You might be surprised but I often find the ratings process wanting in a number of ways. Many people who step foot on the more "renowned" courses simply get caught up with the fanfare that the club has achieved in non-architectural aspects -- like the hosting of major championships and the like.
Oh no Matt, actually I am not at all surprised. You have been quite clear on your feelings towards the rankings, and a large number of the raters as well. We have no quibble here. In fact, I think we agree on almost all the points discussed generally, until we actually get to the point where we take all the points and reach a conclusion based upon all those little factoids. We just seem to end up at a different place.
I will say this again -- architectural gems can be found -- it simply takes people to get off the couch and go out there and play them when they come forward.
No doubt you are correct, but that's tangential to what we have been discussing.
I don't follow that reasoning -- especially in my "neck of the woods" in Northern New Jersey and through the NY metropolitan area. The bar for courses should be high when we speak about the overall best and from my travels and many visits over the last 30 years I have personally witnessed a number of successful courses (e.g. Skokie in IL) that are awaiting others to wake up and smell the coffee regarding their specific pedigree.
Again, this is one of those little factoids we agree on. You don't agree with my terminology (inertia), but you clearly agree with the point I was trying to make regarding it.
There are superb layouts designed by some wonderful architects who are not as prolific or known as the usual set of characters you see discussed here on GCA and elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are a few people who simply play courses because of their "brand name" designer and then convey some added meaning to those layouts when the reality is even the big name architects don't hit home runs with each design.
Right, we're on the same page again. So if a #2 was designed today by Donald Duck (all water hazard jokes aside), I am not sure why you think it would be immune from the exact same phenomenon you are talking about here?
Andy -- you need to play more courses before you jump in and say my rationale is flawed. Pinehurst #2 has the goods --it doesn't have the flash and off-course aspects that often draw the attention of those who should know better. If you're not convinced of my opinion -- fair enough -- but please do me a favor and play a number of the top courses that are out there now and let me know what you think then.
Matt, I would be happy to play more of the top courses, truly I would. I don't seem to get a lot of invites to them however. I am just west of you in D.C., so send me a line next time you need a fourth
I am not doubting the courses you have played or your judgement of them in any way, by the way. I am sure your assessments are spot on generally, and spot on specifically of #2 (which I have played, by the way)
I am trying to follow your logic though (too many older courses clog the top 30 when they shouldn't, superb new courses do not get the respect they deserve etc), and see how you arrive at a conclusion that a #2 would be a top 10 ranked course if it opened today, and I don't see how you get from all the little facts we agree on to a conclusion that seems to fly in the face of all those facts.