No. 5: Pacific Dunes (Oregon, USA)
Of all of the modern courses that I’ve seen, perhaps none is more important than Pacific Dunes. While it was neither the first course at Bandon Dunes, the father of 21st century golf destinations, nor Tom Doak’s first course, it is the course that established Doak’s reputation as the go-to architect if you had a great piece of property. It’s the course that made Doak’s career, transforming him from a guy known mostly for his controversial writings into one whose name is at or near the top of the list for every big new project. So I think it’s a seminal course among modern courses, surpassed in importance perhaps only by Sand Hills.
Both before and after Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak was known for building courses with heavily contoured greens. But of all the Doak courses that I’ve played (probably 7 or 8), Pacific Dunes has the least-contoured greens. Instead, Pacific Dunes’ greens are often narrow and angled to favor a shot coming from a certain part of the fairway, placing a premium on driving and especially iron play. There’s a big controversy about whether angles matter but most seem to agree that when the ground is firm, they matter because you need a longer runway into your target destination. And on this sandy, windy seaside site, the ground is likely to be firm, making this a very good foundational concept for the course.
Still, there’s a lot of danger around these greens and it’s often wise to play conservatively into them, identifying the safe side and playing towards it. But this still requires precision, in addition to course knowledge and discipline, making Pacific Dunes probably the toughest course at the resort. It’s a good thing that Doak didn’t heavily contour the putting surfaces, which would have made it all a bit much. I wish that the restraint that Doak showed here had been more influential on modern architecture.
The other noteworthy thing about Pacific Dunes is its odd mix of holes, with four par 3s and 3 par 5s on the back nine. While the sand dunes and ocean frontage make Pacific Dunes a great piece of property, it has some limitations relative to the other great properties of the past few decades. The property is not that large, it’s narrow and awkward in spots, and good chunk of the middle is less topographically interesting. Rather than move a lot of earth or allow for a few bad holes, Doak chose an unconventional mix of holes. It was a brilliant idea and helped prove that Doak wasn’t just a guy who could write brilliantly, but could develop brilliant solutions in practice.
And, of course, there are many great holes. While each of the three opening holes is very good, the first great hole is the long par 4 4th, one of two long holes running along the coast. This hole is obviously spectacular, but it’s also a good example of how combining a spectacular feature with simple design elements can make a great hole. Because of the flat land here, Doak needed to do something to make a hole here something more than a pretty picture. He did this with three elements: (1) a cluster of bunkers on the left in the driving zone, (2) a second cluster short and left of the green, and (3) a narrow, deep green angled toward the right side of the fairway. This strongly favors a drive that hugs the coastline. Simple and brilliant, taking full advantage of a great natural feature.
Of all of the modern courses that I’ve seen, perhaps none is more important than Pacific Dunes. While it was neither the first course at Bandon Dunes, the father of 21st century golf destinations, nor Tom Doak’s first course, it is the course that established Doak’s reputation as the go-to architect if you had a great piece of property. It’s the course that made Doak’s career, transforming him from a guy known mostly for his controversial writings into one whose name is at or near the top of the list for every big new project. So I think it’s a seminal course among modern courses, surpassed in importance perhaps only by Sand Hills.
Both before and after Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak was known for building courses with heavily contoured greens. But of all the Doak courses that I’ve played (probably 7 or 8), Pacific Dunes has the least-contoured greens. Instead, Pacific Dunes’ greens are often narrow and angled to favor a shot coming from a certain part of the fairway, placing a premium on driving and especially iron play. There’s a big controversy about whether angles matter but most seem to agree that when the ground is firm, they matter because you need a longer runway into your target destination. And on this sandy, windy seaside site, the ground is likely to be firm, making this a very good foundational concept for the course.
Still, there’s a lot of danger around these greens and it’s often wise to play conservatively into them, identifying the safe side and playing towards it. But this still requires precision, in addition to course knowledge and discipline, making Pacific Dunes probably the toughest course at the resort. It’s a good thing that Doak didn’t heavily contour the putting surfaces, which would have made it all a bit much. I wish that the restraint that Doak showed here had been more influential on modern architecture.
The other noteworthy thing about Pacific Dunes is its odd mix of holes, with four par 3s and 3 par 5s on the back nine. While the sand dunes and ocean frontage make Pacific Dunes a great piece of property, it has some limitations relative to the other great properties of the past few decades. The property is not that large, it’s narrow and awkward in spots, and good chunk of the middle is less topographically interesting. Rather than move a lot of earth or allow for a few bad holes, Doak chose an unconventional mix of holes. It was a brilliant idea and helped prove that Doak wasn’t just a guy who could write brilliantly, but could develop brilliant solutions in practice.
And, of course, there are many great holes. While each of the three opening holes is very good, the first great hole is the long par 4 4th, one of two long holes running along the coast. This hole is obviously spectacular, but it’s also a good example of how combining a spectacular feature with simple design elements can make a great hole. Because of the flat land here, Doak needed to do something to make a hole here something more than a pretty picture. He did this with three elements: (1) a cluster of bunkers on the left in the driving zone, (2) a second cluster short and left of the green, and (3) a narrow, deep green angled toward the right side of the fairway. This strongly favors a drive that hugs the coastline. Simple and brilliant, taking full advantage of a great natural feature.
The run of great holes continues from here. I loved the par 3 5th, playing back up into the dunes with plenty of safe space at the front-left but where challenging back pins courts danger. The short par 4 6th may be inland, but deploys a similar concept as the 4th to similar great effect. While there’s almost endless fairway left, the elevated, narrow green opens toward the right side of the fairway. The angle into the green from the left side of the fairway is very awkward and it might be best—even for shots less than 100 yards—to play to the front of the green to avoid the nasty bunker left and the steep runoff at the back-right. 7 is another long par 4, but one with a generous where the premium is on driving distance into the heavily bunkered green and approach. The mid-length par 4 8th is the rare dogleg where the best angle in is at the outside of the dogleg and the challenge with the drive is to get as close to a clump of trees there as you can without going in them.
What stands out about the back nine is how often you have to shift gears between holes. That’s in part because of the unconventional mix of holes—4 par 3s, 3 par 5s, and only 2 par 4s—but also because the routing changes directions several times and the wind makes even similar length holes play very different from each other. The terrain on much of the back is flatter and Doak used par 5s to eat up this less interesting terrain, making prolific use of bunkers on each of them. But you might not notice many of the bunkers because Doak located them at a variety of distances and whether they come into play is a function of the wind, which changes direction at different times of the year. I found the par 5 12th to be quite open and simple, but that might not be the case in the summer when the wind comes more from the north and several of the bunkers that I ignored come into play. The opposite was true on the 15th and especially the very long, tight par 5 18th. I noticed all the bunkers on those.
