GM Top 100 courses

[Liverbirdie]

I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.

I understand what you mean,and it would be interesting to see peoples views in 50 years time to see if they could separate the more traditional courses than the others,after the new courses have bedded in more or are even rougher round the edges.

It would be interesting to see if you could put a golfer on two courses that they didnt know, one from 1870 and one from 1930 and see if they could tell which was which.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.

Edit: why one of my biggest annoyances is not having played Turnberry before the recent changes as they are being done, partly, to draw attention to the landmarks to look more spectacular.

Its also interesting to note that maybe the preferences are generally for old/traditional rather than new as our links courses mostly seem to be over 90 years old, and its not necessarily a links preference over inland.......

 

[NWJocko]

I understand what you mean,and it would be interesting to see peoples views in 50 years time to see if they could separate the more traditional courses than the others,after the new courses have bedded in more or are even rougher round the edges.

It would be interesting to see if you could put a golfer on two courses that they didnt know, one from 1870 and one from 1930 and see if they could tell which was which.

For me it's not so much that the courses will be bedded in, just that you're being spoon fed the spectacular almost rather than the golf course itself. Hard to describe really, just a feeling I got on both.

That said they are 2 great courses and, going back to my other point, I have no idea why they are so far apart in the rankings!?

Castle Course is tougher IMO but both stunning places to play golf.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I love Castle Stuart and the Castle Course (very similar imo, bit weird how there's such a big difference in rankings as an aside), but......

With both I feel you can tell they're new as everything is too well worked out. I.e. The 4th at Castle Stuart where the hole is set up so you see the Castle through the dunes, the 17th at the Castle Course across the bay and the par 4 there with the infinity green with views across to St Andrews etc etc.

You can tell these were designed with exactly that in mind. They are still 2 of my favourite courses but for some reason the fact they are almost too perfect gives them a touch of the "manufactured" that perhaps isn't there with the 1/2/300 year old courses.

Why I would prefer Dornoch over Castle Stuart, New Course over the Castle etc.

Edit: why one of my biggest annoyances is not having played Turnberry before the recent changes as they are being done, partly, to draw attention to the landmarks to look more spectacular.

Ive played "old" Turnberry twice - Hillside makes it look like a Muni......

 

[NWJocko]

Ive played "old" Turnberry twice - Hillside makes it look like a Muni......

In which case Formby must make it look like a pitch and putt

 

[huds1475]

He may have said courses, but we all know that the marks are given for the whole experience at the club in question, not just for the course.

The point being that an old traditional course can have a new clubhouse, so the "feeling" isnt necessarily the same as walking into a clubhouse such as Alwoodley, Royal Liverpool, Formby, Lytham etc.

West Lancs is one of the oldest courses in England, but no great traditional feel to their clubhouse.

We're never going to agree, but he said courses. As an opinion, not about what the assessment criteria was.

I get where you are coming from, deffo. But he said courses.

You can tell when a course is the real deal, by playing the course. Not by the clubhouse.

Irrespective of the ranking, when I look at the top 100 I look at which courses look most natural, not the clubhouse.

I do love walking round somewhere with history. Turnberry clubhouse, Royal Lytham Clubhouse, Locker Room at Moortown, not overly well travelled!

I still prefer a natural course

 

[huds1475]

Ive played "old" Turnberry twice - Hillside makes it look like a Muni......

PMSL

Are you paid per hit by Hillside?

 

[huds1475]

PMSL

Are you paid per hit by Hillside?

Doh! Another pound

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Define a test of golf. It seems a hugely subjective notion. I've played links, heathland and parkland and can say that each variety depending on the course in question can throw up their own challenges and test golfers in many different ways. I'm not entirely sure you can simply links is best because of the conditions. I've played parkland courses in howling winds where a 140 yard par 3 required a 5 iron one day and was an 8 iron after lunch as the wind subsided. Heathland presents its own unique challenges with the heather and gorse not normally found on parkland courses and which puts a premium on driving to avoid the penalties for going in there.

I also wonder, given the make up of the panel, if there's a sub-conscious thought that links being the original form of golf should always be represented at the very top of the list and that should a world class (and not exclusive) parkland or heathland course be created, it would still get overlooked because it wasn't links.

