View The LINKS 100
Who better than LINKS Magazine—and golf architects—to rank the world’s top 100 courses?
Welcome to The LINKS 100, the newest and most distinctive ranking of the world’s top 100 golf courses. Why do we at LINKS Magazine believe this is the most authoritative tabulation of golf’s most elite layouts? Because the only voters were architects—specifically, members of the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA), the European Institute of Golf Course Architects (EIGCA), and the Society of Australian Golf Course Architects (SAGCA).

So why do another ranking of the world’s top courses? For starters, rankings are fun. It’s the ultimate grill room debate: Which course is better? Rankings certainly illuminate the most famous courses, but they also throw glare on overrated layouts and occasionally shine a light on lesser-known gems from faraway places. One may question whether architects can be fair about evaluating the work of fellow designers, but our take is this: Who better to judge the comparative merits of golf courses than the men and women who design them for a living?
The results of The LINKS 100 confirmed much of what we expected, and unveiled some surprises, too. The unexpected starts at the top, where Cypress Point nudged ahead of perennial No. 1 Pine Valley. Admittedly, it was a close contest. Perhaps a one-sentence explanation best explains why Cypress inched past Pine Valley by 42 hundredths of a point: Pine Valley possesses more world-class holes than any course on earth, but Cypress Point is the apex as a feast for the senses, as a course that makes you grateful to be alive and playing golf.

We learned, perhaps not surprisingly, that Society architects prefer sand-based, seaside golf courses. Nearly 60 of the top 100 courses are either classic, low-lying links, clifftop layouts above the sea, or inland spreads draped atop sandy subsoil. “It is a blessing to work with sand,” says ASGCA architect Bill Coore, who gets credit for five courses on The LINKS 100 list, four with partner Ben Crenshaw. “A golf course built on sandy soil is going to have good drainage and firm turf. For the designer, it’s ideal—you can mold it and shape it exactly as you want. I’m a hopeless perfectionist, and sand lets me focus on the fine details, tweaking until I get it just right.”
Another inclination from the architects was the continued reverence for the works of Pete Dye. President of the ASGCA in 1988–89, Dye was as beloved as he was outspoken. Even as his bold design style has given way to a more minimalist trend, his masterworks have continued to thrive. Seven Pete Dye creations found places on The LINKS 100 and another two courses ranked between 101 and 110 on the final list. Only Alister MacKenzie had a higher tally, with seven original courses and four substantial renovations among the top 100.
A third key takeaway from the results speaks to how continually underrated golf courses in Australasia have been for far too long. Typically, American and European course connoisseurs skip the so-called “second-tier” courses when they make the long trek to Australia and New Zealand, but the architects know better. The regional designers and the architects who have made the journey helped elevate 11 courses from Australia into The LINKS 100 and four from New Zealand. Household names populate the upper rungs, from Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath in Australia to Tara Iti and Cape Kidnappers in New Zealand. Yet, sprinkled liberally throughout The LINKS 100 are less familiar names, such as Victoria, Metropolitan, and Peninsula Kingswood (North) in Australia and Paraparaumu Beach in New Zealand.
No one can accuse the architects of “Recency Bias”: Only two courses built since 2020—Rosapenna’s St. Patrick’s Links in Ireland and Vietnam’s Hoiana Shores—cracked the top 100, and only seven courses that opened in the past 10 years earned a spot. Since 2000, 17 courses were deemed worthy of top 100 status, with Tom Doak’s Tara Iti ranked the highest, at Number 19.

Actually, any conspicuous bias was absent from the final voting results. Admittedly, it’s evident that the world’s Society architects should frequent the leading candidates in Asia and Continental Europe a bit more, but the results indicated benign neglect as opposed to willful disdain toward courses in those territories. And, truth be told, the consensus of Society architects didn’t appear to discriminate against non-society architects, with five of Tom Doak’s courses finding top 100 favor, along with a smattering of others.
Kudos to the members of the ASGCA, EIGCA, and SAGCA for voicing their opinions and for having fun with the process. Perhaps John LaFoy, President of the ASGCA in 1999–2000, put it best. “I like this exercise, although you may find that it is just as difficult for architects to look at courses objectively as anyone else who thinks they know what great golf courses look and play like,” said LaFoy. “I think my course ratings were about perfect, although reasonable people might disagree!”
Let the debates begin.

THE LINKS 100: HOW WE RANKED THEM
The LINKS 100 was determined by member architects of the world’s three major societies: the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA), the European Institute of Golf Course Architects (EIGCA), and the Society of Australian Golf Course Architects (SAGCA). The men and women from the three societies cast their votes from a survey ballot of 400 courses, assigning each course they had played or walked a number from 1 through 5, inclusive of half-points, with 5 being the highest rating. Rankings were arrived at by adding the total number of points accumulated for each course, then dividing that number by the total number of votes cast for that course. For easier reading and comparisons, we multiplied the final rating numbers by 10 and rounded to the nearest hundredth. Bonus points were awarded for courses that the architect had visited in the past five years. To be eligible for inclusion in The LINKS 100, a course had to reach a minimum threshold of being voted on by 10 percent of the voters.
In contrast to some other rankings, there were no set-in-stone criteria that the architects were required to follow when evaluating a golf course. As a guideline, the architects were encouraged to weigh six factors in arriving at their assessments:
- How well the course tests the full range of skills
- Design rhythm—the flow and balance of a course
- Variety—both of the terrain and individual holes
- Skill of routing, navigability
- Beauty, setting, and course conditioning
- Imaginative (or admirably restrained) use of the given land
To avoid the inherent bias, we asked the architects to abstain from voting for their own original designs. In the end, however, it was up to each individual voter how much to emphasize any of these aspects.