To be sure, there are several great holes on the back as well. The short par 3 11th and long par 4 13th play along the coast and often feature in the resort’s promotional material. The former is an especially brilliant short par 3 and exemplifies a classic design principle, one which is used repeatedly on Pacific Dunes—the deeper you go into the green, the greater danger you court. But it’s also possible to use the slopes right of the green to work one into the tight back section. The 13th, with its green set against a massive sand blowout, isn’t quite as demanding as 4 from the tee and there’s a bit more room on the approach. But what seemed to me to be ample space might not seem so ample if the hole had been playing into the wind.
For me, it’s a pretty close call between Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trails as to which is the best course at Bandon. The irony in comparing the two is that I think Pacific Dunes is disadvantaged by its property. It may have the coastline, but much of the terrain is less interesting and the property is less expansive. And I think Bandon Trails is prettier.
But the relative disadvantages of this site make Doak’s course all the more impressive. Many architects would have failed to build 18 functional holes here, let alone 18 that work collectively and individually. Doak’s unconventional routing and mix of holes are the key to this. Moreover, Pacific Dunes doesn’t suffer from over-designed green complexes like several other Doak courses. It’s still very difficult, but the difficulty is at the sides of the greens and you can reduce the danger significantly by learning where the better places to miss are and hedging in those directions. I wonder if, knowing the limitations of the site, Doak decided to keep his design features in check, as I suspect Mike Strantz did at Caledonia. Or it could have just been that given the success of the first Bandon course, Tom Doak knew that Pacific Dunes could be his big break, poured everything he could into getting it right, and was extra careful to avoid anything that might stir up controversy, something there was already more than enough of surrounding his name.
But the relative disadvantages of this site make Doak’s course all the more impressive. Many architects would have failed to build 18 functional holes here, let alone 18 that work collectively and individually. Doak’s unconventional routing and mix of holes are the key to this. Moreover, Pacific Dunes doesn’t suffer from over-designed green complexes like several other Doak courses. It’s still very difficult, but the difficulty is at the sides of the greens and you can reduce the danger significantly by learning where the better places to miss are and hedging in those directions. I wonder if, knowing the limitations of the site, Doak decided to keep his design features in check, as I suspect Mike Strantz did at Caledonia. Or it could have just been that given the success of the first Bandon course, Tom Doak knew that Pacific Dunes could be his big break, poured everything he could into getting it right, and was extra careful to avoid anything that might stir up controversy, something there was already more than enough of surrounding his name.
No. 4: Royal St. George’s (England, UK)
Of all the courses that have been part of the Open rota for at least a few decades, the one that seems to get the least love is Royal St. George’s. The headline comment on this of course was by Jack Nicklaus, who said that the Open courses ‘get worse the further south you go.’ Well, Royal St. George’s, on the southeast coast of England, is a good few hundred miles south of the next furthest south Open course. So that gives you an idea of what Nicklaus thought of it.
I can understand why professional golfers might take issue with this course. There are a lot of blind shots. And if you’re not hitting it well, there can be a lot more. And the part of the course where there are fewer blind shots—the relatively flat middle of the back nine—more than makes up for this with bunkers, creeks, and OB. Long story short, it’s a very difficult golf course. It’s also probably the most disorienting links course because it’s on a huge piece of property and the holes go every direction imaginable, with two holes rarely facing the same way. This course really throws a lot at you!
But while all of those are sources of frustration if you’re a professional trying to shoot good scores (or at least avoid bad ones) in a big tournament, I think they’re strengths if you’re trying to critique the golf course. Royal St. George’s has so much variety. So many of the holes are completely original. There’s never a spot on the course where holes run together in your mind because each hole is so different from the others and consecutive holes are usually especially different from each other.
The core strength, what enables this incredible variety, is the property, which is about as perfect a piece of linksland as you could imagine. This dimensions of this piece of land are pretty much the opposite of those at Rye—expansive in every direction, offering unlimited routing opportunities. But like Rye, the land consists largely of pretty significant sand dunes, creating a lot of challenges if you want to build playable holes with good visibility. There is a section of the back nine where the dunes become much smaller in scale and form a series of low ridges, which provides an excellent contrast to the wilder landscape of the front nine and gives Royal St. George’s the most diverse set of holes that I’ve seen on a links course.
Like many championship courses, the opening hole here is modest. But the interest picks up quickly. The long par 4 2nd, doglegging left around bunkers and then sand dunes, is a world-class driving hole. And what’s arguably the highlight of the course comes early—the famous long par 4 4th, where we have the option to carry a massive sand dune and bunker up the right side. It’s an important carry to make because the fairway left of this slopes left and your ball is likely to kick into the dunes. Plus the right side of the fairway offers much better visibility and an open ramp into the green, which has to be one of the nastiest on any long par 4 in the world, with a false front seemingly bigger than the flat(tish) part. Still, there’s plenty of safety short of the green. Put this one with Swinley Forest’s 9th and 12th on the list of the world’s best long par 4s.
Of all the courses that have been part of the Open rota for at least a few decades, the one that seems to get the least love is Royal St. George’s. The headline comment on this of course was by Jack Nicklaus, who said that the Open courses ‘get worse the further south you go.’ Well, Royal St. George’s, on the southeast coast of England, is a good few hundred miles south of the next furthest south Open course. So that gives you an idea of what Nicklaus thought of it.
I can understand why professional golfers might take issue with this course. There are a lot of blind shots. And if you’re not hitting it well, there can be a lot more. And the part of the course where there are fewer blind shots—the relatively flat middle of the back nine—more than makes up for this with bunkers, creeks, and OB. Long story short, it’s a very difficult golf course. It’s also probably the most disorienting links course because it’s on a huge piece of property and the holes go every direction imaginable, with two holes rarely facing the same way. This course really throws a lot at you!
But while all of those are sources of frustration if you’re a professional trying to shoot good scores (or at least avoid bad ones) in a big tournament, I think they’re strengths if you’re trying to critique the golf course. Royal St. George’s has so much variety. So many of the holes are completely original. There’s never a spot on the course where holes run together in your mind because each hole is so different from the others and consecutive holes are usually especially different from each other.
