The lists are much too difficult to comprehend. Here are some samples from each list.
12. 18 – Old Mac – Punchbowl P4
16. Pasatiempo P4/Cypress Point P3/Bandon Dunes P4 – Spyglass P4
6. 3* Old Macdonald #18 Punchbowl
17. *** 3^^^
These lists are attempting to convey the following information - rank, course name, hole name, par, tee location, ties, second place, third place, Michelin rating, and difficulty rating. This is fine, but it presents an information design problem that probably cannot be solved with typed black and white lists. As Edward Tufte famously noted "Confusion and clutter are failures of design, not attributes of information."
The core problem is the discrepancies between the legend and the lists. You say that you are awarding stars, but is "***" the same as "3*"? You also don't explain how stars are earned, as you do for tics and hearts, which is unfortunate because stars are the most prominent feature of the lists.
You say that you are awarding tics, but I can't see any. The first list is in no particular order but is numbered from 1 to 18. Also, the criteria for the Cypress Point list is unclear. You say that you are replacing all the "one heart" holes from Cypress. Does this mean that the holes that you are substituting were better than the holes at Cypress?
Labeling discrepancies make it difficult to make comparisons. "Old Mac" and "Old Macdonald", "CPC" and "Cypress Point", when seen at glance, appear to be referring to different entities.