SCOREGolf Top 100 Reflections, Oddities, and Appreciations

Embarrassing. That’s the word I used to describe the first ten courses listed on the SCOREGolf top 100 courses list last week. Harsh? Yes. Necessary? Probably not.

It was a dramatic reaction to all the hard work and effort to travel, evaluate, and consider what Canada’s top 100 golf courses are. And look, the outcome clearly isn’t Alex Hunter’s top 100 golf courses list; that’s certainly not the point. But that said, the tastemakers here clearly believe this leaves much to be desired.

We celebrate raw, links golf, at Cabot (rightly so), but then an adventurous sand hills routing (with greens that would knock the socks off anyone who likes architecture) at Wolf Creek (Old), or two golden age gems like Kawartha and Cataraqui are stacked next to (in fact, below) the likes of Black Bear Ridge, and Credit Valley, makes little sense to me.

As someone who has studied the architectural aspects of golf, and taken the time to travel to far-flung places across Canada to see most of its notable designs — including many that may never make this list — it’s disappointing that we leave the greater public with such a mishmash of ideals that it becomes impossible to dissect what separates great golf from a course that is simply nice to look at.

In the last few years, progress has been made to advance the discourse around golf design in Canada — leaps and bounds greater than it was a decade ago — and for it to take a step back each time this particular ranking comes out leads one to say the situation is urgent. Addressing the foundational gaps in architecture knowledge remains paramount to moving forward with insightful renovations and developments in Canada. We don’t all have to agree on the list, but some sort of architectural understanding is clearly a missing element from a majority of this panel. I’ve seen a number of personalities pop up in the last few years who ask how to get on panels. It’s not always about having seen many of these courses — anyone can visit a golf course and play — but having the knowledge to understand and evaluate the architecture is key to forming a good list.

What is evaluated in thse rankings?

SCOREGolf as a publication does a good job at laying out the criteria panelists use to evaluate golf courses. The content they produce from the data we input is notable and helps convey the message about what great golf can look like. Below is my synopsis of those categories and, very briefly, how I consider evaluating them.

Beauty

This isn’t a question about the inherent beauty of the setting. Not every golf course can be laid out along the Bow River like Banff, or perched atop a sandy cliffside overlooking the ocean like Cabot Cliffs. Golf courses can be stunningly beautiful in their own settings, far away from any natural geographical interest. Toronto Golf Club is a great example of this — no mountains, no ocean, just straight up great visuals for golf. That’s a design that has been carefully crafted using the natural topography it was afforded, and one which has properly stewarded its land to what it is today.

Strategy

There are few golf courses in Canada that truly excel in strategic design. More often than not, the “strategy” is just to play away from hazards — this is the penal school of golf design. In evaluating strategy, one firstly considers if the design even has strategic elements to it. Next, one considers: “how do players navigate that strategy?” Finally, conditioning plays an important role. If I can clearly see some strategic elements are afforded to the player, but the turf is too soft, or the course is overcome with trees that inhibit the design, it lacks the overall polish that allows these strategic considerations to come to life. I bring up “soft” as a texture because patchy or hard pan features naturally amplify these design elements, while soft and lush typically detract from them. You can play what many would consider a “poorly” conditioned golf course and still understand the design elements if the typology of those conditions is right — Highlands Links is a great example of this.

Challenge

Golf isn’t a test of who can withstand the most brutally difficult tasks at hand, unless of course you play The National Golf Club of Canada. Rather, how can players navigate the land’s complexities to challenge their game to the greatest extent without being overly penal? A one-dimensional golf course lacks the architectural diversity necessary to allow all types of players to succeed.

Design

The things that great golf courses do so well revolve around defining interest — be it fairway contours or bunkers that frame tee shots, mounding in and around greens, and how that all comes together as a cohesive set using a range of characteristics. There is a key difference between functional design and needlessly convoluted architecture.