The core strength, what enables this incredible variety, is the property, which is about as perfect a piece of linksland as you could imagine. This dimensions of this piece of land are pretty much the opposite of those at Rye—expansive in every direction, offering unlimited routing opportunities. But like Rye, the land consists largely of pretty significant sand dunes, creating a lot of challenges if you want to build playable holes with good visibility. There is a section of the back nine where the dunes become much smaller in scale and form a series of low ridges, which provides an excellent contrast to the wilder landscape of the front nine and gives Royal St. George’s the most diverse set of holes that I’ve seen on a links course.
Like many championship courses, the opening hole here is modest. But the interest picks up quickly. The long par 4 2nd, doglegging left around bunkers and then sand dunes, is a world-class driving hole. And what’s arguably the highlight of the course comes early—the famous long par 4 4th, where we have the option to carry a massive sand dune and bunker up the right side. It’s an important carry to make because the fairway left of this slopes left and your ball is likely to kick into the dunes. Plus the right side of the fairway offers much better visibility and an open ramp into the green, which has to be one of the nastiest on any long par 4 in the world, with a false front seemingly bigger than the flat(tish) part. Still, there’s plenty of safety short of the green. Put this one with Swinley Forest’s 9th and 12th on the list of the world’s best long par 4s.
The rest of the front nine is absolutely outstanding. We face completely blind drives over dune ridges on the approach to the par 4 5th and the drive on the dogleg left par 5 7th. There’s ample safe space on the far side of both, but it’s important to keep your drive close to the dunes on 7 because it can be a long way home otherwise. While I like the famous ‘Maiden’ par 3 6th tucked into the dunes surrounded by bunkers, the best hole in the second half of the front nine is the mid-length par 4 9th, where you drive into a chute between the dunes and then play uphill to a green where neither the angle of the green nor its contours favor a shot played from anywhere in the fairway. But there is ample safe space at the front-right of the green and, because you shouldn’t have too long an approach off a good drive, what’s wrong with requiring solid contact and some trajectory if you want to get it close?
Royal St. George’s character changes on the back nine. We’re pretty much done with the large dunes. But we get a bit of everything else—interesting rippling land, lots of bunkers, and some good flat land architecture. It starts with a bit of an oddity for a links course: the par 4 10th plays uphill to a hilltop green. Then we enter into low dune ridges that run parallel to the course and form the backbone of two of the finest par 4s that I’ve seen: the shortish 12th and the long 13th. The former doglegs right around a cluster of bunkers that creates a great diagonal drive. But the marvel of this hole is the ripples in the fairway, which is one of my favorites on any course. These ripples run down the long 13th which, in keeping with the theme of constant direction changes, doglegs left. But the ripples become softer here and create interest not so much in the fairway as in the green, where they form the primary contours. I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a green that makes such great use of natural contours.
Then it gets tough. The long par 5 14th and long par 4 15th, over relatively flat land, might be the toughest consecutive holes that I’ve seen. The former is famous for the out-of-bounds right and the creek crossing the fairway in the driving zone. I thought that the most brilliant element was the layup, featuring centerline bunkers a la Woking’s 4th. There are bunkers everywhere on the 15th, pinching the fairway and crossing the front of the green, denying you an opportunity to run one on. Like the 9th, this is another one of these holes where there’s no alternative to excellent ball striking if you want to get it on the green. But even more than the 9th, there’s a decision to be made here about where to leave your approach if not going for the pin. It’s a great example of a hole where you’ll be doing damage control most of the time and the interest is in figuring out where that means you should play your shot, given the wind, firmness, etc.
I don’t think that the finishing stretch is quite up to the standard of what’s come before it, but that’s only because the middle of the back nine raises the bar so high. 16—in you’re not Thomas Björn—is a lovely par 3. 17 and 18 are fine long par 4s, the former inviting a run up shot to the wide, shallow green and the latter featuring outstanding green contouring after a tough drive.
The only quibble that I have with Royal St. George’s is about two greens, those on the 3rd and the 8th, which are two-tiered and don’t fit in with the rest of the course. That’s not surprising because these holes were built in the 1970s to replace some—apparently very quirky— blind holes that were deemed unsuitable for an Open championship course. So I guess there’s precedent for the current fad of ‘modernizations’ that have reached a recent low point at Swinley Forest. Although not bad in their own right, I’m sure that these holes don’t improve on what they replaced and probably cost the course some of its character.
Still, there’s more than enough left. Although perfectly suitable for a championship, what’s so great about Royal St. George’s is that it doesn’t appear to be trying to be a championship course. Yes, there are a few holes with a lot of bunkers, but only when the natural terrain provides less of a challenge. And Royal St. George’s doesn’t appear to be trying to be anything else either. It doesn’t remind me of another course. Hell, the holes don’t remind me of each other. This is probably one of the most remarkable, expansive pieces of land for a golf course in the world. Royal St. George’s takes full advantage of that, with the routing seeming to wander around at random, managing to take all of it in and hitting some of the most unique highlights in the world of golf in the process.
Still, there’s more than enough left. Although perfectly suitable for a championship, what’s so great about Royal St. George’s is that it doesn’t appear to be trying to be a championship course. Yes, there are a few holes with a lot of bunkers, but only when the natural terrain provides less of a challenge. And Royal St. George’s doesn’t appear to be trying to be anything else either. It doesn’t remind me of another course. Hell, the holes don’t remind me of each other. This is probably one of the most remarkable, expansive pieces of land for a golf course in the world. Royal St. George’s takes full advantage of that, with the routing seeming to wander around at random, managing to take all of it in and hitting some of the most unique highlights in the world of golf in the process.
No. 3: Sunningdale—Old Course (England, UK)
There are a lot of differences between Royal St. George’s and Sunningdale’s Old Course. Royal St. George’s is on an expansive piece of linksland and poses a stern test for the best golfers in the world. Sunningdale’s Old Course is on a forested piece of heathland, often feels quite intimate, and wouldn’t pose much of a threat to the best golfers in the world (except for ladies and seniors, for whom it’s perfect).
But the one thing they have in common, and which they each have more of than probably any other course on this list, is variety. Both courses are such an incredibly varied collection of golf holes, where no hole reminds you of another on the course and many are completely original in the world of golf. If anything, the degree of variety is even more impressive here because Sunningdale’s property is more consistent and less dramatic throughout.
And one of the sources of the variety here is something that, while not uncommon for a course, is usually a negative rather than a positive: the Old is the work of two architects, Willie Park Jr. and Harry Colt. Now in many of those cases, the latter architect thoroughly revised the course, remaking it in his style (think Robert Trent Jones Sr. at Oakland Hills). But the Old is the less common case where the two styles occur alongside each other. This usually doesn’t go well (think Fazio at Inverness).
