Matt
I think the compromise is a step in the right direction but you still haven't escaped the flaw in the rankings which is fundamental in nature; ie, trying to force an ordinal system on a diverse collection of courses.
The "Richelin" system is an advance in that respect.
Here's my crackpot at it:
Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.
Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.
These values should be expressed not in ordinal rankings but quantitatively.
A course would be "rated" according to how much value its existence added to the total value of golf course architecture. So it wouldn't be rated so much as it would be valued.
For simplicity, suppose the sum value of golf course architecture equalled 100 pennies.
A course "valuer" would have to allocate those 100 pennies across the world of golf courses. This is what I meant by a closed system in the earlier post.
Given that new courses open each year, adding to the total value of all courses, we could inflate the 100 pennies by a certain amount each year, or inflate it only when a course comes along and earns a certain number of pennies.
Or we can keep the figure constant in recognition that courses close each year, too, and that some which open *subtract* from the total value!
Still another option is to go with the Golfweek model, whose classical rankings intuitively the reality that its a closed system, even as it botches the job by using an ordinal system. So, hold the older group constant at 100 pennies (or even better some acknowledged share of a global total of 100), and inflate a second group.
The beauty of this "added value" system (which as a concept IRW was invented by the game theoritician Barry Nalebuff) lies in the implicit recognition that outside 50-75 courses - if that many - in the entire world, the loss of a particular course to history will have negligible impact on the global value of golf course architecture.
Also, such a system would have credibility because its focus simply is the contribution to architecture of a course, rather than its conditioning, history, shot values and other dubious criteria. The list wouldn't change much, so people wouldn't be drawn into these stupid conversations about the 28th vs 42nd courses.
The magazines would never go for it because it wouldn't sell magazines, which would reveal very clearly the real purpose of magazine ratings.
Against all odds, should such a list gain credibility / influence, it would have a hugely positive influence on the preservation of treasured features, holes and courses. Green committees at last would have to calculate the harm they do to the value, to the contribution, of their course when they lengthen it, narrow it, blow up the greens etc.
And should enough of these treasures be made obsolete by I&B, perhaps a groundswell of popular demand would lead to a change and bring these courses back into the tournament rota. (save for the hideous problem of gigantism in the majors...)
The key to making this work is who gets to do the valuation. I think I would need really smart people; however, many of them are compromised. I still could use them if:
1. On their word of honor they pledged to value honestly
2. Their valuations were done anonymously, with no possibility of their valuations being made known
3. Outlier valuations were thrown out
4. About 50-75 valuers were used
The value of any system lies in what it produces. I suspect pretty much all the acknowledged "great" courses would make it, maybe some surprises as well like Woking.
No matter, each valuer may have his own view toward value, some tipping toward a curatorial perspective and voting in the Myopia Hunts and Prestwicks. Others may just look purely at personal "shot values."
But NO ONE will be allowed to value anything other than the explicit architecture. No major-tournament history, locked-gate auras, or stimp readings allowed!
Mark