Don,
For many years I’ve had to defend my desire to “understand” golf courses and I’m just over it. I’ve been around too long and care too much to be chastised for wanting to analyze. The point I’m desperately trying to make in these threads is that over time we have gained something between subjective and objective. We’ve batted around these subjects with too much detail and analysis for it all to be wistfully brushed aside as trivial and what really matters is what the individual “likes.” I agree with you that we shouldn’t care what one person thinks is better but I’d also argue we shouldn’t care what person necessarily likes either. I think we should instead try to better drill into the WHAT and WHY. I enjoy what Blister Review does in the outdoor space. They have perfected near unbiased reviews of outdoor gear, primarily snow sports, without the need to rank anything. They are absolute geniuses at comparing and contrasting without assigning merit. We don’t have that in the golf architecture world. But magazine lists provide a decent starting point for us to try.
Kalen,
I see what you’re asking. My subjective opinion is that modern courses are underrepresented in many of the rankings. But I was trying to use objective numbers to show that under representation using the GM Top 100 America list. My opinions *are* crappy. As are many opinions. The lists are important for the reasons I’ve stated (and others I haven’t) and I still think it’s clear, objectively, that modern courses aren’t represented accurately.