Mike C:
Hogwash.
Really?
Mike -- the explosion of golf course information today advances the knowledge a good deal more than in years past when raters were necessary in order to provide a Lewis & Clark assessment of the terrain.
Let me point out in 1981 when Frank Hannigan authored a public course ratings article for Digest. Hannigan opined information on the top courses was rare / limited and likely no one had played the listing Digest published in that March issue (I had as well as several others).
Mike -- I know the number of courses I have played over the years and I don't think it would be onerous or outrageous for such a person to visit the key 50-75 courses in a given year. C'mon Mike -- you make it sound like the task is akin to finding coal in the hills of Pennsylvania.
When you say the "collected wisdom" of the group it's really stretching the point you are making. I mean do you really beieve such folks are like Jedi Knights!
In my experieces as a rater I would say no more than 20-25% at the very best of the people I have met are really capable in doing the kind of analysis / cross comparisons needed. Many are fine people but simply clueless for the most part. Yes, they enjoy golf and in most cases make for wonderful company but they have really little to offer. In many instances a number of these people have been asked to become raters for other reasons -- e.g., the club they belong to, the company they keep, the orbits they travel, etc, etc.
Information today is readily available on where the next wave of new and exciting courses is coming. Like I said before years back it wold be necessary for raters because there was no Internet or other mechanism available to gather the course information and provide some sort of critical cross comparisons. That's not the case today.
Mike, information today is known about courses EVEN BEFORE they open (e.g. Sebonack, Liberty National / Bayonne, the layouts at Bandon, etc, etc, etc).
Let me also point out that enterprising / smart critics would also have their own well developed sources throughout the country and can easily keep pace with what is happening. I do such a thing now and know of other folks who do likewise.
The issue many raters have with the singular all encompassing critic is that it would eliminate their role. No doubt someone like you Mike does a fine job. However, there is so much missed because so few raters really see the big picture. Too much is centered around neighborhood parochialism and the inability to really offer clear cut / insightful analysis that goes beyond the lame adjectives (good / bad) that are standard far for the bulk of those who do participate in such a role.
Magazines have critics now for a range of subjects and it does not take away one iota what is then published within their pages. I don't see golf course ratings being that different / unique for such a change to be made.