In the United States, the vast majority of top 100 courses are private. Very, very private, and very exclusive. Not many of those courses are hurting for members. So finding a spot on the top 100 does what? Gives them bragging rights? I'm not trying to be critical, but other than a debut course that gets instant credibility and buzz (Ohoopee comes to mind, as does Streamsong a few years ago), the list is really just an academic exercise and feels like a dick measuring contest.
A list of top public courses, on the other hand, actually influences play and revenue. Drilling down a little deeper, a best-in-state list could have a real impact on the success or failure of regional courses that the average guy can actually play.
And yet, the best-in-state lists that Golfweek has published are pretty crappy and have no writeups.
If golf journalism is actually journalism, with a goal of providing useful information to the public, shouldn't there be much more focus placed on objective rankings of public courses? And understanding that many people can't afford to travel across the country to play a top public course, wouldn't it make sense to really try to nail the best-in-state listings?
I know ultimately the goal is to sell magazines or get clicks, and maybe the people who compile such lists have realized the average joe likes to live vicariously and daydream of being a member of Cypress or Pine Valley. But honestly, I would much rather see an exhaustive listing from a panel of experts on courses in my area I can actually play.
Just a thought ...