Opinion & Analysis
What makes a good golf course?
What is the best golf course you’ve ever played? What is your favorite course? Your least favorite?
After you take a minute to ponder those questions, consider this: Why? What is it about the course you chose that you like or dislike?
Very often, golfers get a feeling about a golf course, and they can’t really say why. That why I want golfers to take a closer look at the golf courses they play, because there are very definitive features about every golf course that separates it from others.
For many years I was a course rater for Golf Digest’s top 100 courses. Their system is as objective and fair as can be, but there will always be certain subjectivity to rating golf courses, because every golf course is unique and they all have design features that make them so. Some courses are inland and some are seaside, while others are quite flat or hilly. But from a playing perspective, let’s take a look at some features that you see every time you play but may not have noticed.
No. 12 at Augusta National Golf Club.
Conditioning: This is rather obvious. Is the course in good shape? Budget is obviously a factor — Augusta National has a bit more to work with than your local muni.
Routing: This is one of the most important design features of any course. Which direction do the holes play? Every golf course has a prevailing wind for the golf season in that area, and most architects take this into consideration. Start with the par 3s; do they play in different directions to allow use of every wind condition (Pine Valley)? Do the holes play in a variety of directions and lengths so golfers do not have to play a group of similar holes in succession: (Pinehurst #2). The lack of land on links courses very often dictates that the holes play out to the 9th hole and back into to the 18th. On inland or “Parkland” courses, the architect can route the holes so they play in a variety of directions, because playing every long par-4 playing in the same direction tends to get old.
Ian Poulter playing No. 13 at Merion GC in the 2013 U.S. Open.
Design: The next time you play a hole and see bunkers or water hazards, ask yourself why the designer put them there. If the hole is calling for a long iron or hybrid, the green might be long and open in front. A short hole, by contrast, might have a small, well bunkered green expecting wedge shot approaches (No. 13 at Merion). This is another reason to play the tee markers your length allows; you should not be hitting hybrids to a small, protected green.
Also, take a look at the green complexes (greens, bunkers, slopes) and see what way they face. Are they angled to the right or left of the fairway? Why does it matter? Well, consider the hole shape; the green should be angled to a direction that would reward the best tee shot. If you play a long dogleg-right and you fly the bunker guarding the right side; a good, fair course would likely design the green facing the right to create a clear shot in. It would simply be unfair to angle the green to the left, because your risk was not rewarded.
Short holes may have very narrow fairways, and longer holes should give us a little room off the tee. It is true that the designer often has to work with whatever the land offers (budget dictates how much earth can be moved). But when whenever possible, these features make a golf course a little more fair and fun for everybody. If the golf course is wide open with very few hazards actually in play, the greens may be undulating, and well protected (this is why Augusta National plays so much more difficult now). Green complexes often complement the design.
Consider a Cape Hole: No. 6 at the Bay Hill Club. You can cut off as much as you’d like, but it comes at a risk. If you can cut off 50 yards more than me, your location should get some reward. It’s all about angles and playing to optimum spots for your next shot.
No. 17 at The Olympic Club.
Pete Dye is a master at this and the way he disguises it. Consider a fairway sloped severely from right to left; (No. 17 at Olympic Club). If every ball is bound to end up left side, it might not be fair to play into a green sloped or angled to right side. Or the famous short, often driveable par 4 like No. 17 at TPC Scottsdale, which is a fun hole for everybody with great penalty for not pulling off the career drive. There are so many designs, and they are too numerous to mention. These are just a few examples to get you to look at the golf course through more “strategic” eyes.
Variety: The best courses have a mix of doglegs, straight holes, long and short ones, all playing in every direction possible. I played a course once that had 13 doglegs out of 14 driving holes: another where every par 3 measured more than 200 yards and was over water! And of course we often get municipal courses that play up and back, up and back (to save land use). But these golf courses lack variety. At this year’s U.S. Open at Merion, for example, the par 3s played from 98 yards to 255!
No. 7 at Pebble Beach Golf Links.
Continuity: Take all those different holes, but somehow they all go together on this property! They form one great piece of landscape art. This is the problem sometimes with the “Replica” course (designs of famous holes throughout the course). Every hole might be a good design, but the holes simply don’t belong on the same golf course!
Shot Making: Does the golf course require high shots, low ones, fades and draws? Does it force the player to use every club? When you have to come in low, does it allow you run the ball; or when you have to come in high to stop the ball?
These are just some of the ways you can look at a golf course and begin to realize why the great ones are truly great, and why there are so very few of them. Of course we can’t all play Pebble Beach every day, but even at your home course you’ll learn to appreciate design and see that it is not some random selection by the architect. I’d love to hear some of your favorite course and take a minute to explain why.
