mind, nor was the ground many were built on giving them a chance.

So you have different eras which have given different deliverables. You did have Pete Dye and Tom Fazio and Nicklaus build some very good courses during the 70's/80's/ early 90's. Mayacama, Murifield, Wade Hampton, Shadown Creek, TPC, etc. More recently Doak/ C&C/ Hanse have started a new era in the last 20 years of minimalism and produced some of the best we have today with Bandon / Tara Iti/ Sand Hills/ Ohopee. Much of their work is with restorations of courses that need to be brought back as there isn't much money for new courses we all know. They have had to study and the golden age architects for they are bringing back their original intent most of the time.

So there you have my take which is more time than I have actually today, but glad to get it out.

[LICC]

All good insight, thanks. But it still seems extreme. 26 of the 30 best golf courses in America were built before 1935? Only 4 in 85 years would be in the top-30? Is Garden City or Somerset Hills really a better golf course than Ballyneal or Kiawah or Whistling Straits or Muirfield Village? If I count correctly, the list plus the next-50 have a total of 68 US courses. Sebonack isn't in the top 68 US courses? Shadow Creek?

I think all rankings like this will have a bias, and it sure appears to skew to the olden days with this one.

[CMCSGolf]

I'm not sure if this theory checks out, but here's a thought. All golf courses built before 1940 were compact and built for walking. So thousands of courses were built in a style these rankings value. In the last 70 years, many courses were built in housing developments and are cart courses, so all of those are pretty much automatically excluded (right or wrong is another discussion). So from 1940-2000, how many courses were actually built that could possibly be considered for this list? It's probably still a few hundred, but I think it is a fairly small percentage of the overall courses built in this period.

This list likely would still skew towards older courses, but if you start with the assumption that the course has to be walkable, the distribution of courses over the last 115 years is probably not weighted as much to recent times as you would think. There is obviously more to the older courses than just being walkable, but if that's what you think is good, it's not surprising that the list favors that era because the next era was so different.

[LICC]

There is that and probably a bit of "things were better in the old days" mentality..

[Chanceman]

That's just ignorance for a start. You have never played it but you have heard from others! Then you leave out the 14th from the list of great holes. Go play it some time and you will change your opinion.

[LICC]

Don't start lashing out insults because your view is unexplainable.

[Sean2]

The list is the opinion of some people. It doesn't make it law.

[CMCSGolf]

Yeah, but that is the premise they are operating under. Golf is better when with that kind of course. Anyone is obviously free to disagree with it, but I think it might partially explain why there are more older courses. I doubt the panelists were looking up the year it opened and consciously weighting that more. More likely they decided what they like and that happens to skew towards the style of older courses. Maybe history is biasing their opinions, but I find this theory plausible because it seems like there is a 10 to 1 ratio for housing development vs walkable courses built in the 80s.

[HoosierHacker89]

I looking to get on this list this coming year.

[Chanceman]

My view is totally explainable without resort to hearsay - I have played most of the world's top 50 courses and in my view St Andrews Old Course is as interesting, challenging and appealing as any. It has 6 or 7 of the world's best golf holes, endless strategic choices, great visual environment, superbly positioned and designed bunkers, incredible green complexes and unless you want azaleas or crashing waves for breakfast then it has to be very close to the top of any list.

[tiderider]

ah, i see now ...

[sabram]

Based on my tastes and my experience (I've played 42 of the courses on the new golf mag list; none in Asia, Aus or NZ) , Golden Age courses are more likely to be better and more fun to play than post world war II courses, (at least until 2000). I love true links, the English heathland,, McDonald/Raynor/Banks and Ross. If someone opines that the Old Course is not among the greatest in the world, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's an interesting exercise to compare the courses you've played on the top 50 or 60 courses on Golfweek's top 200 classic courses https://golfweek.com/2019/06/04/golfweeks-best-2019-top-200-classic-courses/ against the one's you've played on their top 200 modern courses. https://golfweek.com/2019/06/03/golfweek-best-2019-top-200-modern-courses/ and see where the modern's come out on your combined list (based on how you rank them). I've played 23 of to top 60 classic and 20 of the top 60 modern. For me, the classics end up heavily weighted at the top. IMO, courses like Garden City, LACC North, NGLA, both courses at Winged Foot, Merion and Sleepy Hollow beat everything on the Modern list, except Sand Hills (Even though I am a big Ballyneal fan, it would only make #10) I'm guessing if your personal views when comparing what you've played on the two lists is like mine, you'll think the new Golf Mag list is pretty good.