As I say, all subjective

Funnily enough, I was watching a program about Tiger Woods this evening on Sky and I think he summed it up perfectly when talking about the appeal of the Open. He said when you miss a green in any other event you automatically reach for your lob wedge but when you miss a green on a links course you have so many different options.

 

[Liverbirdie]

We're never going to agree, but he said courses. As an opinion, not about what the assessment criteria was.

I get where you are coming from, deffo. But he said courses.

You can tell when a course is the real deal, by playing the course. Not by the clubhouse.

Irrespective of the ranking, when I look at the top 100 I look at which courses look most natural, not the clubhouse.

I do love walking round somewhere with history. Turnberry clubhouse, Royal Lytham Clubhouse, Locker Room at Moortown, not overly well travelled!

I still prefer a natural course

Fleetwood is as au naturelle as they come, still doesnt make it better than Castle Stuart......or Hillside.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Funnily enough, I was watching a program about Tiger Woods this evening on Sky and I think he summed it up perfectly when talking about the appeal of the Open. He said when you miss a green in any other event you automatically reach for your lob wedge but when you miss a green on a links course you have so many different options.

Good point.

I had played parkland courses for 15 years and just when I thought I was getting good at this game, I started to play links courses......its a different game.

 

[patricks148]

i'm not sure the club house can make much difference to how the course is rated TBH

Take Royal Dornoch for instance a raise in the ranking this time and the club house is not all that, poor changing facilities miles from the 18th green and a bit dated, but scored better than last time and must just be for the fantastic course.

 

[PNWokingham]

Unfortunately I've experienced stuffy attitudes at some clubs within the Top 100 when visiting so I can only imagine what those who want to stay totally 'closed' to non members are like. Yes, it's a generalisation but if these clubs and its members wanted to project a more welcoming and open image, surely they'd put the wheels in motion via an AGM or EGM to change these policies. The fact they don't tells me that they deem themselves too important, exclusive or just simply don't want visitors at their club which I find a shame.

We shall never agree on the issue of these clubs being on the list. I think GM have done the right thing. Golf has a massive image problem (hence the recent female members saga at Royal Troon and Muirfield) and some clubs are adding to this by pulling up the drawbridge.

If a club wants to set a ridiculous green fee then fine but at least you can save up and play it, even if it's only once. I paid nearly £450 years ago to play Pebble Beach but at least I got to play it and loved every minute of it. But at least I had the opportunity to play it and that's my point.

I think this soap-box stance is totally wrong. Yes some courses are stuffy and some members can come across as hostile towards visitors on "their" course but, in my experience, it has nothing to do with their ranking in the top 100 or their "exclusivity" - indeed, i think that, generally, the better and more "exclusive" clubs are more welcoming and hospitable than many "lesser" courses.

I have no problem with this list being the top 100 you can play - personally, I would have preferred a dual list, as usually happens with the US rankings, where the majority of top courses are closed to non members, but can totally understand the GM stance. My home course has been excluded due to this rule - a few years ago we did open up to limited member play and i was in favour of this but that was overturned a couple of years ago. I would be happy to see this at our club and others but the decision is for the club and should not be seen as anything sinister. We have nearly 700 members and are busy every day with those members playing golf - if we had much visitor play or societies it could make it harder to get a game - and when you are paying a high price to be a member, you want to be able to play when you want.

The other comment (not from you) that courses should not charge a high price for visitors is also daft - you have to pay for better products - choose a Ferrari or an Fiesta - choice is yours.

The fact that out of 3000 courses in GB&I and only a handful don't allow visitors shows that golf in the UK is a very open sport and a great opportunity to play on the same fields as the sporting greats - you don't get that in most other sports.

 

[Junior]

I love walking around the clubhouses of the old courses, especially the Open courses and taking in the history - Prestwick is one of the best for that, of the ones I've played.

However, once out on the course I can separate the "club" and the course, in terms of preference.

Royal Dornoch/Castle Stuart being a prime example. I loved Dornoch but still think CS is one of the top 1/2/3 courses I've played. Probably the same situation for Cruden/Trump Aberdeen,although probably like them in equal measure.

The conundrum must come when you have a 1/2/300 year old golf club, that has a modern clubhouse, like Cruden. Due to it being a traditional, old course do you mark it up based on that, despite it having a new clubhouse? What do you think?

