Golf.com Top 100 Courses in the World (2019)

[Rippy_72]

1 hour ago, phan52 said:

#15 is the hole where my frustration peaked. I don't have a lot of length so I knew I couldn't hit it in three without three heroic shots. So I hit two decent shots and decided to lay up to my sweet spot of 90-100 yards. I hit a perfect shot, to the middle right of the fairway, but the fairway was so cantered right to left in that spot that the ball rolled into a fairway bunker with a tree in the middle of it. Who puts a tree in the middle of a fairway bunker, a scrub tree at that?

I just watched a drone video of the 15th, I see the little tree.  I think that is new.  There are also bunkers on the right side of the green.  There used to be these PITA trees there.  I usually had to play my third with those in my way.  It has been a maybe 12-15 years since I was there, so, that little tree could be new.  

3 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Someone who understands that bunkers are to be avoided. 

A bunker in the middle of the fairway is legitimate and one can decide to take the risk or not.  Two hazards wrapped in one isn't legitimate (tree and bunker).   I put my teeshot in the 10 yard wide fairway to the right of it.   Nonetheless, it is a silly place for both a tree and a bunker to live together.  If the tree was very small?  Maybe.  But you have to lay back so far, making the hole 8 iron, 8 iron.  Weird.  Just my opinion,

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Tree inside bunkers is like layering purgatory onto hell in the bloody middle of the fairway.  What was Alister mackenzie smoking?

It's irrelevant what's under the trees: you don't want to be there anyway. If it was long grass, or ice plant, or sandy waste area, or even just fairway, you'd still be right behind trees. The fact that it's sand… so what?

For all we know Mackenzie thought he might remove the trees eventually, but he grew to like them, and so left them. The bunkers don't change the strategy of the hole, because the play is still to hit something 200 yards and then hit something 150 yards to the green.

38 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Two hazards wrapped in one isn't legitimate (tree and bunker).

It's one hazard, as a whole. It's comprised of two parts, but it's one hazard.

[Rippy_72]

I suppose it is like hitting over the hotel on the 17th at the old course, except it is easy to do that there.  To me, it is one or the other.  Tree or bunker.  If it is tree and one wishes to take it on, low punch cut shots or pretty easy whereas that unkept, fluffy sand, you can't easily he a low one under.  Given that the to previous holes are extremely penal, this bunker/tree combination is too much and does not feel natural, the tree is natural.  Sticking bunkers around it looks terrible to my eye.   I know my aversion to tree in bunker isn't limited to me, plenty of people don't care for it nor do they care for the 18th there.  I am sure Doak devotees would be fine with a tree inside a bunker in the middle of a fairway whereas modernists like Nicklaus would not.  It is just personal opinion.  I think the tree is perfect, without the bunker.   I am also not fond a forced layup due to a stream on a par 4. Some quirkiness is fine but then going to the 18th?  

My memory could be wrong and I had a lousy caddy.  It was very foggy.  I could not see the tree,  He had me play on a line with a 3 wood or maybe 1 iron.   I get out there and my God, he put me on a stupid line.  But, I had a flipper in.  I think the hole is only 330-340 yards and the tree is at 230 off the tee.   The proper play is short left, maybe a 170-190 yards and then 170 yards in from the white tees.   170 over the cliff isn't exactly an easy shot for the average golfer.  For a better player, the hole becomes maybe 6-7 iron and 7 iron or something like that.  Now when we have balata or featheries, this hole would have been fun.  Wait, I did play it with balata.

I suppose all great courses have a quirky hole.  The architect tries to stir you up.  Might be a good topic.  Favorite quirky holes that you love to hate.

[leftybutnotPM]

1 hour ago, Rippy_72 said:

I

A bunker in the middle of the fairway is legitimate and one can decide to take the risk or not.  Two hazards wrapped in one isn't legitimate (tree and bunker). 

 A tree isn't a hazard and the fact that it is there makes your decision easy. Avoid it at all costs. You may as well say about the 15th at Augusta: "Who puts a creek in front of a green where the front of the green slopes towards the water and people are hitting shots with backspin."

You deliberately avoid Out of Bounds, Penalty Areas and places where you aren't going to get out without drama.

 

But then, I notice you said about Pine Valley: "I have seen one of the two par 5 holes hit in two shots....once."

So what? Par fives aren't supposed to be hit in 2 shots. And if they are a good design you'll often find that unless you are in the perfect part of the green for 2 you'll have a difficult time 2 putting and will wish your third shot was from 100 yards out.

Edited February 12, 2020 by leftybutnotPM

[iacas]

27 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

To me, it is one or the other.  Tree or bunker.

