Ted --It's with great regret that I interrupt this delicious Doak/Morrissett thing that seems to be going on. Interesting to see the differences of opinion between one who has done it vs. one who has thought about it. Maybe similar to eavesdropping on a conversation between James Bond and Inspector Clouseau.Nevertheless, you asked me whether I would rank Baltusrol Upper ahead of the Lower, as you would. The answer is no.If I were ranking strictly on the basis of my personal enjoyment, as seems to be the mode these days, I would go with the Upper every time. It's a prettier course, equally well conditioned (usually), and suits my feeble game much better. I would love to have the self discipline to be able to rank courses simply on the basis of my own pleasure. Nothing simpler, and how easy it must be to distinguish #106 from #107. When I rank courses, though, I tend to include other, some would say, extraneous factors like resistance to scoring, history and tradition, and how the course might stand up to high level play -- stern but fair test issue. I try not to be influenced by how I play, and try to consider the usual course condition rather than that on the day I played, if they differ. I admit I might be influenced by the congeniality of my companions and by the accoutrements, amenities and hospitality of the club or course staff. These non-golf course issues that come into play are a weakness in my "system" but I have not been able to eradicate them. Bottom line: I would choose the Lower over the Upper every day on any list of "Greatest Courses" (Golf Digest terminology) or "Top Courses" (Golf Magazine terminology). Not by much, but enough to be clear cut. Another example you would relate to: on a different thread on this site, there was a discussion of French Lick vs. Crooked Stick. I would choose Crooked Stick as the "Greater" or "Top" course 101 times out of 100. I would never choose it as the more enjoyable to play.Now that I've finished revealing my fatal "rating frailties", you may dismiss my opinions forevermore. I guess I'm just trying to be more literal than others about the terms "Great" and "Top", and not substituting "My perception of pleasure". That doesn't make me a bad person, does it?One other thing. Some of this hairsplitting such as between #87 and #88 seems absurd in anything as naturally imprecise and subjective as course rankings. I know that there's no way to get completely around this, but I sure liked the old "decile" system used by Golf Digest where, within each group of 10, the courses were ranked in alpha order. (How nice for the people at every course in the "Second 10" to claim their's was #11).One additional last thing: The above method (or non-method) just seems to work best for me. I think it's great that we all have our own concepts, as long as they work for us. That's why I wanted to get clarification about Ran's Rules. Now when I look at his rankings, I know what they mean -- that's the only important thing to me, that I can understand the point of view.Now -- back to the main event, please.