As always, feel free to send a swing video to my Facebook page and I will do my best to give you my feedback.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Rebecca Gardner
Sep 29, 2020 at 12:58 pm
It’s good to know that the best courses will require players to use every club in their bag. According to my knowledge, it’s a good idea to work with a country club consulting service from early on since they’ll know about important factors such as these that a golf course should include. It’s important for country clubs to offer something unique, so putting a lot of care into the golf course could be a good choice!
Nick
Aug 12, 2016 at 10:46 pm
I was just googling “what makes a great golf course” and things like that when I came across this article. Just wanted to say that I enjoyed the article and your criteria. I have played a lot of golf courses across the country, and while the classic golf courses are cool for their history, a lot of them are lacking when it comes to creativity. They are all straight back and straight through. and sure dog legs are cool but most of the time its essentially the same thing only with a little bend in the hole. I like to see a designers imagination. I love when designers give you options off the tee. They give you a safe tee shot, just expect a more difficult angle. I personally enjoy golf courses that allow many options when entering the green and have some large undulations in or around them in the form of mounding. so if you take that easier tee shot and have the more difficult angle, you might have to run it up the left and let a mound roll it next to a right cut hole guarded by a pond. Its always fun to hit a shot 20 yards left of the hole and have it end ten feet to the right of the cup. That’s what story’s and a great time are made of. It also rewards a properly executed golf shot, and a well thought out plan for the hole. I especially enjoy it when creativity is rewarded. so say that there is a pond left and you can bounce it of a mound on the right of the green. It just adds to the course in my opinion.
Okay so after all of this, Id like to say that my favorite golf course to play is one that’s pretty far away. It has a brilliant layout that features amazing views and a plethora of options off each tee and every approach shot into its greens have more then one choice. I really do highly recommend this course to anyone and everyone who reads this comment. Its also my first comment of any sort because I’m not one to do this but I just thought I should get my voice out there. The course is called the Quarry in Minnesota. It is the number 1 public course in the state according to golf digest and is the number 25 public course in the nation (last year number 20). Beautiful views and a layout that could not compliment the naturally rugged terrain of the course any better. Every hole forms one more tile of this masterfully built mosaic in northern Minnesota.
Pingback: One Trip, Many Courses: How To Plan A Full Golf Trip | Quality Inn Sudbury
robert horneman
Aug 5, 2013 at 9:05 am
My ranking of US courses are: #1 Olympic, #2Rivera, #3 LACC. Never played any top ranked courses east of AZ.
My favorites in Europe are the European club, Waterville, Lahinch, Tralee, Balybunion ,Old Head , Kingsbarns and Royal Portmarnick.
Played the Old Course ,loved the history and the 17th hole. The rest of the course was pretty boring except watching some old Scots playing golf with their dogs following them. I guess the dogs can go into the Gorse to find their lost ball!
Martin
Aug 2, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Royal County Down is a fantastic course! Full of beauty, tradition and wonderful, natural design. I would also like to mention The Glashedy Links (Ballyliffin GC). A modern, demanding links course designed by a man who really knows the game and links golf: Nick Faldo.
Ritch Gallagher
Aug 1, 2013 at 9:38 am
I have played a lot of courses over the years. My favorite place to play in the US is Bandon. I have played three of the four courses, need to make another trip, and they have the ingredients I like. Walkable, encourage the ground game and bring links golf to the States. Oakland Hills, The Prince course at Princeville in Hawaii, Carnoustie and the Stadium course at PGA West have to rank as the most difficult courses I have played.
Regis Staley
Jul 31, 2013 at 6:02 pm
I rate the Black Course as one of the best. In reality though you have to be in good shape to walk it and truly enjoy it. Maidstone and National unforgettable. But my hands down favorite is Old Head on the southern tip of Ireland. Nothing I’ve ever played compares. In Myrtle its Heritage and I have played them all. I look for the architecture and the experience. How did the architect use the natural layout. What type of mix is there on the par 3s, 4s and 5s. A Short Par 4 with a dogleg followed by a long straight par 5. Can I be talked into playing another 18?
Bill Ziegler
Jul 31, 2013 at 4:51 pm
I have been fortunate enough to play a lot of golf in a lot of wonderful places. To me, my five favorite courses are as follows – Cruden Bay (Scotland), Royal Dornoch (Scotland), Pacific Dunes (Oregon), Harbor Town (South Carolina) and Theodore Wirth (The Muny I grew up playing in Minneapolis).
You have to have a soft spot for the course where you learned the game.
Jim
Jul 31, 2013 at 4:40 pm
I’ve played some very nice courses in Canada, USA, Mexico, and Europe but the one I played 100+ times/yr trumped the 2 leading complaints of the working class golfer… “costs too much and takes too long”. It was a nicely conditioned 5100yd par 65 course; 9 par 3’s, 7 par 4’s, and 2 par 5’s. I’d usually play after work & dinner and it took me 2.5 hrs walking. I’ve since moved too far away with only highly ranked ‘monsters’ in the area so I don’t play nearly as much any more. Playing the forward tees at the longer courses doesn’t shorten the playing time as I still have to follow high handicappers playing the wrong tees (I’m a 6.2) for 4+ hours. I seldom have the time nor budget to play these ‘favorite’ or highly ranked courses. So my ‘favorite’ course has to be the one I played most often.