But it works brilliantly here. And that’s not because Park and Colt’s features resemble each other. They don’t. Park’s style is more minimalist, with lay-of-the-land greens, Fowler-esque earthworks dotting the landscape, and high tolerance for blindness. Colt’s approach is much more modern, with heavily shaped green complexes often benched into hillsides, diagonal lines of bunkers guarding approaches, and good sight lines.
Yet these styles are found on the parts of the property where they, respectively, fit well, creating a course that is able to do very different things in different places without loss of visual cohesion. We get the classic Colt uphill par 3s to hillside greens (4, 8) and approaches over diagonal bunker complexes to long par 4s (12). But we also get an odd blind drives (2, 11) and greens that just look like the mowed the grass down to green height (14). And then we get a few holes that combine these elements (7, 16).
There are a lot of differences between Royal St. George’s and Sunningdale’s Old Course. Royal St. George’s is on an expansive piece of linksland and poses a stern test for the best golfers in the world. Sunningdale’s Old Course is on a forested piece of heathland, often feels quite intimate, and wouldn’t pose much of a threat to the best golfers in the world (except for ladies and seniors, for whom it’s perfect).
But the one thing they have in common, and which they each have more of than probably any other course on this list, is variety. Both courses are such an incredibly varied collection of golf holes, where no hole reminds you of another on the course and many are completely original in the world of golf. If anything, the degree of variety is even more impressive here because Sunningdale’s property is more consistent and less dramatic throughout.
And one of the sources of the variety here is something that, while not uncommon for a course, is usually a negative rather than a positive: the Old is the work of two architects, Willie Park Jr. and Harry Colt. Now in many of those cases, the latter architect thoroughly revised the course, remaking it in his style (think Robert Trent Jones Sr. at Oakland Hills). But the Old is the less common case where the two styles occur alongside each other. This usually doesn’t go well (think Fazio at Inverness).
But it works brilliantly here. And that’s not because Park and Colt’s features resemble each other. They don’t. Park’s style is more minimalist, with lay-of-the-land greens, Fowler-esque earthworks dotting the landscape, and high tolerance for blindness. Colt’s approach is much more modern, with heavily shaped green complexes often benched into hillsides, diagonal lines of bunkers guarding approaches, and good sight lines.
Yet these styles are found on the parts of the property where they, respectively, fit well, creating a course that is able to do very different things in different places without loss of visual cohesion. We get the classic Colt uphill par 3s to hillside greens (4, 8) and approaches over diagonal bunker complexes to long par 4s (12). But we also get an odd blind drives (2, 11) and greens that just look like the mowed the grass down to green height (14). And then we get a few holes that combine these elements (7, 16).
All of this adds up to a course where hole after hole, you feel that you’re seeing something new and special. The rolling, forested property is very good, but not uniquely so. Yet several of these holes are just mesmerizing, with so many different types of settings. And there are a lot of surprises. There are moments when the course is giving you a certain vibe and then bam…the next hole is completely different. There are some weird moments out there, especially some of the blind shots. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a course with such an original personality. It’s about as charming as a golf course can get.
And it gets off to an incredibly fast start. The first is a short and simple par 5, but I loved its scattered mounds and lay-of-the-land green. The second is par 4 sharing some of these same features, but is extremely difficult. Both shots are semi-blind and the entryway to the shallow green is narrow between a deep bunker and heather. Like some of the holes at Royal St. George’s this one is often about damage control. It’s probably harder to make a four here than on the first.
And it gets off to an incredibly fast start. The first is a short and simple par 5, but I loved its scattered mounds and lay-of-the-land green. The second is par 4 sharing some of these same features, but is extremely difficult. Both shots are semi-blind and the entryway to the shallow green is narrow between a deep bunker and heather. Like some of the holes at Royal St. George’s this one is often about damage control. It’s probably harder to make a four here than on the first.
One of the most noteworthy things about Sunningdale’s Old Course is its awesome collection of short par 4s, perhaps the best that I’ve seen. The 3rd is easily drivable but it’s important to stick to the heavily bunkered right side so that you can play into the slope of the two-tiered green, where the high tier is on the left. 9 is even more easily drivable at ~275 yards but the approach into the green is heavily bunkered and I’m not sure I’ve seen a shot where the angle is as important as if they stick the pin on the narrow shelf in the back-right over the bunker. The 11th is strange and wonderful; completely blind over a hill and bunker, with trees tightly guarding the line to the green. You can play out to the left, but this leaves a very awkward angle into the small green. I’m not sure about the virtues of the trees guarding the fairway so closely—the thick heather over there would be deterrent enough. But then again, for today’s young bomber, they’re probably what this hole needs.
Sunningdale’s two most famous holes are probably the mid-length, downhill par 4 5th and the uphill, long par 4 10th. Both, especially the latter with its large, heavily contoured green, are fine holes. But I don’t think that these two holes stand out. One hole that stood out to me was the par 4 7th. After playing two beautiful, open holes, we get to the tee here and…what the hell is this? There’s a big hill and a bunker right in front of the tee. It’s one of the strangest looking blind drives I’ve seen, completely incongruous with what we’ve seen so far. Then we crest the hill and…absolute splendor. I’ve never been so surprised on a golf course. The approach up to the Colt green is one of the prettiest I’ve seen anywhere. This was the moment, I thought, where the Old went from being a great course to a special one.
The back nine is a procession of great moments too, with great Colt long par 4 over diagonal bunkers to shelf green (12), a wonderful short par 5 over a variety of bunkers and heather-covered mounds terminating at the most beautiful, simple lay-of-the-land green, and 3 fine longer par 4s to close. I especially loved the 17th, the longest of the three closing par 4s, which, like the 8th at Pacific Dunes, favors a drive to the outside of the dogleg near a clump of trees for the best angle into green over crossing bunkers. The 18th, over crossing bunkers to a green set in front of the clubhouse and an ancient oak tree, is one of the most perfect finishing settings.
And that’s not everything that’s great about the Old. With the exception of maybe the downhill 13th, it has a fine set of par 3s, two being uphill and very recognizably Colt (4, 8) and the final being long to a relatively simple green, but with several teeing angle options that make greater or lesser trouble of the bunkers that guard the approach to the green. Really, I could go on about probably 15 of the 18 holes here. Probably the least distinctive thing about the Old, similar to other heathland courses, is the green contouring. But a few of them are big and bumpy (10, 16) and there’s so much variety in the shapes and sizes of the green complexes and the shots you’ll play into them that most won’t notice that the greens are relatively subdued.
