Just wanted to pop in here and say that I don't think the concept of survivorship bias is really being clearly articulated. The problem of survivorship bias is a sampling bias. In this scenario, it would be that we cannot compare any potential weaknesses that modern courses have to the weaknesses that previous-era courses had, because all those courses are long gone. It’s directly related to Joe’s point, but in the term of persistence in ratings, it’s not exactly representative of exactly what we are discussing.
The principal I think would be more relevant to this conversation is the
Lindy effect, which is generally something being "tried and true” and is what people seem to be getting at. More specifically, it is that the expected cultural life-expectancy of aspects of culture are proportional to their age. It's basically an inverted half-life, the longer something has survived, the longer we should expect it to survive.
Whether and why this effect exists is debatable, but the theoretical idea behind is a type of application of the ideas behind evolution applied to simple trial-and-error (usually artistic) creation, when the creations have a theoretically infinite lifespan. This means that the longer something has survived, the more robust it seems to be to different potential extinction events.
This typically has to do with the relevant qualities on the bit of culture trying to survive: bad movies don't stay culturally relevant because nobody wants to watch them, just as bad golf courses don't stay in culturally relevant because nobody wants to play them. If we suppose cultural preferences vary over time, the courses that survive though those changes likely are more culturally robust, they survive, and we should
expect them to survive more than younger courses that have not seen a crucible before.
This effect should theoretically apply to rankings. Even getting to #1 status means your much more likely to stay #1, simple because something would have to change to lose that spot, staying #1 for a long period likely means that excellence is robust enough to maintain that position over time in the face of constant challengers, and will likely survive against future challengers.
---
To be as cliched as I can, here at the end of the post I will try to undermine the premise: unlike most bits of culture, these golf course rankings aren't democratically decided, as so one could easily suggest that the Lindy effect applies to who gets to be a rater more than it applies to the courses and their ratings themselves.