Tom, Ian -
Ian and I agree on "B", but whereas Ian makes it a condition that all courses be included, I think courses that score less than a 5 shouldn't be, and not just to save space but on principle too. It's interesting: if you don't include them, there may be some who'll conclude that you haven't done so because, unlike the TD of 25 years ago, you now have much more to lose and so aren't as brash or opinionated as you once were. (I don't believe that's the rationale, because you've already mentioned the reason in your first post). But setting that aside, I think it's a legitimate question to ask: why would I or any other casual/average golfer want to have your assessments of courses we shouldn't play? The 5-10 range is more than wide enough, and includes so many quality and very good and excellent and best of courses, that if anyone is interested (along with your insights and analysis) in such things as rankings, there are already hundreds of examples/courses to choose from and compare. After reading all those, and at this point in the history of gca, it seems to me unnecessary, indulgent and maybe even a little mean to include courses that fail to meet the mark and that just aren't very good. What can that sort of list tell us, in a meaningful sense, i.e. what can any golfer actually learn from a compendium of bad courses? I guess we can learn to avoid them -- but if the book includes as many good courses as I imagine it will, there isn't a golfer alive who'll have any time to avoid the bad courses because he/she can spend a lifetime just playing the good ones. If the book is meant to be in part a a resource and guide and standard reference on golf course architecture (its theory and practice and best examples), how does including courses in the 1-4 range support/bolster its efficacy?
Anyway, just thought it interesting, i.e. I can see why professionals and architects like Ian would want the most complete list possible; but I can't come to the same sense for the average reader and golfer.
Peter