Top 100 Rankings - inability to play many courses

[3puttmaster]

I appreciate that the above listings are subjective. After all, we all play certain types of courses we like (links, parkland etc) and swerve those we dislike or don't enjoy. I get that and I also appreciate only too well the different facets of what can possibly make a course good or bad. For example, the welcome on arrival, the overall conditioning, level of challenge etc.

However, what I don't get is the fact that time after time in the various listings, we see the same courses that the vast majority, probably 95% of us golfers will never have a chance of playing. Just look at the Top 10 in the latest Golf World Top 100 Courses in the World; there are 5 courses (Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Augusta National, Shinnecock Hills & Oakmont) that us mere mortals haven't a hope of playing. What is the point of including them when only a select few may just get the chance if their Great Uncle Bob knows mega rich Chuck who just happens to be a member at Pine Valley and can get you a game. I know I'm being sarcastic but you get the point.

For example. In 2015 I was lucky enough to visit California and got to play Pebble Beach. OK, it cost me about $500 but it was a once in a lifetime experience and I was able to play it. But, despite writing in advance to Cypress Point I was not allowed to play unless I could find one of their supposed 200 members to sign me in. This they were very strict on and despite visiting the club whilst there and literally pleading, I wasn't allowed to play. Not that it makes much difference, but I'm no hacker either and play off single figures.

My point is this! I feel strongly that if a club truly wants to be included in these listings then it has to allow visitors, or non members to play. It can set the parameters for allowing this to happen. Let's say, contact in advance, letter of introduction, whatever they may be but to just say you must be introduced by a member is not cutting it in my eyes. I know there'll be those who say "Well they're a private club so they can let in who they want". Well that's fine, but just don't expect to be included in these prestigious rankings if that's how they want to play it.

Sunningdale, Valderrama, Pebble Beach and many other wonderful venues can do it and their courses don't suffer. So, why can't others if they want to be included in the listings and feed off the notoriety it gives them?

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I feel your pain brother! Fortunately, the situation you describe applies more to the USA with their private/country clubs than it does here. There are a small number of courses in the UK top 100 that don't allow visitors (Loch Lomond, Wisley and soon Wentworth) but the majority do so if you have the funds you can play them.
To be fair though, if I was paying a kings ransom to be a member somewhere exclusive, I would want to be able to walk onto the course at any time and not have to worry about visiting riff raff!

 

[3puttmaster]

I feel your pain brother! Fortunately, the situation you describe applies more to the USA with their private/country clubs than it does here. There are a small number of courses in the UK top 100 that don't allow visitors (Loch Lomond, Wisley and soon Wentworth) but the majority do so if you have the funds you can play them.
To be fair though, if I was paying a kings ransom to be a member somewhere exclusive, I would want to be able to walk onto the course at any time and not have to worry about visiting riff raff!

Fair comments.

I understand your angle regarding that if you've paid a huge fee then you wouldn't want 'riff raft' playing there at the same time as you but as I said, that is where I think the owners have to make the decision. Wentworth is a good example with their new Chinese owners. I'm sure they want the exclusivity of having the PGA Championship there every May and to introduce their ridiculous new fees etc but would they lose sleep if they couldn't be included in the Top 100 rankings if they didn't let visitors play? It's difficult to say but I'd be tempted to think that it might sway their thinking if the Chief Executive made them aware their hallowed turf was being excluded due to their unwillingness to accommodate visitors.

 

[Norrin Radd]

who votes for these courses anyway ,it cant be joe public or the like .

 

[Hobbit]

I'd like the powers that run the game telling the mega exclusive clubs that if they wanted to be included on the various championship rota they need to set sensible accessibility criteria.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The OP makes a very good point. I suggest that playability falls a long way down the criteria on making these decisions.

 

[Ethan]

This is common in the US. Loads of clubs are private and you haven't a sniff of getting on unless you know a member. Cypress Point and Augusta are amongst the most difficult but there are quite a few rivals. A few might let you on if you get your pro at a reputable club to write. 'Royal' is probably helpful. Americans like that.

Ratings are done by panels of course rates. These include pros, architects and others who gave a rather better can at than you or I of playing these places. They also tend to look at the last years list and then decide what should move up or down, in or out, so there is a lot of inertia in it.

I have played loads of golf over the years on holiday and countless cuisines trips and during that time I have played 1 private course, a pleasant but modest course near Chicago and had an invite to play Lake Nona but then put my knee out so couldn't. These days I wouldn't even look at private courses. Not worth the time trying.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Why should these courses provide access? Just because we play Golf doesn't mean we should have access to every course.
I'm sure there are thousands of amatuer tennis players who dream of playing a match on the centre court at Wimbledon or Footballers that would like to play at Wembley, but by never getting access doesn't deny those venues holding their world ranking.