And that’s not everything that’s great about the Old. With the exception of maybe the downhill 13th, it has a fine set of par 3s, two being uphill and very recognizably Colt (4, 8) and the final being long to a relatively simple green, but with several teeing angle options that make greater or lesser trouble of the bunkers that guard the approach to the green. Really, I could go on about probably 15 of the 18 holes here. Probably the least distinctive thing about the Old, similar to other heathland courses, is the green contouring. But a few of them are big and bumpy (10, 16) and there’s so much variety in the shapes and sizes of the green complexes and the shots you’ll play into them that most won’t notice that the greens are relatively subdued.
Sunningdale’s Old Course was my favorite of the few dozen courses that I played in England. I think it deserves all of the accolades that it gets. It routinely places in the top 40 in the world and it’s easily that good. It might even deserve to be in the top 25.
Yet because it’s only about 6,650 yards and doesn’t host major men’s tournaments anymore, the Old doesn’t seem to get the attention that so many other courses of this caliber get. That’s too bad. Because I feel that the it tells a different story than the other great courses that we see regularly. They all have a bunch of great holes. But the flow of this course and its mix of holes are so wonderfully odd, so wonderfully charming. There’s something very romantic about this course. You don’t get that on the big championship courses. You don’t even get it next door on the New Course. Maybe it’s the mix of Park and Colt. I don’t know. But I do know that it makes for one of the most pleasant, original courses in the world and made for one of my favorite days on a golf course.
Yet because it’s only about 6,650 yards and doesn’t host major men’s tournaments anymore, the Old doesn’t seem to get the attention that so many other courses of this caliber get. That’s too bad. Because I feel that the it tells a different story than the other great courses that we see regularly. They all have a bunch of great holes. But the flow of this course and its mix of holes are so wonderfully odd, so wonderfully charming. There’s something very romantic about this course. You don’t get that on the big championship courses. You don’t even get it next door on the New Course. Maybe it’s the mix of Park and Colt. I don’t know. But I do know that it makes for one of the most pleasant, original courses in the world and made for one of my favorite days on a golf course.
No. 2: Royal County Down (Northern Ireland, UK)
The top two courses on my list are, for me, both perfect 10s on the Doak scale. Royal County Down certainly receives no shortage of praise. Many well-travelled people think that it’s the best course in the world and there’s probably a near-consensus that it’s one of the world’s top 10. Certainly anyone would say that it’s in the most rarefied company with courses like Pine Valley, Augusta National, and Cypress Point.
It’s easy to heap praise on this course. One, it’s absolutely stunning. Two, the front nine is—as is universally acknowledged—one of the best stretches of golf anywhere and possibly the best nine holes on the planet. Three, several of the individual holes are obviously among the finest in the world.
But some raise critical points about Royal County Down and suggest that it’s overrated, not even the best course in Northern Ireland. One is that the greens aren’t as interesting as some of the other top courses. Another is that it’s too punishing off the tee. A third is that the back nine is greatly inferior to the front and that this takes it out of the running for being in the top of the top tier.
While I (obviously) wouldn’t consider Royal County Down to be the best course in the world and don’t know whether I’d put it in the company of Pine Valley or Cypress Point (I haven’t played them), I don’t agree with these criticisms of Royal County Down. It’s true that the green contours are tamer than a lot of great courses. But given that it is difficult off the tee—and that it’s usually windy and that the ground is usually firm—would we want highly contoured greens? Might that not make it a bit too difficult?
I also don’t concede that it’s too difficult off the tee. Yes, there are a lot of blind shots. And oh yes, if you’re driving it poorly, you’ll lose some balls. But if you’re hitting it reasonably well and playing smart (taking account of the wind, not getting too aggressive, etc.) there’s plenty of room out there to drive it. There were only 2 or 3 holes that struck me as requiring a high degree of accuracy off the tee and one of these is a short par 4 and the other is a par 5.
And I disagree with the point that the back nine is greatly inferior. Is it inferior to the front? Yes…along with possibly every other nine holes in the world. But it’s not greatly inferior. On its own, I’d still give it a 9 on the Doak scale. The long par 4 13th might be my favorite hole on the course and the 15th isn’t far behind. Hell, I probably like the back nine here as much as either nine at Royal Portrush, which both dispels the idea that it’s inferior and that Royal County Down isn’t the best in Northern Ireland.
As for the holes themselves, I could talk about every hole here, especially on the front nine. The shortish par 5 opener was my favorite in Ireland, narrowing continuously as you approach the green, which is set in a lovely hollow. The mid-length par 4 second features a blind drive and a blind approach. You need to hit one solid off the second tee (and be playing the correct set of tees) so that you can reach the widest part of the fairway. Same on 3; there are bunkers that pinch the fairway but if you’re playing the right set of tees, it isn’t hard to carry them and the fairway is quite wide beyond this. Each of the opening holes is among the finest I’ve played.
The top two courses on my list are, for me, both perfect 10s on the Doak scale. Royal County Down certainly receives no shortage of praise. Many well-travelled people think that it’s the best course in the world and there’s probably a near-consensus that it’s one of the world’s top 10. Certainly anyone would say that it’s in the most rarefied company with courses like Pine Valley, Augusta National, and Cypress Point.
It’s easy to heap praise on this course. One, it’s absolutely stunning. Two, the front nine is—as is universally acknowledged—one of the best stretches of golf anywhere and possibly the best nine holes on the planet. Three, several of the individual holes are obviously among the finest in the world.
But some raise critical points about Royal County Down and suggest that it’s overrated, not even the best course in Northern Ireland. One is that the greens aren’t as interesting as some of the other top courses. Another is that it’s too punishing off the tee. A third is that the back nine is greatly inferior to the front and that this takes it out of the running for being in the top of the top tier.
While I (obviously) wouldn’t consider Royal County Down to be the best course in the world and don’t know whether I’d put it in the company of Pine Valley or Cypress Point (I haven’t played them), I don’t agree with these criticisms of Royal County Down. It’s true that the green contours are tamer than a lot of great courses. But given that it is difficult off the tee—and that it’s usually windy and that the ground is usually firm—would we want highly contoured greens? Might that not make it a bit too difficult?
