Yes to this.
Having picked up golf again, I've been bemoaning how terrible the golf options are in Cincinnati. Sure, there is Camargo. But, I will never be a member there. Hyde Park would be my next choice, but it lacks many of things in Ran's list even though I enjoy the course itself.
All I want is a golf club with a strategically interesting course that always allows me to walk carrying/pulling my own bag with minimal interference from staff. There isn't one option in Cincinnati that fits that criteria. Is that really so hard?
Taking a page from the familiar rankings and combining that with Ran's bullet points at the end of the post, GCA could develop its own ranking system with the following categories with key criteria in those categories:
- Daily Strategic Interest - width, in-line/centerline bunkers, green movement/slope, short-game options
- Firm/Fast - running fairways, firm greens, course recovers quickly after heavy rain
- Carrying/Pulling - always allowed, caddies optional, no/hidden/out of play cart paths, short green-tee walks
- Playability - speed of average game, minimal hunting for lost balls, minimal water hazards, suitable for all levels/ages of golfers
- Natural Maintenance - grass variety/"weeds" permitted, minimal watering, native grasses, minimal trees in playing field
- Golf Club - focus on the golf course and the game, deductions for country club amenities and staffing
- Joy - finish 18 and wanting to go straight to 1 again, camaraderie of golfers/members
There really isn't that much in that list specifically related to architecture. Architecutre mostly comes into play on the first point. But, the other six are just as important to me. I would never be a member that point 1 in spades and missed on the others. Most courses I've played in Great Britain get reasonably high marks on all of these. I've played very few courses in the states that can achieve high marks in all these areas.
Yes, I mostly just rehashed what Ran wrote.