I think part of the experience for me is the history of the course aswell. Knowing your walking on turf that golf has been played on for 100's of years, and the test you face is pretty much the same as it was it era's gone by. Also, the subtlety of the test is different on the older courses. I loved Castle Stuart, the holes along the estuary blew me away, as did most holes at Trump. But, just for me, they didn't get the juices flowing like Dornoch or Carnoustie did.

Regarding clubhouses, your it's interesting........Tbh, when I think of my favourite courses (and my own list that I keep) I've just realised right now that I don't even consider the clubhouse, or the 'whole' experience. I'm always just dying to get out on the course.

 

[2blue]

i'm not sure the club house can make much difference to how the course is rated TBH

Take Royal Dornoch for instance a raise in the ranking this time and the club house is not all that, poor rchanging facilities miles from the 18th green and a bit dated, but scored better than last time and must just be for the fantastic course.

Agreed.... same would apply to
Silloth regarding Clubhouse (not the tucker however) 🍴 & it's moved up

 

[pendodave]

Was browsing though the mag the other day and saw this article.

There are 36 people on the selection panel. None of them are women.

This seems a little lopsided. Not altogether surprising, given GMs coverage of Charley Hull's recent victory, but still a little remiss.

After all, most courses play differently off the Ladies tees. Most clubhouses have different facilities for Ladies. Some may even treat them differently or make them drink somewhere else afterwards. Is none of this of any relevance when selecting a ranking of courses? I would have thought it was. GM reminds me of a lot of golf clubs; lip service paid, old habits die hard...

 

[huds1475]

Fleetwood is as au naturelle as they come, still doesnt make it better than Castle Stuart......or Hillside.

Stoppit. Stoppit!

 

[Bazzatron]

Don't get to play many of the links courses living smack bang in the middle of the country, will take years to knock those off. Need to get Belfry and the two Notts ones done at least

 

[Liverbirdie]

I think part of the experience for me is the history of the course aswell. Knowing your walking on turf that golf has been played on for 100's of years, and the test you face is pretty much the same as it was it era's gone by. Also, the subtlety of the test is different on the older courses. I loved Castle Stuart, the holes along the estuary blew me away, as did most holes at Trump. But, just for me, they didn't get the juices flowing like Dornoch or Carnoustie did.

Regarding clubhouses, your it's interesting........Tbh, when I think of my favourite courses (and my own list that I keep) I've just realised right now that I don't even consider the clubhouse, or the 'whole' experience. I'm always just dying to get out on the course.

I see your point, but I think like most, you will look at the sign on the door, or on the club badge which tells you how old it is, but can you tell if it was re-modelled in the 30's/50's or even later, sometimes not always "respectfully".

 

[Hobbit]

Having gone through the list of the top 100 and the next 100 I've always looked for where I've played and, obviously, do I agree with the rating. One thing is obvious from my own ratings is the ones I've played well I've rated as high or higher but those I've played badly struggle to get to the published rating for me. I'd be surprised if this aspect doesn't impact on the scores by the 'official' raters. How do they maintain enough objectivity on a rank bad day?

However, apart from a few positions, especially in the top 20, I'd say its a great bucket list for anyone wanting to schedule their golf for the next x years.

That aside, there's a few I wouldn't miss if they weren't in there. The Woburn's and Formby. The Woburn's I just didn't enjoy, but that was a wayward day off the tee that just became a drudge. Formby, apart from a couple of holes, was instantly forgettable. It did nothing for me at all to make it stand above so many courses that aren't listed. But as so many people rate them highly, especially Formby, I think I need a revisit.

I do find that the welcome in the pro shop and the clubhouse do go a long way towards whether or not I'd want to revisit. Cruden Bay this year was one of the best welcome's ever, and 16 of the best holes in golf too - pity about 10 & 11. 11 would be sorted with better drainage but 10 needs a major revamp to take it to make it something more memorable than a great view up and down the coast. Royal West Norfolk's clubhouse has fantastic boards with many illustrious names, and great food too. But isn't it great to come off a stunning course and find a clubhouse with comfy chairs that you can sit and chew the fat for hours.

Nice to see my home club creep in there, and with the winter work ongoing it would be nice to see them climb higher the #100.

So many great courses but where to go next?