The point here is whether the design is great and not whether the piece of property is great or if the course is in great condition or whether it has a great clubhouse, etc. I have always had some doubts about ratings because there are so many things which influence a rater when they visit a course; especially when they play it only once. How they are received by the course, what the clubhouse is like, how the course is conditioned, are all things which can influence a rater even if they are trying to be as objective as possible. On the other hand, someone trying to evaluate a course design can be much more objective. A person can look at how the course is routed, what is the variation in length of the holes, how are the holes shaped, and so on. You can have a great piece of property and design Pebble Beach or you can design Torrey Pines. You can design Pine Valley or you can design Pine Hill. When you try to limit yourself to the course design then I think you can be more objective since that is your ultimate goal. For that matter someone like Tom Doak evaluating a course based purely on its design would have far more validity than the rater who gets the opportunity to play a course steeped in history and tradition, and in immaculate condition. Golf course design takes a tremendous amount of imagination and talent and does not have to follow certain rules but clearly some designs are better than others. To my mind in order to recognize a great golf course you must first recognize great design. My major concern has been that many of the ratings are biased far too much toward what I call the old masters and not enough toward today's stars. Pete Dye has made a mark in course design which in years to come will rival any of the great designers and I think that in time others will also be recognized as their portfolio increases including Tom Doak, Jay Morrish, Tom Weiskopf, etc. Perhaps it is Fazio's dedication to create his own legacy that causes some to question his work, but I think that when we look at some of his designs his talents are surely worth recognizing. I think these ratings would be far more valuable and credible if we had the raters limit their criteria to areas which are not so subjective.