Again, the bunker is irrelevant. Anything could be under the trees, and the hole would basically be exactly the same.

27 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Sticking bunkers around it looks terrible to my eye.

You get to have your opinion there (I disagree; if it was a sandy waste area, I think you'd think the tree looked fine and natural), but I think that's playing a larger role than you want to admit.

27 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

The proper play is short left, maybe a 170-190 yards and then 170 yards in from the white tees.

200 and then 150. The hole is about 350, and the trees are about 250. At least according to Google Earth, which I take as accurate.

That's a decent place to discuss more CPC-specific stuff.

18 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

A tree isn't a hazard

Hard disagree… since the word "hazard" is no longer defined by the Rules, we get to use the English definition of the word.

[leftybutnotPM]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

 

Hard disagree… since the word "hazard" is no longer defined by the Rules, we get to use the English definition of the word.

I was going on the terminology of the person I was responding to.

"Two hazards wrapped in one isn't legitimate (tree and bunker)."

[Golfingdad]

On 1/30/2020 at 7:16 AM, phan52 said:

Yeah, I'm not. I just belong to a club built by George Thomas and am surrounded everywhere in the Philly area by clubs built by people like Tillinghast, Flynn and Ross, so what do I know? BTW, I did rank Pine Valley in my top 5 so I don't know where you get me dissing the place. It's just not my cup of tee because, yes, it is overly penal. 

You ranked it 5th out of the 6 you've played, but you didn't say anything beyond that ranking-wise.   The only conclusion that can be made from your rankings is that you like it better than National Golf Links.  For all we know, those could be your 999th and 2000th rated courses overall.

For the record, and I really don't mean to brag here but I can't help it ... I have played precisely ZERO of these courses. 😉  I've been to Pebble to watch the pro am once.  I've tried to peek over a fence at Cypress, and I took a wrong turn and actually drove [a car, not a golf ball] onto the grounds of Riviera once as well (like almost drove onto the 1st fairway).  That's as close as I've been to any of these. :)

[phan52]

22 hours ago, Rippy_72 said:

  First time playing it, they had the caddies quickly go ahead to the 15th tee box and move the markers on the back tees to align with the 16th green across the water.  I get there and the caddy hands me the driver.  Just before I was going to pull the club back, they all busted out laughing.  Me:  great, anyone got TP?

They did the same thing to my brother's father in law.😃

[phan52]

21 hours ago, Rippy_72 said:

 

My memory could be wrong and I had a lousy caddy.  It was very foggy.  I could not see the tree,  He had me play on a line with a 3 wood or maybe 1 iron.   I get out there and my God, he put me on a stupid line.  But, I had a flipper in.  I think the hole is only 330-340 yards and the tree is at 230 off the tee.   The proper play is short left, maybe a 170-190 yards and then 170 yards in from the white tees.   170 over the cliff isn't exactly an easy shot for the average golfer.  For a better player, the hole becomes maybe 6-7 iron and 7 iron or something like that.  Now when we have balata or featheries, this hole would have been fun.  Wait, I did play it with balata.

 

We had a beautiful day and we could see Big Sur from the 17th tee. I didn't take on the cliff; I hit it to the left and tried to hit it far enough to keep the tree out of play but didn't pull it off (I am not very long). I hit a wedge over the left side of the tree and had a short pitch in. One of my playing partners, who hits it about as long as I do off the tee, took it down the right side near the cliff and had a mid-iron into the green with a clear shot.

One thing for certain, it is one of the more beautiful locations for a golf course on the planet. Our caddies were terrific. It was a good day.

[NZ Golfer]

Great to see my country has a couple in the top50 ... one day I'll play them when I'm single HC 

[golfnut71]

I just went through the list.  I have played 13, but most are top heavy.  

Oakmont

Fishers Island

Sand Hills

Chicago GC

Winged Foot

National Golf Links

Quaker Ridge

Inverness

Los Angeles CC (North)

Riviera

Prarie Dunes

Pinehurst #2

Pebble Beach

[chilepepper]

Not to dump on the top100 courses , it’s all well and good. But for the most part these are places I’ll never play. Primarily due to cost. 
id like to see the top 100 sub $100 courses. I’ve never seen this list compiled

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/17/2020 at 10:35 AM, chilepepper said:

Not to dump on the top100 courses , it’s all well and good. But for the most part these are places I’ll never play. Primarily due to cost. 
id like to see the top 100 sub $100 courses. I’ve never seen this list compiled

I'm with you cp! Give me well designed and maintained courses that are affordable to play. Today we played Windmill Lakes, an upscale daily fee course here in NE Ohio. As a senior I paid 30 bucks! Going rate for everyone else was $42! Nice discount! And it's one helluva course!