I also don’t concede that it’s too difficult off the tee. Yes, there are a lot of blind shots. And oh yes, if you’re driving it poorly, you’ll lose some balls. But if you’re hitting it reasonably well and playing smart (taking account of the wind, not getting too aggressive, etc.) there’s plenty of room out there to drive it. There were only 2 or 3 holes that struck me as requiring a high degree of accuracy off the tee and one of these is a short par 4 and the other is a par 5.
And I disagree with the point that the back nine is greatly inferior. Is it inferior to the front? Yes…along with possibly every other nine holes in the world. But it’s not greatly inferior. On its own, I’d still give it a 9 on the Doak scale. The long par 4 13th might be my favorite hole on the course and the 15th isn’t far behind. Hell, I probably like the back nine here as much as either nine at Royal Portrush, which both dispels the idea that it’s inferior and that Royal County Down isn’t the best in Northern Ireland.
As for the holes themselves, I could talk about every hole here, especially on the front nine. The shortish par 5 opener was my favorite in Ireland, narrowing continuously as you approach the green, which is set in a lovely hollow. The mid-length par 4 second features a blind drive and a blind approach. You need to hit one solid off the second tee (and be playing the correct set of tees) so that you can reach the widest part of the fairway. Same on 3; there are bunkers that pinch the fairway but if you’re playing the right set of tees, it isn’t hard to carry them and the fairway is quite wide beyond this. Each of the opening holes is among the finest I’ve played.
I think the long par 3 4th gets accolades mostly for its setting, with the full course and the surrounding mountains as a backdrop. But I think that it’s a great par 3 on the merits too as the green gently rises toward the back, making wide misses short better than wide misses long. I don’t think that the short par 3 7th gets the accolades it deserves. This is one of the world’s great short par 3s. And it’s great because…well for one, again, it’s very pretty…it manages to be tricky without being severe, something that’s rare for a par 3. There’s plenty of open space around this green but unless you get up into the middle of the green, your ball can come back off the front or left side. This isn’t a severe slope and you’ll have a good chance of getting your next up-and-down, but it adds a moderate element of challenge—something that’s rare for short par 3s which tend to be either too easy or too hard.
The two long par 4s that finish the front nine are in the class with 9 and 12 at Swinley Forest and 4 at Royal St. George’s. 8, which I never hear anything about, is exceptional. There’s some room off the tee but you have to be very thoughtful with the approach. You can run one in here, but you must be accurate to avoid mounds that pinch the approach about 20 yards short of the green and you must also hedge toward the front because there are nasty runoffs at both the back left and right. The only excuse I might accept for this hole not being famous is that it precedes the 9th, which is even better. So many pictures have been taken of this hole but if you put a big black curtain around it, it’d still be a great hole. The drive is blind and odd, but good execution is extremely important. That’s because you’ll need a good one to have a good shot at the green. If you’re short off the tee, it’ll be tough to get past the crossing bunkers and dunes ~30 yards short of the green. If I ever make a list of the best 10 or 18 holes I’ve ever played, this one will be on it.
I count at least 6 very good or great holes on the ‘inferior’ back nine. I thought that the long par 4 13th was the best of the bunch and I think it even rivals 9 as the best on the course. The fairway is very wide…right up until about the point where you want to hit your drive. Then it narrows between dunes. The only way to get a look at the green on the approach is to bomb it up the tight corridor on the left between these, challenging heavy gorse down the left. But the hole still works great if you have a blind approach from the right because there’s ample open space short of the green on this line to run one in. This green complex is probably the most forgiving at Royal County Down, appropriately so for a course that’s so difficult from tee-to-green.
Less forgiving is the other really great hole on the back, the long par 4 15th. The difficulty here is that the fairway narrows to almost nothing right about where you’d want to hit your drive. Still, you want to get as close to this as you can otherwise it’s a very long approach. And you’ll want the shorter approach because the green, while open and forgiving in front, has some nasty stuff at its sides, especially the deep hollow at the right side.
Less forgiving is the other really great hole on the back, the long par 4 15th. The difficulty here is that the fairway narrows to almost nothing right about where you’d want to hit your drive. Still, you want to get as close to this as you can otherwise it’s a very long approach. And you’ll want the shorter approach because the green, while open and forgiving in front, has some nasty stuff at its sides, especially the deep hollow at the right side.
Another common criticism of Royal County Down is of the closing three holes. Some say 16 is a weak short par 4, 17 is bland, and that they ran out of ideas on the 18th, so they just put bunkers everywhere. I’d agree that the 17th is a bit tame but given the difficulty of the rest of the course, is this a bad thing? I disagree strongly that 16 is a weak short par 4. I thought it was excellent; drivable in the right wind off a good drive (probably the only par 4 here that is) but requiring thought about placement in a relatively narrow fairway. And I actually liked all the bunkers on 18. They force you to hit it straight which is fine given the tamer ground and good visibility from the tee. Plus it ends with a very fine push-up green.
While I can clearly go on-and-on about most of the holes here, what makes Royal County Down for me is the same thing that made Sunningdale’s Old Course and Royal St. George’s—it’s full of holes that feel completely original. Like Royal St. George’s, the dunes here are big and were likely, absent some heavy handedness by man, to result in some quirky and original holes. But unlike Royal St. George’s, which has been tamed, this course is still full throttle. Who would include all of these blind drives? Who would devise a hole like the 9th, 13th, or 15th on a blank slate? No one.
That’s one of the great advantages of having such a wild site. It creates the opportunity to build something that rises to another level. Of course you can do a bad job and either bulldoze away the character or build a course that’s unplayable and filled with stupid holes. But if you do a good job, you might create something special in the world of golf, including holes unlike anything that anyone has ever seen and which couldn’t be replicated elsewhere. And that’s what Royal County Down is. I'd be shocked if this isn't one of the world's top 10 courses and wouldn't be surprised if it's top 5.
That’s one of the great advantages of having such a wild site. It creates the opportunity to build something that rises to another level. Of course you can do a bad job and either bulldoze away the character or build a course that’s unplayable and filled with stupid holes. But if you do a good job, you might create something special in the world of golf, including holes unlike anything that anyone has ever seen and which couldn’t be replicated elsewhere. And that’s what Royal County Down is. I'd be shocked if this isn't one of the world's top 10 courses and wouldn't be surprised if it's top 5.
No. 1: Pinehurst no. 2 (North Carolina, USA)
However not all great courses are the product of extraordinary properties. A smaller group of courses achieves greatness through the application of great design to more modest land. And there’s probably no better example of this—at least certainly none that I’ve seen—than Pinehurst no. 2.