THE ARCHITECTS’ PERSPECTIVE ON RANKINGS
In many ways, golf course architects are no different from other golfers. We love the game, and our passion drives our work. And like you, we love to explore new courses, appreciate thought-provoking designs, and enjoy discussing what makes a shot, a hole, a course so great.
And yes, we enjoy course rankings as much as other golfers do. However, we have a unique perspective on these lists, which shine a light on the best layouts and provide inspiration for all ASGCA (American Society of Golf Course Architects), EIGCA (European Institute of Golf Course Architects), and SAGCA (Society of Australian Golf Course Architects) members.
Membership in these associations reflects high standards of professionalism, expertise, and integrity, gained both through work in the field and the continuing enrichment provided by membership. Members of the associations get together regularly for organized “study tours” of significant courses around the world. This first-hand exposure helps us become better architects by incorporating principles and features into our own designs.
In addition to studying courses, we discuss and debate, teach and learn. This shared knowledge among architects is one of the unique aspects of our business. As former ASGCA President Bob Cupp once said: “Joining ASGCA is like having 180 mentors.” An architect never stops learning. This focus on continuing education benefits the industry, and we are honored to apply our collective expertise into participation in The LINKS 100.
Many considerations that go into designing and building a course are not readily easy to appreciate. When architects study a course, their perspective is likely distinct from that of other critics and raters.
For one, we provide a wide lens on the game. Unlike pickleball courts, golf courses are far from uniform. Golfers’ skill levels can vary significantly, and no two courses look or play the same. Each layout can serve a distinct purpose—from hosting major championships to providing memorable vacation experiences—yet we work hard so all golfers are able to enjoy playing these layouts.
Similarly, one of the most appealing aspects of golf is that it can be played almost anywhere, and the best courses use the natural setting to create strategic interest and maximize aesthetic appeal. Due to our experience in designing and building courses, we recognize that there is a lot going on under the surface—drainage, irrigation, specialized sand and gravel—to present this landscape. We are uniquely positioned to evaluate the challenges of designing a course on a particular site.
No ranking is perfect, but we hope that our expertise, experience, and passion make The LINKS 100 a vehicle to advance awareness of great design, foster discussion, and inspire us all to design courses that golfers will continue to enjoy for generations to come.
Brian Costello, ASGCA President / Caspar Grauballe, EIGCA President / Paul Mogford, SAGCA President

Your picture above of pebble beach is the 7th hole – might wanna correct that as it undermines the rankings if you don’t know that hole.
The photo captions reference the courses’ rankings in The LINKS 100, not the hole number.
4 in NZ, but not Te Arai Links North or South?
Agree – got to play both last year and Te Arai is now my favorite place in the world to golf. I have played 11 courses on this list and would rank the South course somewhere in the 90’s compared to the ones I’ve played. But there are no slouches on this list!
statisticians would call Cypress and Pine Valley a tie !!
I weep for people who think that The Ocean Course is better than Fishers Island:) Great list in general, but I have played 9 courses ahead of Fishers on this list, and none are better. Sand Hills is close. Maybe Royal County Down and Ballybunion, too. The rest (Pebble, Portrush, Kiawah, Old Course, Crystal Downs, Lahinch) are great but clearly not on the same level. By quick count, I am at 22 overall.
I really enjoyed going through your ranking as I have been fortunate enough to have played 21 of the courses! Being a Northern Californian who has played nearly 600 courses worldwide, I could only wonder why I didn’t see the Lake course at the Olympic Club on the list
What accomplished tour pros worldwide put the Lake course in their top 20? Top 10? SFClub is beloved by Lanny Wadkins Couples, Els, A. Palmer, Dave Marr, all had it in their top ten twenty years ago. The Lake is still too tight and daunting with two nasty chutes on 6 and 12 both holes playing 460-500 yards wind depending. Tough? Oh yeah. Fair, fun, invigorating, not so much.
Alistair Mackenzie once opined what’s wrong with it(?) about a course no one had ever broken par on it, 1920’s of course. 1920’s Spyglass Hill is how I refer to it to the Lake. RTJ Sr. did the 1955 US Open remodel. No doubt Gil Hanse /Jim Wagners hands (one at least each) were tied behind their backs during the most recent tweaking. Just walking the course is a real challenge. Other than the mahvelous burger dog off ten green, not a fan sadly. Some new harsh fairway bunkers have been added. Tough has never been great, just hard. Where’s the fun in that, the re-creation that golf ⛳️ can and should provide those players not playing golf for a living?
Lake Merced GC used to be like the Lake. Hanse/Wagner have recently made it fun and playable. Two under used to qualify for a US Open (36 holes) there. Last May it took minus ten to make it. Rounds are much faster now, nearly no problem finding one’s golf ball. Playable for all.