We were just discussing Renaissance on the phone and I opined that it should be in the conversation for top 10 Scotland. In my book that means Renaissance should be in the conversation for top 25 GB&I. It is perplexing to me why most people don't see it this way.
Honestly, I never really expected it to be in that conversation, although getting the holes out on the point gave it some really pretty holes the original course lacked.
I think the course just doesn't pander to any particular audience that might stump for it in the top 25. It's
(a) "not linksy enough" for some, and I do not mind that critique in a place where there are so many more links courses -- but it IS a links
(b) not sexy enough for others, because we didn't create a bunch of faux dunes and flashy bunkers
(c) too hard for the people who might otherwise appreciate the fun side of the holes -- setting it up for the tournament has turned them off, and
(d) still not hard enough for the best players in the world!
On the other hand, I got the last one covered with our work at Memorial Park, but nobody has nominated it as a top 25 course, because it doesn't have the first two pieces at all. I think the moral of the story is that if you're trying to build a course for a tournament, you are going against some of the things that might get it highly ranked. That's odd, because historically it was the other way around.