Yet again these lists prove to be a total joke. I could understand if each course has a distillery next door being the real reason for their inclusion but even our individual choice of Single Malts vary so much.
Again I ask what the hell has this type of list got to do with GCA, yes it might be important for a designer to sell himself, but that’s not GCA. Marketing is Marketing not architecture
It’s not a valid subject for this or any other site, it detracts from the real issue ‘The Architecture’
Lists are there for your vanity, you play the game, but have you played each course enough to justify your own opinion of the course. i.e. round in the morning, second round afternoon then repeat in in different weather conditions. Have the courses been rated in the same or different weather conditions?
Nothing wrong with your own tried and tested list as they I expect are the result of many a round over various weather conditions, but even then we may not agree upon the playability of the course.
Lists, are just another few more rolls of toilet paper to confuse and take ones eye of the main point, which is did you f@#K*!g enjoy it, did you have fun when on the course
Let’s get the real debates started on this site, subjects along the lines of Land fit for purpose, what is the real cost of a new course excluding the financial cost of purchasing, housing and running carts and cart tracks – would the savings be seen as really costs effective, enough to undertake the venture? Not these useless lists that are always at the centre of all this criticism.
But then are you on here to talk about GCA, the listing or just promote one’s own vanity. Is GCA.com becoming a golfing facsimile Vanity Fair. Do many really care?
Melvyn