In regards to your comment, "I wish more people were able to appreciate more if it (the variety of great golf)", could you put some more meat on that thought?
Do you mean that you wished more people who are able to play these diversely great courses, don't readily appreciate their greatness?
Or do you mean most people don't have the ability (time, money, access) to see these diversely great courses?
I mean I wish more panelist types were open minded to appreciating new styles and new designs and new grass types and new settings. Way too many of them have come to feel that "the best architecture is whatever I like best," so they keep wanting more of certain designers and certain styles, and aren't very open-minded when they see others.
I'm not saying they should be indiscriminate in their tastes; there are always going to be some styles that don't appeal to a person. But settling on just a couple is absurd. Even the person who loves links golf has to be open to other things.
A great example for me from last year was seeing the Himalayan Golf Club. There were so many things about that course that I would have told you going in I wouldn't do, or couldn't be done well. There are only 16 holes, so you have to play the first two holes at the start and end of the round, and they are the two most boring holes. The fairway corridors are pretty narrow, and the fairways are zoysia grass at maybe 7/8 of an inch in height ... but those two factors combined perfectly, as the ball tended to stay in play even in spots where the ground was firm, and the ball sat up enough on the zoysia that you could put the club on it successfully. The greens were tiny, despite the huge scale of the place, but the ball didn't take a big bounce when it landed, so that was appropriate. You have to climb 200 feet out of the canyon from 15 green to 16 tee ... and yet the Himalayan Golf Club might be the #1 coolest walk in the history of golf (and your caddie is from a country full of sherpas!).
I could find plenty of panelists that just hated that course. The fairways were long! The greens are slow! The first two holes are awful! There are hardly any bunkers, much less sexy ones! It is unlikely to make a top 100 list, because panelists' minds are closed, and yet it is one of the coolest golf courses on earth, and any golf course architect would have to marvel at the accomplishment.
That's an extreme example, but there are many subtler forms. If you're going to give a pass to 6400-yard Raynor courses, there are maybe 30 great Donald Ross courses that have been ignored for years because they weren't long enough to contend under GOLF DIGEST's definition of "great".
Finally, there is an unwritten "glass ceiling" as to how many courses any of us can have in the top 100, if there's going to be room for others. It's just human nature ... when somebody thinks about whether my latest course ought to be in the rankings, they compare it to my other courses and where they fall in the rankings, instead of comparing it to someone else's work. It's not right, but I know that's how people think about it. Somehow Raynor has gotten over being Macdonald's partner and gotten a quota of his own, even though his work and Macdonald's are almost indistinguishable, and most of their best courses (except Fishers) are the ones that Macdonald had a hand in.