By now, everyone knows the source of no. 2’s greatness—the convex green complexes surrounded by short grass, which repel balls approaching their edges, usually down 2-4 foot high slopes but sometimes down significantly higher ones. While these kinds of greens used to be uncommon, no. 2 has been very influential since it first hosted the US Open in 1999 and now you see greens on almost every new course in this style.
When I first played here in 2002, I was amazed by the fact that a concept that I found so simple yet so interesting hadn’t been copied elsewhere. Now almost 25 years later, having seen many of these newer courses as well as no. 2 for a second time (in 2019), I’m perhaps even more amazed because while many have tried, none that I’ve seen have succeeded in building Pinehurst no. 2 style greens. To be fair, most courses don’t use this concept throughout like no. 2 does. But of those that do use it, few get it right. One of the best examples that I’ve seen is next door on Pinehurst no. 4, where Gil Hanse managed to get some of the edges of his greens looking very similar to what you find here. But many of these runoffs on newer courses are overdone, with the slopes around the greens being too high and carrying balls too far away from the green.
What’s the secret sauce of Pinehurst no. 2’s green complexes? It’s that while there are severe runoffs around parts of many of these greens, most of the runoffs aren’t that severe. Often the slope at the edge of the green will just be 2 or 3 feet high and carry your ball only 10 or 12 feet away from the green’s edge. Sometimes it’s even less than that. That means that it’s difficult to hit the greens and that something coming in hot can get away from you but—and this is critical—getting up and down is very doable, provided that you miss in the right place. More than any other course that I’ve played, Pinehurst no. 2 places a premium on missing in the right place. If you miss over the 8th green, you’re much more likely to knocked the ball one-handed over the other side of the green as it rolls back to your feet (like John Daly did in 1999) than get up-and-down (like Bryson did in 2024).
However not all great courses are the product of extraordinary properties. A smaller group of courses achieves greatness through the application of great design to more modest land. And there’s probably no better example of this—at least certainly none that I’ve seen—than Pinehurst no. 2.
By now, everyone knows the source of no. 2’s greatness—the convex green complexes surrounded by short grass, which repel balls approaching their edges, usually down 2-4 foot high slopes but sometimes down significantly higher ones. While these kinds of greens used to be uncommon, no. 2 has been very influential since it first hosted the US Open in 1999 and now you see greens on almost every new course in this style.
When I first played here in 2002, I was amazed by the fact that a concept that I found so simple yet so interesting hadn’t been copied elsewhere. Now almost 25 years later, having seen many of these newer courses as well as no. 2 for a second time (in 2019), I’m perhaps even more amazed because while many have tried, none that I’ve seen have succeeded in building Pinehurst no. 2 style greens. To be fair, most courses don’t use this concept throughout like no. 2 does. But of those that do use it, few get it right. One of the best examples that I’ve seen is next door on Pinehurst no. 4, where Gil Hanse managed to get some of the edges of his greens looking very similar to what you find here. But many of these runoffs on newer courses are overdone, with the slopes around the greens being too high and carrying balls too far away from the green.
What’s the secret sauce of Pinehurst no. 2’s green complexes? It’s that while there are severe runoffs around parts of many of these greens, most of the runoffs aren’t that severe. Often the slope at the edge of the green will just be 2 or 3 feet high and carry your ball only 10 or 12 feet away from the green’s edge. Sometimes it’s even less than that. That means that it’s difficult to hit the greens and that something coming in hot can get away from you but—and this is critical—getting up and down is very doable, provided that you miss in the right place. More than any other course that I’ve played, Pinehurst no. 2 places a premium on missing in the right place. If you miss over the 8th green, you’re much more likely to knocked the ball one-handed over the other side of the green as it rolls back to your feet (like John Daly did in 1999) than get up-and-down (like Bryson did in 2024).
And because the greens have such strongly defined good and bad misses, Pinehurst no. 2 puts an extraordinary premium on thinking and discipline. Every green gives you ample room to miss—usually at least a quarter of the space around each green will leave a very playable next shot and on almost every hole, some of that space is at the front. But you have to identify it and have the discipline to hedge over there if you have a shot that you’re less than fully confident about. If you’re hitting your irons well or have a favorable shot, you can certainly take several pins on, but then the premium is on execution.
At the other end of the spectrum—as I’ve seen first hand—weaker players can get around here by playing conservatively and aiming at the open areas at the front of the greens. Although equity may be a bad word these days, there isn’t a course that I’ve seen that does more to equalize outcomes, giving the weaker player room to play (they never lose a ball in the pine straw) yet being extremely testing for the good player. This is an extremely appealing quality in a golf course and one that’s very hard to achieve. It’s much easier to build something that achieves the opposite—impossible for the weaker player but easy for the plus handicap (look no further than a few miles up the road to Tobacco Road for an example of this).
The other noteworthy thing about Pinehurst no. 2 was the restoration undertaken by Coore and Crenshaw in the early 2010s. They tore out all the bermuda rough and irrigation lining the fairways and restored these areas to the native sand, wire grass, pine needles, and Longleaf Pine saplings (which look like wire grass). But while this has made the course look significantly better, I found that it didn’t affect the course in a fundamental way. I didn’t think it was a significantly better course after the restoration because what makes the course great—the greens—was left unchanged. A few holes, notably the 7th and the 18th, were improved by the shifted fairway lines but this had less of an impact on my impression of the course that I thought it would.
Like Sunningdale—Old and Royal County Down, a notable holes list of no. 2 would include almost every hole. There are no bad holes here. The weakest hole here is probably better than the two or three weakest holes on every other course on this list. But I’ve also heard that there are few or no great holes here and that’s just wrong. There are at least half-a-dozen holes (1, 2, 5, 8, 14, 18) that are among the finest that I’ve played.
The opening five holes are clearly the best opening stretch that I’ve played. The mid-length par 4 1st, with subtle runoffs and the back and right of its green and steeper one in the front is my favorite opening hole. It’s just so innocuous looking from the tee. Then you’re in the fairway staring at the green…and it looks impossible to hit. Then you get up there and realize that slope in front of the green isn’t so bad. And the long par 4 2nd, for all the carnage that it’s caused in US Opens, doesn’t even look that dangerous from the fairway. And it isn’t, provided that you play to the front-left part of the green. This is a difficult thing to get yourself to do if you’re a good player and the pin is in the back-right. But if you’re looking to shoot a good score, it’s the smart thing to do.
