Dividing Opinion - What Architects think of the Top 100

Earlier this year Australian Golf Digest published its biennial ranking of Australia’s Top 100 golf courses. As is the case every second March, the rankings issue was a best seller and stirred plenty of lively debate across the industry. Naturally most discussion centred on which courses were ranked too high and which ones were ranked too low, who was hardly done by and who was lucky to even be on the list?

Whilst acknowledging that no ranking will ever satisfy every single golfer, we remain steadfastly of the view that our Top 100 list is healthy for the game in this country. It is also a healthy tool for golf course designers looking for that next design commission, though you would never know by talking to them.

Without a credible Top 100 ranking list in Australia, and the benchmarks created by leading clubs/courses in a particular region, golf clubs risk becoming complacent or oblivious to the benefits of design improvements. Several major redevelopment projects undertaken in recent years have, at least in part, been triggered by a rankings fall or a sudden jump made at a nearby competitor.

It’s not the only indicator of good health and good management, but a rise on the Top 100 does create positivity and is likely to make it easier for a course to sell memberships and/or green fees. Conversely, a sudden or dramatic fall can suggest problems exist with maintenance regimes or design management. For those selling solutions to such design conundrums, such as golf architects, you would expect at least a passing interest in the latest Top 100. That’s not the impression we got after contacting a dozen or so Australian course designers for comment, only to find many unwilling to discuss the subject altogether.

To be fair, many designers haven’t seen the requisite number of courses to comment with any authority. Exceptions include guys like Neil Crafter, Harley Kruse and Mike Clayton, active and well-read designers who are engaged enough to take an interest in rankings and how they effect various golf clubs. Crafter says Top 100 lists are useful and often used in discussions with his clients. He believes they are good for the game, ‘provided that golfers and clubs use it to improve their courses for the club and visiting golfer and do not get hung up on making their courses tougher for the sake of it.’

Our firm view at Australian Golf Digest is along these same lines, that great golf does not necessarily mean difficult golf and clubs looking for improvement are misguided if they think a longer, narrower or tougher course will result in a higher ranking. Clayton’s attitude toward design is similar, but his interest in ranking lists is more as a comparative tool against his own views. ‘I am interested to see where people put courses and how their lists relate to mine,’ he says. ‘I wonder if I am wrong, they are wrong or there is no right and wrong.’

Clayton believes Top 100 judges should always rate the architecture above all else when assessing a golf course, and place less importance on conditioning and ‘the experience’ of playing a particular course. It’s a view at odds with Sydney designer James Wilcher, the creator of The Cut (35) and Pacific Dunes (55). While Clayton believes that Royal Melbourne (West) is unchallenged as Australia’s number 1, due to its architecture, Wilcher takes a contrary position and rates the New South Wales Golf Club as the best in the country, in part because of its views and the overall playing experience.

Proof of how difficult it can be to build consensus on a subject like golf course rankings, Clayton rates New South Wales (5) somewhere in the 8-12 bracket, rather than its entrenched home within the Top 5. Interestingly, both Clayton and Wilcher nominated The Australian Golf Club (15) among our Top 20 as being over-rated. Wilcher suggested The Australian was lucky to be anywhere in the first fifty, and nominated it as the Top 100 course he would most like to redesign.

Another designer down on The Australian is Bob Harrison, a long-time member of the club. While Harrison acknowledges that recent changes made by Nicklaus Design have made the course better, he remains disappointed that the style of the revision was so ‘parkish’ and cost-intensive, compared to how it could have been done.

As Harrison explains, ‘this was a sandy site, which deserved to be treated as such and to be developed in a way that optimised its nature. I think it’s sad that the course has been developed in this fashion and that the next step puts the final nail in the coffin by planting trees to further impose a parkland landscape.’ Not surprisingly, Harrison also nominated The Australian as a Top 100 course he would like to redesign, along with the greens and bunkers at Newcastle.

While all golfers will have a view on the value or otherwise of the Top 100 list, it is interesting that many of Australia’s so-called designers give it such short shrift. These are the industry professionals apparently best positioned to help golf clubs improve their layouts, yet they seem largely disinterested in the process. One would have thought it beneficial to at least study what other clubs have done, and how golfers and raters have received such work.

That’s certainly the view of Harley Kruse, a former associate with Greg Norman Golf Course Design. Kruse sees the value in ranking lists at exposing the design follies of captains, presidents and superintendents masquerading as golf course architects. The courses he would like to redesign are those than have fallen on our list, following design works undertaken in-house by club directors or employees.

According to Kruse, ‘over the years rankings and discussions around golf courses and golf course architecture has become more sophisticated and panellists are more educated as a result.’ In other words, ranking lists are now more meaningful and, dare we say it, more accurate as well.

When it comes to Top 100 lists and rankings in general, golf course designers are somewhat conflicted because a poor ranking can cause reputational damage, while at the same time a good number might boost ones profile and perhaps inspire a peer course to undergo similar works. For golf course designers, there is no point burying your head in the sand and pretending they don’t exist. As Kruse points out, ‘we live in a society that likes to be able to compare and rate things – be it restaurants, cars, hotels etc. Golf courses don’t escape this scrutiny.’

The truth is that many Australian designers are inactive when it comes to both playing golf, and studying golf courses. They are also loath to comment on competitors work, so there is little meaningful commentary anywhere from these supposed experts. Most probably feel their courses are under-rated as well, which might explain their indifference toward the rankings process.

Without the two-yearly acid test that is the Australian Golf Digest Top 100, however, it’s possible that fewer clubs would be undertaking major course works. It’s also very likely that there would be less discussion and debate on what constitutes good or great golf - and less discussion on the role of the golf course designer. Those designers who aren’t interested in Top 100 ranking lists, therefore, should be.

Darius Oliver, Architecture Editor Australian Golf Digest

Back to News

More News