Let me answer your questions directly ...
Aha! Now we'e getting somewhere!
1). At the top of the ratings for openings within the last 40 years for me would be courses like Sand Hills and The Golf Club, to name just two. I would put Pacific Dunes slightly behind those two clubs but still among the very best I have played among modern courses.
Super choices, no complaints from me.
My issue though, is with the fact that none of those courses are anywhere near the top of the rankings. That really is the heart of where you and I diverge. I don't disagree with your assessment of Sand Hills, or #2 for that matter. I don't disagree with the you regarding the quality of those courses in any way.
It is just very, very hard for me to look at the Top 100 lists, see that nada from the last 40 years has made the top 30 or 40 slots, and then say that a new course opening today WOULD make those slots, when all the evidence (the exisiting top 100 lists) says otherwise. If there were a few newer courses that made the top 10 or 20 or 30, that would at least show it is possible.
Let me once AGAIN say that Digest is one publication that inserted extra points for tradition and even walking. I have explained more than enough times how that can skew things for certain courses whose architectural heft (not #2 IMHO) is at issue.
I disagree that it would only effect courses whose 'heft' is in question. If a new course opens tomorrow, it should get 0 for tradition whether it is the greatest course ever built or the worst. Mathematically, I think you are dead wrong here. If Pine Valley opened tomorrow, it would not be doubted in terms of 'heft', but it would still get 0 for tradition and would therefore be hurt in comparison to other courses that do get points for tradition.
Andy -- you need to realize the shortcomings of the nature of a good number of panelists who really don't traverse the country but play their respective selections from their "neck of the woods." In my opinion -- that's one of the shortcomings. Sand Hills has not attained its rightful ranking IMHO simply because of a tweaking by those connected to the magazine -- I've yet to meet a rater from any publication who after playing Sand Hills doesn't believe it to be one of the tp layouts in the USA.
But, even if this is true (and I don't doubt that it is by the way), it is still the system that exists. It is still the system that produces the Top 100 rankings, that says that #2 deserves whatever its ranking is. These shortcomings are part and parcel of attaining the rank you say #2 would attain if it opened tomorrow.
Or, are you saying that #2 would NOT attain it's current rank because of these shortcomings, and that it would only attain the rank you think it deserves if the system and the raters were changed?
#2 doesn't need tradition points to be rated as high as it is. The problem for a number of raters is that they need the added visual stimuli to really juice up the visit for them. Hello Andy --have you not heard this before from me?
I have indeed Matt, several times. Two issues though:
1. If #2 is in competition with all the courses (which it would be when compiling a top 100 list), then it would slide a bit if other courses get tradition points and it doesn't. That's just common sense Matt.
2. If a 'number of raters' need visual stimuli to rank a course highly, and #2 doesn't have that stimuli, than it seems logical to me that those raters will not rate #2 highly if it opens tomorrow. Agreed, I assume? If that is the case, then how can you then say that #2 would reach its current rank when you also say that many raters wouldn't appreciate it? The only way I can see that making sense is if the ranking system is changed and new raters are employed.
Let me also correct you -- I'm not the one who has instituted tradition points -- Digest did.
Sorry, if that's what I said, I certainly didn't mean to say that you were the one that brought tradition points to the Top 100 rankings.
When you say raters who are well traveled and knowledgeable is besides the point -- sorry my friend -- that is the point!
I meant it was besides the point in the sense that the raters today are essentially the same raters tomorrow. You yourself have said that too many are too provinicial, and too many need stimuli, and too many don't see the subtely of #2. I'm just taking you are your word, and that being the case, it really makes no sense to then turn around and say that raters with all the liabilities that you have listed would then turn around and rank #2 so highly. It makes no sense Matt.
Do yourself a favor -- go to #2 -- play it a few times and then opine on whether or not it deserves its standing
I have. As I have said, it is a fine course. I have never said otherwise.