Jim Nugent, inherently flawed because they have not seen every course? That's 17000 courses. Since we can go in and change the rating once we experience a better course we can tweak our version of what is what we think is best. One aspect that I can't get my mind around is when someone says they have never given a 10
If I haven't played CPC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Merion, and I give Pebble and ANGC a ten, there's a huge flaw in my ranking. IMO that ranking is close to worthless.
Some similar analogies: if I haven't heard Mozart, Bach or Beethoven, how can I say Tchaikovsky is one of the three best classical composers?
If I haven't seen any Doak or C&C courses, how can I say Nicklaus and Fazio are among the top three modern designers?
If I haven't seen a single Mackenzie course, how can I say Ross or Tillie or anyone else is the greatest golf architect of all time?
If I haven't seen GCA.com, how can I say Bombsquadgolf is the best golf website on the net?
Obviously it's impossible to play 17,000 courses. But if you haven't played, say, what are usually considered the top 25 or so, how can you say what is the best? Or 2nd best or 10th best or 100th best? I'd be real interested to learn how many of the top 20, top 50 or top 100 courses each GW rater has played. Bet few to none have played them all.
I prefer giving absolute numbers to each course. That, too, has problems, but they seem to me more manageable. The real problem is that we are trying to objectify a subjective topic. Who is the greatest composer or artist? The greatest athlete? The best restaurant? It comes down to taste.