And yet, Harvey, if you've followed the site for a while, you'll have noticed that every second thread is some variation of "Best Course in [name the state]", "Greatest Opening 4 [or 6 or 9] Holes in Golf", "Golf Digest's [or Magazine's, or yours, or mine] Top 100 of All Time [or of last year, or this week, or next month]", "Worst [or best] Course by the Best [or worst] Architect," etc, etc, etc. It's enough to make a guy start thinking there must be something "objective" about this whole golf course architecture thing, and somethng important behind this constant desire for rankings, and it's enough to make you start feeling that maybe everyone except you knows exactly what the rules are [oh, sorry, no rules] but just aren't telling. But then, start asking about, say, the fundamental principles underlying great golf course architecture as manifested in the classic links courses of the British Isles, and watch the conversation dry up, and really quickly too. Not really a criticism of the site, mind you -- I too would like to know what the good work is, and I personally have no insight into the fundamental principles underlying great golf archtecture. But just to say, what the hell -- why not just pick a perspective, any one you want and that feels right to you. It just may be a brilliant way to analyze a golf course. Me, I tend to think in terms of the "sound" a golf course makes....
Welcome aboard
Peter