If it was affirmatively the case that people tend to dock courses they've played poorly when it comes time to rate them, we probably wouldn't have had decades of ratings where course difficulty and ranking was so positively correlated, right?
The most obvious correlation seems to be perigee. Most of the new and interesting courses I see on these lists are at their respective new, minimalist golf resorts, which as I understand, tend to be less punishing (but I may be wrong about that).
There’s an argument that the newer, non-cannonical courses are what should guide this assessment, and I’d say that argument would lend itself to the proposition at hand.
That said, you’re argument is compelling if we don’t automatically conflate regular tournament locations and historic clubs with a sort of golf cannon.