Andrew:
Bias does exist. If such bias is educated in terms of being able to discriminate between courses that's fine -- when it's done as a homer for a given area or for even a given architect (which happens way too often on GCA) then it's gone overboard, in my mind.
There are people who look at their own home state and simply conclude that all the good golf is simply within their area. For example, as much as the greater NYC metro area has some of the finest array of golf courses in the USA or even globally -- it would be remiss for any person (and there are some who don't see beyond the Hudson River as the famed "New Yorker" cartoon illustrated some time ago) to think that excellent golf cannot be created elsewhere.
Andrew, you might be surprised to know that quite a few people ro travel quite extensively. I can only speak to my own situation and until very recently it was not unheard of for me to play on average 40-50 new courses per year -- and that doesn't include a wide array of courses already opened that I wanted to either return to play or seek out for a first time visit. There are people who are even more intense than me and a good number of them do offer a good accounting of what made their visit special and for others to seek out. Keep in mind, that well traveled people are not necessarily panelists or people who post here.
There's no doubt that many people might only have one trip per lifetime to Australia or New Zealand, to mention to areas quite a distance from the States. I try to avail myself of local people who know such areas and try to incorporate an itinerary of courses that would best reflect the area in question. No doubt a one time visit is limited because unless you can stay for an extended period of time -- say at least 4-6 weeks -- it can be limited to only the top tier.
And that was one of my previous points -- when people do make visits they simply play the SAME cast of characters and this has a habit in keeping those sacred cows -- some are deserving and others aren't -- in being where they are located on any such ranking. Getting good info / contacts, even in the Internet age, is still a challenge because there are a number of worthy courses that get much little fanfare. I've made it a point on this thread to point out that serious depth of quality golf that's in the States and for any person who were to visit my "neck of the woods" and only play the likes of Shinnecock or Winged Foot or Plainfield -- would be missing out on a broader range of other courses that will never hosta major or draw such broader acclaim.
Andrew, there's little doubt that a current time frame needs to be incorporated into any assessment of courses. You have people who do rate a course from a visit that could be as long as 10 years ago. To give you a better idea -- I have played Sand Hills in Nebraska shortly after it opened -- I have not been back there since so my understanding of what the course is TODAY has to be kept with that in mind.
No doubt magazines should scale anyone's assessment of a course based on an appropriate time line. Ratings that are more than five (5) years old should be discarded for the obvious reasons that all things go evolve. You also have the real possibility that such course(s) have gone through either changes -- both good or bad -- and also course work such as renovation -- which needs to be accounted.
Last point -- you asked about how many people have played all of the world's top courses. I can't answer that directly -- but let me finish by saying this -- it's not just the total number of courses played but the kind of analysis that the respective rater brings to the table too. You need to combine the two aspects in order to get a real gleaning of what is happening.
No doubt the field work element is essential because without it you would have nothing more than people who are basing their accounts on third hand sources or from photos or other such things. A world ratings is difficult because of the size of the planet and for the other reasons I mentioned but it's possible you can get a good idea given the speed of real time information today. At the end of the day -- one has to remember it is subjective and in any consensus formula you will have issues that I, and others, have already discussed.
Sean Arble:
I agree with your "clubby" comment. No doubt once a course gets mentioned -- especially in a top 50 position -- it can be almost impossible for it to lose ground. Witness the inane design "improvements" made at ANGC yet the course is still seen by "experts" as a top 10 layout in the world.
However ...
When you say many American courses are "over-rated" -- you fail to comprehend -- likely because you have scratched the surface of a variety of courses here in the States -- that the sheer depth of layouts in America is often thought to be second tier stuff. Quite the contrary -- since the 1990's a number of superior courses have opened yet they are still trying to break through the glass ceiling that prevents them from being seen as truly great courses of the modern time frame.
So many of the hanger-on courses are nothing more than relics with plenty of dust on their bodies. They need to be pushed off while still being celebrated in a lesser light. Unfortunately, many raters are themselves clubby and have a tendency to play only the same type of courses and therefore only vote for what they have always perceived as the same usual suspects.
Let me address your last point -- yes, it would be great to see courses of less than 6,500 yards be considered. But, such consideration should not be seen as a throw-away consideration simply because they are shorter. Very, very few courses have the totality of the design to hold the attention of the top player when lesser lengths are involved. Those advocating their inclusion usually have a selfish motive because they themselves don't have the length to handle the courses with more length.
I have an open mind to such courses but it's more likely you will see overseas locations having such layouts because the American course development model doesn't seem to factor in such courses as a major selling point.
One last item on that point -- I have mentioned a number of such courses in my neck of the woods in metro NYC -- they are not to be included on a world top 100 but would be worth a play for anyone looking for more than just the championship level designs.
Jon W:
I say what I did for a clear reason -- I don't value or place in emphasis the LOCATION of the course itself. I simply analyze the COURSE and let it go at that. I am not a fool to believe that others do it in the reverse fashion.
Jon, the USA has the greatest number of courses of any nation in the world. You may not fathom that sheer depth of courses just in the greater NYC metro area alone -- candidly, the metro NYC area could hold its own against the likes of any top tier country -- and that includes the likes of Ireland and Scotland, to name two quick ones.
The USA also has an array of top tier layouts -- opened since 1990 -- that get little fanfare -- save for what you see here on GCA. I don't see the USA side of the equation as overrated -- however, I do see specific courses already listed from the USA as being overrated and could be replaced in a New York minute by others.