The other noteworthy thing about Pinehurst no. 2 was the restoration undertaken by Coore and Crenshaw in the early 2010s. They tore out all the bermuda rough and irrigation lining the fairways and restored these areas to the native sand, wire grass, pine needles, and Longleaf Pine saplings (which look like wire grass). But while this has made the course look significantly better, I found that it didn’t affect the course in a fundamental way. I didn’t think it was a significantly better course after the restoration because what makes the course great—the greens—was left unchanged. A few holes, notably the 7th and the 18th, were improved by the shifted fairway lines but this had less of an impact on my impression of the course that I thought it would.
Like Sunningdale—Old and Royal County Down, a notable holes list of no. 2 would include almost every hole. There are no bad holes here. The weakest hole here is probably better than the two or three weakest holes on every other course on this list. But I’ve also heard that there are few or no great holes here and that’s just wrong. There are at least half-a-dozen holes (1, 2, 5, 8, 14, 18) that are among the finest that I’ve played.
The opening five holes are clearly the best opening stretch that I’ve played. The mid-length par 4 1st, with subtle runoffs and the back and right of its green and steeper one in the front is my favorite opening hole. It’s just so innocuous looking from the tee. Then you’re in the fairway staring at the green…and it looks impossible to hit. Then you get up there and realize that slope in front of the green isn’t so bad. And the long par 4 2nd, for all the carnage that it’s caused in US Opens, doesn’t even look that dangerous from the fairway. And it isn’t, provided that you play to the front-left part of the green. This is a difficult thing to get yourself to do if you’re a good player and the pin is in the back-right. But if you’re looking to shoot a good score, it’s the smart thing to do.
3 is a fine shorter par 4 and the long 4th, which used to be a par 5, makes a terrific long par 4. But the next best hole in the opening stretch is clearly the par 5 5th. This used to be a long par 4 and it was a classic, so I was a bit concerned about how being converted into a par 5 would affect it. It made the hole better. And this is because it brought all the bunkers between the tee and green back into play. Now rather than sailing over the corner of the dogleg, you have to negotiate the bunker at the corner. And now the carry bunkers on the great approach to the green all come into play because you have to negotiate them with the layup. Plus the green, which is quite narrow and tough to hit, works much better for a par 5.
The rest of the front nine is not quite as strong. The two par 3s are quite severe—the 6th green is too severely sloped and 9 might be the hole with the fewest decent options for missing around the green. But the par 4 7th was significantly improved by shifting the bunkers and widening the mowing line at the corner of the dogleg. And the par 5 8th (par 4 for the Open) remains one of the world’s great holes of its length, with an interested tilted fairway and a fantastic green that offers ample opportunity for both security and ruin.
The back nine starts with one of the toughest par 5s anywhere followed by two long, but otherwise modest par 4s. The fairway really zigzags in the layup area on 10, making this one of the tougher layups on a par 5. 11 and 12 are very flat and have two of the simpler greens. But the next two holes turn things up again, with the short par 4 13th requiring good distance control to its hilltop green (you cannot be long). The long par 4 14th is another of my favorite holes, having one of the best greens on no. 2. It’s deep and a miss in the front-left quadrant leaves a simple pitch. But the deeper you go into the green, the more dangerous a miss wide becomes with a miss over the green challenging long on 8 as the worst spot on the course.
All of the closing holes are very good but the par 3 15th and the finisher stand out. The green on the former looks impossible to hit from the tee—it looks like you’re trying to land one on the top of a globe. And it might not be much easier to hit. But at the front or front-left won’t leave too hard a second. The par 4 18th is another hole that I think was improved by the removal of rough and a shifting of the mowing lines. The big right fairway bunker used to hover in the rough. But the fairway has been shifted right and now a drive over its edge will be in the fairway (Payne Stewart could have used the new mowing lines in 1999 when he was in the rough here by a foot).
Pinehurst no. 2 shows what great golf course design can achieve. I know that there’s an argument that the greens have evolved significantly from what Donald Ross built here and that the edges of these are now much more severe. And if that’s true, maybe the course is indicative more of the triumph of evolution than design.
But however no. 2 got here, where it is now is among the small handful of best golf courses in the world. And it didn’t get there by being on spectacular land like Royal County Down or Royal St. George’s. It got there by what’s been built into—or evolved on—what's really quite modest land. And that, however it got there, is extraordinary. No course I’ve seen has a better design concept. No course is so testing for great players yet so playable for lesser golfers. No course makes everyone think more about what they should be trying to do. And a further incredible thing is that the powers-that-be are convinced that it’s a concept that’s build to last for great players—the USGA has scheduled a US Open here about every 6 years for the next 30 or 40.
I think that I agree with them. Although there’s a ball roll back that’s supposed to happen in a few years, I think that if any course was going to continue to be able to stand up to the best players in the world, it’d be this one. And that’s because no course is better at exploiting the confidence of the good player. Sure that pin is gettable—you’re one of the best players in the world and you’re hitting your irons well. But you miss that one just a little. Oops, now you’re down the worst side of the green and you’ll be lucky to make a 5. While the execution—thinking balance in playing great golf is probably 90-10 most of the time, it’s probably more like 70-30 at Pinehurst no. 2.
Pinehurst no. 2 may not be the prettiest course to look at and it may not have the most dramatic collection of holes, but it is the best golf examination across skill levels of any course that I’ve seen. And it is the best course that I've seen.
But however no. 2 got here, where it is now is among the small handful of best golf courses in the world. And it didn’t get there by being on spectacular land like Royal County Down or Royal St. George’s. It got there by what’s been built into—or evolved on—what's really quite modest land. And that, however it got there, is extraordinary. No course I’ve seen has a better design concept. No course is so testing for great players yet so playable for lesser golfers. No course makes everyone think more about what they should be trying to do. And a further incredible thing is that the powers-that-be are convinced that it’s a concept that’s build to last for great players—the USGA has scheduled a US Open here about every 6 years for the next 30 or 40.
I think that I agree with them. Although there’s a ball roll back that’s supposed to happen in a few years, I think that if any course was going to continue to be able to stand up to the best players in the world, it’d be this one. And that’s because no course is better at exploiting the confidence of the good player. Sure that pin is gettable—you’re one of the best players in the world and you’re hitting your irons well. But you miss that one just a little. Oops, now you’re down the worst side of the green and you’ll be lucky to make a 5. While the execution—thinking balance in playing great golf is probably 90-10 most of the time, it’s probably more like 70-30 at Pinehurst no. 2.
Pinehurst no. 2 may not be the prettiest course to look at and it may not have the most dramatic collection of holes, but it is the best golf examination across skill levels of any course that I’ve seen. And it is the best course that I've seen.
RSS Feed