 

[Ethan]

Why should these courses provide access? Just because we play Golf doesn't mean we should have access to every course.
I'm sure there are thousands of amatuer tennis players who dream of playing a match on the centre court at Wimbledon or Footballers that would like to play at Wembley, but by never getting access doesn't deny those venues holding their world ranking.

I don't think the debate is whether they should provide access. In the US you have no right to healthcare, so you certainly have none to golf. The debate is whether the ratings lists should tantalise average golfers with courses they will never even get in the gates of.

One way they partially deal with this is a second list of courses you can play, public access or other similar terms. http://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/americas-100-greatest-public-courses-ranking

Not a bad list at all.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I don't think the debate is whether they should provide access. In the US you have no right to healthcare, so you certainly have none to golf. The debate is whether the ratings lists should tantalise average golfers with courses they will never even get in the gates of.

One way they partially deal with this is a second list of courses you can play, public access or other similar terms. http://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/americas-100-greatest-public-courses-ranking

Not a bad list at all.

But regardless of access or money or location, some would still like to know the top 100 courses, it doesn't only apply to the US.

 

[pbrown7582]

But regardless of access or money or location, some would still like to know the top 100 courses, it doesn't only apply to the US.

I agree with this the top 100 courses of the world is just that in the eyes of the review panel, ( a description of the criteria is in the new issue of the mag)
If it were called the top 100 courses you can play then it would be a different list.

It's also subjective as I'm sure there's plenty who will debate No.4 on the list..........

 

[Snelly]

Life isn't fair and that is in essence, why I cannot go and play Cypress Point when I am in the area next May. It is just the way it is.

I am still keen to know what the best courses in the world are though, even if I will never play them, simply because it is an interesting thing to learn and ponder over.

Not much point in whining about it as it won't make the blindest bit of difference.

 

[Ethan]

Life isn't fair and that is in essence, why I cannot go and play Cypress Point when I am in the area next May. It is just the way it is.

I am still keen to know what the best courses in the world are though, even if I will never play them, simply because it is an interesting thing to learn and ponder over.

Not much point in whining about it as it won't make the blindest bit of difference.

I was at a EAGT event and some of the staff were talking about a forthcoming event to Pebble Beach. One of them said that a member of the group was playing Cypress Point the day before Pebble. I asked how he managed to swing that, and the guy said he got in through Arnold. Arnold Who, I asked. Palmer, he said. OK.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

One thing about golf that sets it apart from any other sport is that WE ordinary players can play the same courses that the greats of our game have played.

I've played holes that Tiger has played

How many Sunday league footy players get to play Wembley? Or cricketers play at Lords?

Therefore the idea of limiting access unless you know someone is something I'm not happy with,
By all means have a private exclusive club, but don't expect it to be in the top 100 lists unless I have the right to play there

 

[Deleted member 16999]

One thing about golf that sets it apart from any other sport is that WE ordinary players can play the same courses that the greats of our game have played.

I've played holes that Tiger has played

How many Sunday league footy players get to play Wembley? Or cricketers play at Lords?

Therefore the idea of limiting access unless you know someone is something I'm not happy with,
By all means have a private exclusive club, but don't expect it to be in the top 100 lists unless I have the right to play there

But amatuer footballers or cricketers would love to play at those locations, You more than likely have a driving license, do you feel you have the right to drive a formula 1 car around Silverstone? Why do we golfers believe we have a divine right to play any course?

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I not saying we do, and obviously some will be at a prohibitive price. The point I am making is that if the course wants the kudos of being a top 100 course, then it should have a fair visitor policy .

If it's totally exclusive then fine, just don't include it in the top 100

Or maybe we need a top 100 courses that we could play

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I not saying we do, and obviously some will be at a prohibitive price. The point I am making is that if the course wants the kudos of being a top 100 course, then it should have a fair visitor policy .

If it's totally exclusive then fine, just don't include it in the top 100

Or maybe we need a top 100 courses that we could play

Yep, 2 lists, the top 100 available and a top 100.

 

[SammmeBee]

I don't know any courses that you can't get on - it may have to be with a Member but you can get on. Don't see the problem really......

 

[Val]

The top 100 should be courses you should be able to book and pay your fee and play. From memory Jezz said the latest GM top 100 only had 2, Loch Lomond and The Rennaisance and for me regardless of quality the shouldn't have been included

 

[BTatHome]

If the course charges £5000 per round would it still be included on the 'courses you can play' list?

As soon as you introduce another list the criteria for being accepted onto that list needs qualifying too, and cost would be a huge factor in that. My limit on round costs would be hugely lower than many of that list too!