Par 3’s, Par 4’s, Par 5’s

Evaluating the strength of par 3s, 4s, and 5s, one must consider things like variety — details like direction of play, length of holes, shaping and construction of fairways, bunkers, and greens. These categories really boil down the individual aspects of what defines the golf course and which elements are stronger than others. For example, sometimes a course really excels with a great set of Par 3’s, but lacks the same depth when it comes to two or three-shot holes.

Fun

This really asks the panelist, what do you enjoy in golf? And is that replicated here? For me, my taste is very clearly focused on quirk, charm, a good set of greens, and incorporating proper texture. A course like Lakeview rates highly on my fun scale given its particularly quirky features and interesting set of green complexes. While a course like Stewart Creek with its gross misuse of such beautiful property, leading to the creation of unnatural and unwalkable golf, ranks low for me. I simply don’t enjoy scenic cart rides. I can hike a mountain or sit at the beach for free. Why pay for golf at extraordinary rates if all you want to do is enjoy the scenery around you?

Conditioning

For all the talk about how conditioning plays such a small factor in these rankings (5%), its pretty evident that panelists are (or at least, should be) considering conditioning as part of almost every aspect that goes into the evaluation of golf courses. Yet, conditioning is not always about the fastest greens, or most lush fairways. “Patchy” golf courses with slower greens absolutely have their place in golf - just as they did during golf’s golden age. Lush, “green” golf is a disease on golf’s broader landscape.

Exclusions and Other Considerations

Courses are ranked based on what is presented from the first tee to the 18th green. No amount of amenities, such as a practice facility or cart paths (golf is best enjoyed walking) or a magnificent clubhouse with a great restaurant, should sway a panellist's golf course recommendations. We evaluate golf course design and the presentation of that design. Great golf need not have the frills of luxury or unnecessary infrastructure to be considered exceptional.

Whether you agree or not, clubs without gender parity in their membership are excluded from the rankings — that’s a publisher-driven (TorStar) boundary. That excludes one or two golf clubs in Canada from rankings without input from panellists. For what it's worth, one of them is a top 20 course (my opinion), the other not a contender in its current form.

Naturally there are courses that don’t want panelists to visit or may only permit a visit with a member host. And there are some courses which are geographically sullied, such that panelists rarely visit (a shame). These are some complexities which may broadly impact a ranking such as this.

Reflections

SCOREGolf produces this list by way of input from approximately 90 panelists - I myself included in that list. They take the data input to produce videos and website content that makes the list easily digestible for all to see. They do a good job of producing this content. I’ve even collaborated with Jason Logan on a few pieces — It's fun to produce this work with people who are passionate about golf in Canada.

I guess what irks me about the list is this divide we seem to have created in what I’ll describe as “architecturally focused” and “presentation focused”.

It’s clear to me that this group really focuses on presentation of the golf course. Is the setting beautiful? Are the bunkers well maintained? Do I get a crisp lie in the fairway every time? Are the greens rolling fast? These are the frills of golf which I consider to be minimally important to the game. Take Grand-Mère, for example; people rush to judge the slowness of the greens or patchy nature of the fairways or the rag-tag feeling of the bunkers —but these shallow comments mask the architectural prowess on display that is nearly unmatched. It’s the type of product that you’d see at some of the world’s best golf courses, if perhaps a little worn down. Clearly, this is a factor of its remote location — a little less conducive to the conditions and revenue it might get if it were situated in the GTA.

Context matters. Having seen much of the list to this point, my journey through golf architecture has greatly evolved, and thus, my tastes have too. There are numerous golf courses I have deeply appreciated since I first laid eyes on them — one such example is Lookout Point — but there are also ones I thought I enjoyed, but upon a return visit, realized they no longer hit the mark. Improving the strength of the list comes from perspective and constant education. Still much to learn and digest as a years go on.

