This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
I think North Berwick should be in if it doesn't include those Open Championship qualifying tees on its regular scorecard.... If it does, then it should be excluded.... (this should be consistent when judging all courses... i.e. the "back" tees as broadcast)We are surprisingly short on links courses and high on heathlands.... I'd suggest Strandhill but I'm not sure the quality is quite there to displace anyone...I haven't seen Edgbaston but I might question it as Arble whimsy?Also think we need to see more American & international courses - there must be some to displace a few of those above?... Let's keep it to 25 any which way...
I’m amazed that nobody has yet mentioned the Machrie (6299 yards) as a contender for the list of the “world’s best 6,500 yard and under courses”.Then again, I suppose if nominations depend on having played (or walked) the course in question then that might explain why this remote wee world class gem is such a glaring omission...
We need clarification on the Medal tees at Pennard.
Steve,Point taken, but most everyone has heard of Shoreacres, Fishers Island and Crystal Downs. And why 6650? There must be some really great tracks at 6700? 6500 is more than enough golf course for 5/6ths of the world's golfers and highlights some really good courses. How many of those listed above have you played?
Quote from: Jud T on July 16, 2013, 08:38:11 AMSteve,Point taken, but most everyone has heard of Shoreacres, Fishers Island and Crystal Downs. And why 6650? There must be some really great tracks at 6700? 6500 is more than enough golf course for 5/6ths of the world's golfers and highlights some really good courses. How many of those listed above have you played?The idea was to find the best amidst a group that emphasizes strategy over length, brains over brawn and charm over size. The extra 150 yds is actually a # that is best representative of the net difference btw "members" tee placement and the tips of those courses. Like Rich Goodale said, using those tees closest to the preceding green fits the thesis Ran and myself were postulating. Our goal, btw was to reduce the focus on longer courses and dent the prominence of publicity for defending the game with sheer length.For your edification, I've played all of those I've listed and 26 off your last posted list. You?
Just a thought...using a strict yardage criteria may come into play as far as effort to walk the course, but as far as playability I think we need to consider topography and wind factors. When I was in Ireland in May, there were heaps of holes in the 400-420 variety which were unreachable due to 30-40 MPH wind conditions, playing at 6300 yards or so. For example, par four 10th hole at Tralee, caddie tells us unreachable. Par four 2nd hole at Waterville, drive and three wood, well short of the green. Par three at Waterville hit 4 iron at 140 yds. I wore out 4 iron, hybrid and 3 wood hitting into par threes and fours all week. I came home to the states and found courses above the yardage we are talking about eminently more playable.
"Our goal, btw was to reduce the focus on longer courses and dent the prominence of publicity for defending the game with sheer length."Steve L,Then why bother with yardage at all? It seems you already have in mind a list and are backfilling the criteria to ensure those courses fit. Anyway, many of these older courses have seen length added. On the logic, what's the difference between one course adding yardage to stretch out to 6,500 yards vs another that adds yardage to get to 6,800 yards, or even 6,900 yards? Some even have done this not to cater to floggers but rather to golfers.