John C:
I've said this before, however, a few people have short memories. GD got a wake-up call when Shadow Creek cracked its top ten a few years ago. Here you have a course that was new, had mega bucks behind it and on top of that -- it's located in Vegas! Shadow Creek showed that if you allow the panelists to put forward the numbers without "big brother's involvement" you could get the kind of outcomes one saw with Shadow Creek.
GD instituted "tradition" as a fail-safe system to prop up the old line courses. What's amusing is that GD makes the case that it's listing is the definitive guide for the best on golf architecture. Hello -- am I missing something? When you include fudge factors -- I like the term "extre credit" John, you deliberately manipulate the outcomes.
I've said for quite some time that this idea that you must have a mass group of people go around and rate courses is really a big waste of time. You can have a small group and given the desire to keep your ear to the ground you can pick up plenty of info on where the next "hot" courses are coming from and who's designing them. I know I have over the years. But, you also have to have people who get off their butts and travel to places that can be remote -- Links of North Dakota, Hawktree, Wild Horse, Pinon Hills, the list goes on and on. If you think that visiting Myrtle Beach, Southern Florida or the Carolinas is the be all end all you are doing the kind of field research that's necessary to unearth these hidden grems.
Tradition / ambiance / even walking are all ways to pad the score and make sure that the "old-time" greats maintain, or at the minimum have a good shot, at staying at or near their current position. There's been plenty of outstanding new golf that's come forward within the last 30 years. All it takes is a willingness to recognize it because plenty of people on GCA sure know what I'm talking about.
