Tom Paul;
I understand and respect your views as far as "ratings", but I don't believe that is what is at play here, in the least. The evidence doesn't support it, clearly.
Twenty years ago, in 1982, there was one prominent ranking list in this country and that was Golf Digest. At that time, the whole idea of "challenge" and difficulty took precedence, which is probably natural coming out of the Trent Jones era of design. If there was ever a time for NGLA and Maidstone (as well as Garden City) to be affected by rankings, it was then...not now. Why?
Simply, because somewhat unbelievably, at the time, NGLA was MISSING on the Top 100 list published by Golf Digest. Maidstone and Garden City appeared in the "Second 50" of the Top 100.
Let's look at the design history of each, because these are clearly not clubs that have been affected by each design whiim and trend over the years, much less by ratings.
In the case of NGLA, other than Karl Olsen's vaunted "restoration" work to clear trees and other growth, I don't believe anyone made any substantive design changes to the course for the past 70 years or more, when Maxwell was there. RTJ Sr. installed some irrigation lines, but that's about it. For the most part, the course is as Macdonald left it.
With Maidstone, very little has been done since Maxwell rebuilt several of Park's holes after the hurricane in the later 30s. A handful of minor touchups by Dick Wilson, Alfred Tull, and most recently Brian Silva, but almost nothing of substance that would have altered Park's work in any significantly aesthetic or functional way.
At Garden City, we know about RTJ Sr. and his work on the 12th, but almost without exception, the course is as Emmett and Travis left it at the turn of last century. Tom Doak was responsible for some restoration work recently (mostly tree clearing), and the club rebuilt their bunkers using inhouse workers.
So, these are courses that are not only historically important, but also clubs where the memberships have historically been averse to "keeping up with the Joneses". In a way, each is almost the antithesis of Augusta National, for instance.
So, back to rankings. Now, 20 years later, after being essentially "dissed" due to their purported lack of challenge for the modern game in 1982, where do each stand on the major rankings?
NGLA is ranked #11 on Golfweek's Best Classical course list, #14 on Golf Magazine's list, and #16 on Golf Digest's (interestingly, the only one that uses "Resistance to Scoring" as one of its criteria).
Garden City is ranked #18 on Golfweek, #33 on Golf Magazine, and #27 on Golf Digest.
Maidstone is ranked #33 on Golfweek, #39 on Golf Magazine, and #42 on Golf Digest.
It seems to me to be ironic that these courses have climbed significantly in the rankings over the past 20 years, and are now seemingly being viewed by some members as antiquities that are no longer functionally relevant. They are AWESOME in their present form, and should remain so as they have done for the last century.
Patrick;
I don't know that Rees didn't say that, nor did I imply that he didn't. I only said "wouldn't it be great if he did?".
I certainly hope that he would!
In the case of Maidstone, I had heard that he previously declined to work on the course because he loved it so much and didn't see the need. I'm not sure what has changed his mind, if he has now accepted. I would think he would feel similarly about National.