[LICC]

From the UK publication Today’s Golfer, 2015:

Once you get past the first hole you are lost in a haze. All the holes are uneventful until 17 and 18.Dave Cudmore, TG reader, via Facebook 

The history of the place is really what you go there for. I think there's far better courses.Martin Forbes, TG reader, via Facebook 

There's only three holes that stand out. Most of it is bland and forgettable. I holed a 100’ putt there and I couldn’t tell you which hole it was on – that’s not a good sign. I played 13 holes at Augusta and I can remember every footstep. In fairness, I've only played the Old Course twice, and everyone says you have to play it many times to fully appreciate its nuances. Chris Jones, TG editor

It’s not the prettiest and most aesthetically pleasing of courses by a long chalk. Realistically, the course alone wouldn’t rank in the top ten in Fife. It features too many ordinary holes and ‘double’ greens. Many reckon that the neighbouring but largely unheralded New Course is the better all round test of golf. But no other course has the Road Hole, the Swilcan Bridge, Hell Bunker and the R&A clubhouse, which makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when you tee it up. There's only one Old Course. Kevin Brown, TG courses editor

Carnoustie down the road is significantly better...Dave Loan, TG reader, via Facebook 

I’ve never played there but surely calling it the world’s best course is a nostalgia vote? Without all the trimmings it's featureless. There's a few courses I’d play ahead of the Old Course purely on course layout.Matthew Leader 

[Chanceman]

You cannot be serious.

[LICC]

This seems like a textbook example of nostalgia bias. I wonder if you were dropped into these courses with no knowledge of their history, if you would have the same opinion.

[LICC]

That was a direct cut and paste. Nothing unserious about it. Take it up with the golf editors of UK Monthly if you don’t like it. Or accept that other people have reasonable experienced opinions that disagree with yours.

[sabram]

No. I don't prefer them because they're old or who the architect was. I prefer them because I enjoy playing those courses more than most others. Have you played the Old Course? How many of the pre-WWII top 100 have you played? You are making assumptions about bias without much basis except that you can't understand why lists have a heavy weighting of Golden Age courses near the top. My "bias" is to prefer courses that I enjoy playing, so in that sense I am biased. But, not because of age of a course. If you equate a ranking on what one enjoys playing the most, then every list is biased based on the criteria it uses.

[Roadking2003]

"Golf Magazine recently hired a new course rankings editor with GCA ties and he revamped the rater process. The new world rankings are out. Pine Valley is number 1 again. Some observations:"

"I haven't played most of these courses so take it for what it is worth, but it seems to me that many older courses are overrated due to their history. Is St. Andrews Old really the 3rd greatest course in the world? Not one course built in the last 80 years is better than the 13 courses ranked ahead of Sand Hills, all of which were built before 1935? Is Carnoustie (32) a better golf course than Cabot Cliffs (43)? Only one modern course is in the top 23! It's hard for me to accept that this isn't historical bias at play."

The OP is spot on. The new Golf magazine guy has decided to change what most people call "good golf courses". His new definition starts with "old" and downrates any course with trees.

Any list that has the Old Course in the top ten loses all credibility. I have played 100 courses that are better than the Old Course. Without it's history, it wouldn't make my top 200.

It certainly looks like Ben Crenshaw's top 100 list.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

duplicate

 

[Roadking2003]

 

That's why we have the luxury of choices. Without it's history, I wouldn't play TOC again ever. I would play PB and ANGC 100 times before I went back to TOC.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Doak and Crenshaw are riding the current wave of "treeless is better". That's fine. But it's just a golf architecture phase that may last a little while.

 

[raynorfan1]

The great irony of the GCA takeover of golf architecture groupthink is that by preaching their gospel, they’re destroying what they claim to love. Courses like Royal Dornoch - that I first visited 20 years ago - have gone from beautifully scruffy gems to well oiled tourist traps. A great many of these courses were “left behind” in the RTJ/Fazio boom, and they were amazing places to play real golf. Now they’re just another stop on the list for guys trying to mop up the number of Top 100 courses they’ve played.

[LICC]

You’ve made this blanket conclusion that Golden Age courses are “better” and “more fun” than courses that came after, butyou have given no substantive reasons or examples of what about those courses are “better”. I can understand, but not necessarily agree, with posters above who think the advent of cart paths changed courses and made everything inferior, or that after WWII a sea change in society course design led to all cookie cutter courses(which I think has some merit but is exaggerated). But absent some good tangible explanation, it defies reason that the overwhelming number of top ranked courses were built 80+ years ago and all the courses built since than are lesser courses

[Roadking2003]

I know a lot of people berate courses that are designed with carts in mind but that is quite shortsighted. A few million golfers would not be able to play without carts and a few thousand very good courses would never have been built without carts.

Carts are a huge net positive for the game of golf.

 

 

 

[Schley]

How is this to be blamed on GCA? Lists were there back in the 80's and have grown in popularity and proliferation. GCA if anything promotes hidden gems, not the obvious top courses. The top courses in the UK were always accessible and were able to commercialize their courses for American tourists primarily. It was a byproduct of their popularity via a list viewed by golf tourists, not an intended consequence of GCA. Golf course maintenance in general has gotten so much better over the last several decades, particularly agronomy. In the UK, particularly links courses you don't see lush green grass or subair green systems like in the US courses, because mother nature shapes them and determines how they play at a given day with rain or not.