As I have stated before and Jim has pointed out when you do the breakdown I'm sure it comes down to tenths of points. I think just making the list is pretty good in my book. Jim also brought up a couple of good points. I am not exactly sure of the system used but can owners cast votes on there own course ? There are always going to be omissions and arguments etc. I think it's when you have GLARING omissions is when it starts to stink.
Another thing that has struck me lately with all the rankings talk is the designers themselves. Do you think hearing the names Fazio,Dye, Nicklaus, etc hold more water than say Doak, Devries, C and C, Kidd, Phillips Etc when it comes to the avg. golfer. Could the names themselves automatically give you a higher rating ? As Ben Simms has brought up in another topic the Average golfer does not see things like most of us , even the one's on this site who agree to disagree still see most things eye to eye. Would that make people say "oh nicklaus designed it it has to be good" ? Does that factor into the equation ? I am willing to bet it does
A perfect example I can share is "were going to play that new Baxter Spann golf course" The repy " who ? why don't we go check out that Dye course and the trent jones course I saw online " They did not even have the right Dye for christs sake. So I think this is also a factor. Sometimes a name is all you need.
I have not played enough of the courses on the list to talk about omissions but i'm ok with Kingsley being left out . Let it remain my little secret
(not on this board of course) I love it regardless of where it's ranked.
Also if RCCC and Ballyneal nead to be high on the list in order to sell memberships I am also ok with that to .Maybe it would get them to lower there fee's so schmucks like me might be able to join . I'll do my part to keep them afloat
Ben before you start I know I know Doak should not be on the second list he is a household name now , by the way happy B day !!