This discussion shows up the great fault in ranking lists. They are subjective, but many view them as objective.
In other words, many (including golf club committees) view these lists as being accurate accounts of the quality of the golf courses in that particular country. Even though, these same people have probably never seriously considered what ‘quality’ is. They assume the people on the panel know what they are talking about & play all the courses on a regular basis.
I think subjectivity is a great thing, but when people view these lists (& magazines promote these lists) as the definitive ranking, then it can cause problems.
The lists create discussion, but at what cost ?
Andrew's correct, in that rankings are subjective, and influencial. They're embraced by many, and often precipitate committee level decisions resulting in significant change to many courses over the years. Sometimes for the wrong reasons.
In compiling these lists, I'm not aware of a single publication which provides detailed written feedback to the Clubs whose courses are up for consideration. Many produce pages justfying the form of their annual / biannual rankings editions.
Is it the role of magazines to comminicate their views to the Clubs?
I feel it would be a beneficial and responsible thing to do. Some would no doubt feel it's the publications big-noting themselves. Some Clubs would simply dismiss such communications, and rightly so in some instances. Yet I feel such an effort should be undertaken to either aid future course remodelling, or safe-guard some Clubs from blindly and / or erroneously taking the scalpel to their courses, in the name of attracting elevated status in the minds of rank and file golfers.
It may even see the rankings embrace a slightly more objective mode of assessment.
What do you think?
Matthew