I just noticed that Golf Digest’s Top 100 in the US for 2009 is out.
Who cares?
A brief perusal of the list has the usual suspects: Pine Valley, Cyprus Point, Augusta National, Shinnecock Hills, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, Merion, Sand Hills, National Golf Links of America and Pacific Dunes are the top ten. Of those, eight are private, and two are so expensive as to be unreasonable. In the top 50, I counted eight that I actually could play—and most of those only if I took out a loan to pay the resort fees.
Of more interest would be the Top 100 you can actually play if you are a working stiff. GolfWeek’s list of the best public courses is a much more useful resource.
Perhaps the only people for whom that makes a difference are the members of the clubs listed. Gives them something to brag about, I suppose.
Discover more from GolfBlogger Golf Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Golf Blogger’s comments are so true. Most of the courses on the list are there because they were on the list last year.
I recall one former member of a rating panel being miffed that a list placed Crystal Downs above Augusta National. I think the list was the top “traditional” courses, whatever that was supposed to mean.
Of course, the former rater had never seen Crystal Downs, much less played there. Still, he was certain that Augusta National was more deserving of a higher spot on the list than Crystal Downs.
I couldn’t agree more. Does anyone know Golf Digest’s methodology for ranking courses? What’s the grading criteria? Who plays these “top” courses and how often? If I remember right it was all pretty vague. This would suggest some political nonsense going on. I’d like to see the “Top 100 you can play under $100” list.
I FIND IT IS ALWAYS POPULAR TO CONFUSE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFFORDABILITY AND THE BEST. I UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE COURSES IN THE TOP 100 ARE OUT OF MY PRICE RANGE AND LOCATION, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE THEM LESS DESIRABLE TO PLAY. The list is about dreaming, don’t take it so seriously.