I haven't read through the entries closely so apologies if this has been covered. I don't really care about having you revisit courses in the book. People fail to understand the purpose of the Doak Scale -- my own feeling is scored once, no need to score again because from a "travel motivation" standpoint a) not much is going to change and b) the things that tend to change are maintenance related and the book makes abundantly clear that's of secondary importance. For starters, see: Westward Ho! and The Addington.
Well, I should make a caveat: I can see the scores changing depending on what courses have been added to or subtracted from the profiled courses' neighborhoods. It would be interesting to see which course(s) have been "hurt" the most by new construction.
What I would like to see:
1)
A section on suggested itineraries or at least pairings / groupings. I find the Doak Scale very useful as a measure of the "travel imperative" but what would be interesting would be a calculus of travel. Drop everything and call my travel agent to play a 10, sure. What if there are two 8s and a 6 or one 9 and two 7s in close proximity? Then what? When should I try to play the same course again and how many times? If I had 10 rounds to split, how should I split them? Worse, if I had 5 rounds, how should I split those?
There are hints and inferences scattered throughout the book that get at this, such as knowing nothing else comes close in #2's neighborhood, Stonewall needing to succeed in a tough neighborhood, and Ganton and Woodhall Spa getting lumped together just like every other guide / person in the world seems to want to do.
(The Doak Scale is somewhat helpful, yes: I mean, we all know not to play any "relief courses" unless we're shut out on the main one, right?)
2)
More on Asia. There's still plenty I need to play, but based on what I've played across the continent I no longer have much motivation to make an effort to see anything. I'm not sure that's a "problem" given playing any course in Asia requires motivation: it is a pain in the butt to make it happen. I should make an effort in Japan, I know...well, I guess I should.
3)
New entries in the gazetteer involving minimalism. For example:
an assessment of "classic" courses in light of minimalist courses that have been built post publication
Most-influential "classic" designs
The actual construction of meaningful numbers of minimalist courses is one of the biggest developments since publication, yes?
4)
A "Gourmet's Choice"-type writeup on Ganton. I don't care about the Doak Scale rating, a re-rating, whether it's the "most" this or the "least" that. You don't have to put it in Gourmet's Choice or take a course out of your list for Ganton. I don't care if you love it, hate it, whatever. None of that bullshit.
I just want to know what about that course you think is worthy of study and play, so I'd like to read a proper-length essay documenting your thoughts. If Rye is the exception that proves the rule of nothing great coming from a committee, then what is Ganton? What of its architectural lineage? Is it a great 17-hole course or a great 18-hole course? Can a course like Ganton be great with that pond? Am I right to find ponds at courses like Ganton horrific blots? How many rounds do dolts like us regular golfers need to make a proper judgment about this course?
How is the course's rhythm and routing? What do you make of each nine containing short 4s? What holes if any deserve three bangs? Is 18 a bang, a question mark or both? Is 17 a par 3 or a par 4? What's your take on the bunker outside the dogleg on 12? Where is Mackenzie's hand evident? The 14th hole? The 7th green complex? Maybe one for the gazeetteer: how did Pandy rate as a hazard in its day?
And just why the heck is Ganton called a "marooned links"? What can we take away from that discussion?
Preferably, the writeup would contain no references or even inferences to Woodhall Spa. If you must compare, any links in general and Royal Worlington and Rye in particular are ok.