Oddities

I am sure that many find it very peculiar for clubs to have these massive swings in rankings every two years, especially when there are no big developments occurring. But the truth of the matter is that tastes change, panellists come and go, and the collective is a small group which can lead to big swings when only a dozen or two might have actually seen the course. Naturally, I think that’s why I preferred the ranking style used when I was contributing over at Beyond The Contour. It allowed panellists to contribute to the list in buckets for every course they had seen, and for those who hadn’t seen as much as the next, the weight of their ratings was fractionally smaller.

As for personal outliers, there are many courses where I just don’t “get it”. The likes of Credit Valley, Black Bear Ridge, Kananaskis Mt. Lorette, Oakdale (at least not the Homeniuk/Knudson routing), and Deer Ridge come to mind. I don’t mean to pick on these courses — in a vacuum they are adequate to the nature of everyday golf — but they are clearly not my taste for the Top 100. There is frankly nothing that sets these courses apart from many others in this country. Needless to say, it’s disappointing that we have come to the conclusion that such mediocrity is suitable for Top 100 status. Harsh to read, but relatively uncomplicated to fix.

Furthermore, the difference between Cabot Cliffs and Links is always a shocking one to me, especially given details I know from fellow panellists I trust. Cliffs is such a beautiful routing, so it’s easy to pick that one as the “best” golf course in the country. But, to me at least, it plays a lot less like proper golf and more like an amusement park at times. Delivering the shock and awe of the scenery instead of great golf features (although at times it certainly does both!). Links, on the other hand, contends with a much more subdued parcel and excels at strategic design, alongside its wonderful green complexes, which are among the best in the country. It's harder to digest, but once you do, it becomes easily apparent that the contest isn’t particularly close. Will a golf course ever knock Cliffs off the top spot?

Appreciations

I am happy to see great work be rewarded. Many clubs have invested so much time and effort into renovation work, by architects who have done things the right way. Kudos to Jeff Mingay’s work at Rivermead and Beaconsfield, Christine Fraser’s work at Northumberland (which I have yet to see, but do see much intrigue there), and Jim Urbina and Riley Johns’ effort at St. Charles. With St. Charles landing back on the list, it is the first time in a long time that Manitoba has a golf course represented. Not for my lack of trying; I have three Manitoba golf courses ranked in my personal top 100.

There was also some positive movement for clubs like Rosedale, Laval-sur-le-Lac, and Lookout Point. I understand readers get frustrated with the lack of access to these great properties; you're preaching to the choir here. I would love it if every golf course maintained some level of access for architecturally inclined golfers. Either way, there is great golf to be had at these properties, so it’s nice to see them get their due.

THIRD appreciation needed.

Suggestions

If you are a club member or a golf professional and you want to know what you can do to improve your golf course, consider the following:

Travel. See the great golf courses of the world and study what makes them great. These concepts can be replicated, but should never be duplicated, with the varied natural interest that is present in your own property.

Study. Read about golf design and listen to architects speak via podcasts or videos.

Get out of the way. Hire a good architect and let them do the work. Don’t try to force a certain concept on your course that is not suitable for what you have.

Conclusion

It’s compelling to try to tell the story of great golf in Canada; that’s why I built this website in the first place. I am not bound to corporate interests, or marketing exploits, or anyone else’s opinion, although the numerous inputs from trusted friends have been deeply helpful. Upon reflection, and in the spirit of full transparency, I am displaying my personal rankings of Canada’s top 100 golf courses (link needed). This isn’t meant to compete with SCOREGolf or any other list. You may love it or hate it, but it will evolve over time as my tastes change, I make return trips, and clubs make improvements.

There are still many hidden gems and a small handful of notables that I have yet to see: Calgary, Humber Valley, James Island, Thornhill, Northumberland Links, to name a few. These places, passion for writing about architecture, and dedicated readers, continue to fuel my drive for golf in this country.

If you read this far, thank you. Sometimes I don’t know if any of this effort is worthwhile, but I push on regardless. The first five people to email me will get an OnGolf hat for free (must be Canadian resident to enter, shipping only included within Canada). I will reply, through official channels, only to those who “won”.

Until next time, cheers.