Debating the "best" courses in the world makes for good conversation and I enjoy listening to different insights on the topic. However, what is the fascination with comparing courses with different characteristics against each other? The comparison of Pine Valley, Augusta, Cypress Point, Oakmont, and the Old Course at St. Andrews to identify the best course in the world is quite interesting. But in doing so, we also feel the need to compare courses like Pacific Dunes to Sand Hills...another interesting conversation. Do we lose sight that the course is designed for the golfer's enjoyment? What is to be gained by comparing Chambers Bay to Ballyneal?
Some people only prefer minimalist designs while others enjoy artificial and elaborate designs, and some of us enjoy them all. Golf needs this diversity. It takes the bad courses to appreciate the good. It takes the artificial to appreciate the minimal.
So my real question is: is it fair to compare courses of different styles or characteristics?