Despite its significant shortcomings, NSWGC is rightly within the 10 best courses in the country -- but whenever I'm out there I can't help but think a few times during the round and afterwards what it could be with the right work carried out.
Scott,
This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at earlier in this thread. So NSWGC have had a crack at improving the golf course, and no matter what the reasons for this from the club committees, an underlying goal will be to improve its ranking. So, the changes they have made IYO have not improved it, so they wasted their cash? ..and so they have also wasted the opportunity - which for me is the key (as most clubs cannot afford to continually tinker and change, not should they), which leaves NSWGC languishing because you have mentioned above 'what could have been' if they chose to change what you feel they should. Many golfers may well think this as they play rounds at their respective clubs, some get to have a say as part of relevant committees, as get to have a greater say as raters for the golf mags. BUT, it does not change the fact that without continual changes which are hopefully well received and genuine improvement type changes, then the course will always continue a slide out of top 5 or top 10 or top 20, top 50, etc. BECAUSE there will always be a new kid on the block, or an old one with a new reno, I am sure Bonnie D has aspirations once all works are complete. There is potentially two new courses on King Island that will potentially drop many other courses back a notch or two. The courses that have resident architects engaged do so to attempt to protect their position and protect the course from changes by committee - a wise move, yes? The issue with any consultant or architect, is it still their opinion, but unlike a club bringing in a consultancy chef to provide menu direction or ideas - these can often be trend of fashion based, which we know do not suit golf hole upgrades or restorations...frilly bunkers anyone?
So, for me, a club member, and a golfer in a district with many golf courses, the money required to do this is not bottomless, and now even less so, hence my feeling that this system is flawed - the 1 to 100. I know the ranking and lists has been discussed ad nauseam here, but like it is impossible to name the best ever painting, sculpture, restaurants, song, album, movie or sporting event, because they all mean different things to the different lovers of the sport, music, art, etc.
For me, the much healthier approach, from the POV of the clubs and courses survival here in Australia (there of course needs some culling of the truly poor, and these will find their natural end) is either that of Tom Doak's CG system or that of David & Margaret on the Movie Show or Darius Oliver's Golf Club Atlas. These approaches allow for multiple "bests", all of great quality, design, layout to be listed as equal for the punter trying to figure where to spend their hard earned.
The other key element that I think is missing from all this, and has raised its head in the Ellerston discussion, is that of the experience. I for one find it very difficult, and in fact do not enjoy trying to separate 'the experience', as it just adds to the assessment as a whole. It is like the ones that cannot provide a good to great experience, don't think this should be included as it isn't fair, should there be Special Distinctions? 5 stars to the 5(?) best courses, and so on, but potential for say a Lost Farm to perhaps only have 4 stars or 2 flags or 8.5/10 - but gets a @ for a special place - because if the mags are genuine about providing a true indication to punters about where they should go - then this should be provided. I assume somewhere else this is being done. I know the the Good Food Guides here in Aust award lifetime achievement and those sorts of things for the restaurants or chefs that have continually been at the top of their game and "deserve" a visit.
I cannot help enjoy a film better at the Kino in Collins St, than at the nearest Hoyts/Village/Reading Multiplex cinema. The same applies to art in a gallery, a live gig, or the memories of the place you first heard that song....and golf courses, only because, we are talking about helping punters "choose"where to spend their cash - so each rating or ranking should come with a warning label, ...that most of the[our magazine's] raters are able to separate the experience from the actual golf course routing and holes, but you as the punter will not...so make sure you get the house special, and sit out on the patio as the sun goes down and wonder why you didn't go there earlier.
I for one, think the assessment of RMGC is tainted because of the cars and hoons near some of the tees, it doesn't enjoy the tranquility associated with some of the others in the top 10 for example, neither does the close proximity of the Moorabbin airport do any favours to some of it's neighbours, the Pacific ocean view as you peak the 5th at NSW adds notches and well... Barnbougle is just the epitome of special experience in Australia IMHO.
sorry to go on... 
Brett, really good post and I'm inclined to agree with most of it.
I like the idea of ranking courses in tiers, but you can sort of do the same thing with the Aussie rankings but grouping 1-5, 6-15, 16-30, 31-60 and 61-100. To me, moving a spot here or there is nice, but it's breaking from one of those groupings into the next that is a major achievement.
Here's the thing about rankings - the perception if a course moves down the list is that it's not as good as it used to be, but with new courses debuting and older courses revamping, a course could get a score of 91.5 this time and finish 9th, say, and then in two years' time it scores 91.5 again, but is 13th because other courses did work or somewhere new opened. It's still a "9" or whatever number/letter you attribute to that score...
Re: tinkering, it's true most clubs don't have endless cash to tinker, but the good news in NSWGC's case I suppose is that it still has the land it has and can still do the holes that are really crying out for change and can easily re-do the likes of 18, which hasn't turned out the way we all hoped it might.
Funnily enough, between Christmas and New Year I played NSWGC with some mates - one of whom had never played it and another hadn't been there for 7-8 years. One hardly plays any golf (1-2 times a year) and the other plays a fair bit but isn't an architecture geek. Both walked onto the 18th tee and - unprompted by me - remarked aloud how terrible the hole looked - both that the bunkers that are there look BAD and that they are completely out of kilter with the rest of the course.
Re: experience, I agree it is a big part of a day out doing anything, going to a pub or restaurant, but it's so individual as to be completely meaningless were we to try to measure it.
You and I will have completely different experiences doing the same thing for a multitude of reasons, so all we can really do is rank the basis for having that experience, in this case the golf course.
If you get NSWGC on a sunny day with firm ground and a one-club wind and you shoot 73, and I get it in a drizzle with four-club wind and greens that were cored a fortnight earlier and still aren't quite up to speed... we will have had entirely different experiences, but the fact is the course is exactly the same for both of us.