Mr. Mucci,
And thus a new question arises regarding the appeal and personal opinion of golf courses. I am speaking generally now and am writing these words knowing that we have many raters for many publications on this site. Many non-members also read this site for information and insight regarding courses. As Mr. Wyatt Halliday said yesterday while we played a friendly match, "Just being on the website makes you an expert." I tend to agree whether we like it or not.
With that said, it begs the question. Is a golf course rated by those that play it as members or consistently (8 times a year)? Is it rated by those in the architectural know that make the "best of" lists in Golfweek, Golf, or Golf Digest? Is it rated by those--like me I might add--that will hopefully get a once in a lifetime chance to see, study and play the layout? In my opinion, it matters not. A guy like me would see it once, rack his brain for the rest of his existence remembering the architectural feats of the 9th green or the 14 green, and champion the course to those golfers that had never heard of it till they can stand it no more. Members are happy to be there, enjoy their "new school old school" golf course and have great times and good laughs.
It's the "in between-ers" that are probably the most skeptical and, IMO, least likely to appreciate the "wow" factor and ability of a golf course to inspire. I am not saying that raters are the bane of great golf courses. But I think it's nit-picky and slightly superficial to delve into the minutiae of whether the initial "wow" has anything to do with the quality of golf. The reason I say this is because the majority of players to somewhere like Friar's or NGLA or PV, may only get to see it once. Therefore, it is futile to really debate how much the "wow" factor plays into the equation. And really, should we not debate golf courses on their ability to inspire, enthuse, and radiate versus it's peers?