I can't contribute (save to say that I'd fully expect Tobacco Road to one day ruin what already-tenuous friendships I may have with Sean and AG) -- but I wanted to add that this is a very good thread idea.
On other rating threads, folks like Tom D and Ian A essentially said that 'originality'/'uniqueness' was an important value for them in rating a golf course. I found that striking -- and wondered if it wasn't (almost) completely a function of their status as architects.
For me, I can't see how that's 'fair' at all to a given course, i.e. judging it not so much for what it is, but for what it isn't (ie unique). Plus, if I only visit 30 wonderful courses instead of hundreds and hundreds, my sense of uniqueness will be very different than theirs, so the whole concept is even more 'relative' than many of the other (almost equally) relative criterion involved in rating courses.
Which I suppose is part of their point, and indeed part of point of having 'experienced' travelers rating golf courses.
But somehow it doesn't seem quite right to me -- the 'bonus points' for being different/unique.
How about bonus points instead for doing the 'common', i.e. what good architects have been doing for 100 years, but doing it exceptionally and terrifically well?
But maybe the 'common done exceptionally & terrifically well' is actually more rare -- and harder to 'see' & appreciate -- than the 'unique', and even 'the original' (?)
P
PS - I think 'one of a kind' is different than 'unique' and 'original', even though that's what 'unique' and 'original' are supposed to mean...but rarely do mean when it comes to gca, or to most any other art-craft for that matter.
"Original greatness" is the rarest thing of all, the pearl of great price.