Brian
Jul 29, 2013 at 4:24 pm
I’d say design, variety, and conditioning, in that order, are my top factors. I think another attribute to consider might be history. Most courses with history tend to be well conditioned, but history can certainly make up some for any lack in design and variety. Knowing that the greatest golfers to have played the game walked the same grounds you’re walking and remembering some of the greatest shots and moments from the game’s history are awesome feelings.
A course that I really enjoy playing in my neck of the woods is a Mike Strantz design called Tot Hill Farm in Asheboro, NC. Many would probably know his more popular Pinehurst design, Tobacco Road. Tot Hill Farm is every bit as scenic and dramatic, but a lot less gimmicky, and a consistently more difficult test of golf.
Damien
Jul 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm
I’ve played a number of the top 100 courses in the U.S. and consider the River Course @ Black Wolf Run to be the “best” parkland style course I’ve played. Only complaint: Par 3 13th which requires a righty to hit a draw or a lefty to hit a fade / cut with a long-iron with no bail out area.
Worst: Minebrook Golf Club in Hackettstown, NJ.
Mats "Pump 2"
Jul 29, 2013 at 1:34 am
As I’m from Sweden, I havn’t played many US courses, the best one I’ve played to my mind is Torrey Pines South and North course. In Europe, one of my all time favourite courses is Dunluke Course at Royal Portrush. In Sweden: I have to go with Bro Hof, Stadium Course, hosts the Scandinavian Masters on European Tour, a course in mint condition. Over and out! 🙂
Sean
Jul 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm
I think for the average golfer a course that allows you to play the ball on the ground. Many modern course designs require forced carries that many average golfers can’t navigate (180 to 200 yard range).
Martin
Jul 26, 2013 at 9:08 pm
I am not a scratch bomber so I don’t need the course to be brutally hard, I like to walk and have a bad knee so long very steep hills in either direction are no fun for me.
I like a mix of holes, some hard, some easier, the biggest things to me is consistencly of turf, sand and greens and having a bailout area on very long carries. Extremely fast greens are no fun for me, particularly on a course I don’t play very often.
I don’t really have an absolute favourite course, Eagle Creek outside Ottawa is pretty great, redtail Landing near Edmonton and Raven at Verrado near Phoenix are memorable for me.
george
Jul 25, 2013 at 5:45 pm
national golf links of america southhampton ny – there is no better golf course
the worst course ive played ……… the woods at cherry creek riverhead long island – are you kidding me ???????????
george
Jul 25, 2013 at 5:50 pm
bethpage black is quite overrated as is the entire complex of 5 courses
Anthony
Jul 26, 2013 at 9:09 am
I totally disagree. Especially as someone who live five minutes from the complex.
You have one of the best courses in the country with Black (public or otherwise). Black has it’s faults, like a lack of a finishing hole, but realistically if that tee shot isn’t in the fairway, the rough is so thick and the bunkers right and left make it an impossible approach to a domed, uphill, well protected green. My biggest gripe with Black is the walk up 15. Even after you putt and walk off the green the walk up to the 16th tee takes a lot out of you. But I love that course.
The Red there has so much character and offers long, short, east, and challenging holes that allow you to use every club in your golf bag. You can also play many of the holes several different ways. This is probably one of my favorite golf courses.
The Blue offers one of the most challenging front 9’s out there. As a matter of fact, I hate the front 9 on blue because I have tremendous difficulty with it. Just last Friday I went out in 51 and came in with a 40 (I play to a 13). Sure the back gets easier and shorter, but again, the course allows you to play every club in your bag and multiple types of shots.
The Green and Yellow are two short courses. But make no mistake they can bite you in the rear end. The Green and Yellow courses greens are challenging to make up for the lack of length. There are subtle slopes that I have trouble picking up. You think the putt is going straight and then it breaks one way or another.
I mean know disrespect by disagreeing with you. Between the five courses at Bethpage and the three courses at Eisenhower, LI golfers have seven really good municipal course to keep in their summer rotation and never get bored. It’s where I play 90% of my rounds, so I understand I can be a little bit of a homer on this one.
Dennis Clark
Jul 26, 2013 at 12:49 pm
George: Tell us what it is you don’t like about Black, perhaps in the context of my article
Abu Dhabi Golfer
Jul 29, 2013 at 11:20 am
Having played over 300 courses in over 20 countries, Bethpage (Black) is the 3rd best inland course I have ever played – behind Sunningdale (Old) in England, and Royal Melbourne (West) in Australia.
Some peoples’ standards are just way too high!!! LOL
Dennis Clark
Jul 26, 2013 at 12:50 pm
What is specifically about national that makes it the best IYO?