Mike - I understand what you're saying and I defer to your opinion, but then doesn't it mean that raters (official or unofficial) are focusing on and rating their playing experience on a given day much more so than the design itself? You might answer 'Yes, that's exactly what they're doing, and that's the way it should be -- you can't divorce the architecture (as originally intended) from the golf course (as you find it)'. And if you said that I'd probably reluctantly agree with you. But then why should anyone be surprised if an un-restored/un-renovated little gem of a classic course, subjected to years of tree planting and green shrinkage and narrowed fairways etc, is for years and years rated quite low? And maybe (?) the only exceptions to this are those golf courses with such exceptional architectural pedigree and storied histories that raters already know about the greatness of the designs and thus are able to 'see' and focus on and rate that greatness even in its un-restored state -- and despite their actual playing experience.
Peter,
Good question. I would disagree with the assumption that a good rater's opinion is based on their "playing experience on a given day", as relates to resto/reno activities.
I don't think it matters how someone is playing, for instance, to note that a tight row of soft white pines that previously required either a lost ball or a "chip" out has been removed and now offers a chance of recovery by shaping a shot under, over, or around a specimen tree. I don't think it matters how someone is playing to note that green space has been recovered allowing for an interesting hole location that was previously rough grass requiring a gouged recovery attempt. Similarly, allowing original widths of fairways where one can effectively shape the ball into sideslopes and watch the ball run out instead of hitting thick rough and coming to an abrupt, disappearing halt doesn't require one to pull off the shot as imagine/know that it can be done with a well-executed play. Similarly, the return of bunkers that have been lost with time, or a new tee that brings them back into play doesn't require a successful shot to recognize that they now influence one's attempted strategy from the tee.
Personally, I've given some of my best scores to courses where I've played horribly (Joe Bausch can attest to my Plainfield debacle), and poor scores to courses I've played wonderfully by managing to hit it pretty straight all day but that played one-dimensionally because of architectural features lost to time that beg for recovery.
Good question, though...I hope that's a good answer.