Much of this thread has centered around the debate of whether certain courses deserve a "0" rating. Somebody nominates a course, and people come to its defense.
It seems there were a few reasons courses got a "0":
Way too hard
Way too hilly
Way too dangerous
Way too unnatural
Way too expensive
Seems there are lots of courses out there, built on poor golfing property, that offer fast, interesting greens and fun shots to hit, as long as you take a cart. At some level I believe every unwalkable course deserves a "0" - it simply does not qualify. Therefore, I believe the "0-5", or "0-x" is a more valuable ranking tool.
Let's take two examples. First, I'll pick on my own Stone Eagle in Palm Desert. Not impossible, but a very tough walk. A very expensive project, built in an area that does not naturally support lush green grass. Tom's guys walked the course while they built it, and I intend on walking the course a couple times this winter to see how it feels. I like the course a lot, partly because I belong there, but also because it has excellent golf holes and is beautiful. But other people here think it's awful. It's either a 0 or a 6-7, depending on your perspective.
7 - An excellent course, worth checking out...You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning, and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
I think Stone Eagle offers uniqueness as well.
The project that offends me most in the last couple years is Dismal River. They had a great piece of property and a big budget, and built a course 1.5 miles from the clubhouse which is difficult to walk and very difficult to play. It's even difficult to know where you're going on several holes. It should have been great, and by most accounts here it is not. Where do you rate that? Is it a 5 or a 6?
6 - A very good course, definitely worth a game if you're in town...It shouldn't disappoint you.