I didn't view this thread as one about greatness, i.e. the top 100. I viewed it as relating to the other 14,900 golf courses in the US (or more around the world......)
It would be interesting to define "well intentioned designs." Certainly any done by a qualified, full time gca were at least mostly well intentioned. Perhaps some housing courses done by engineers or others can't be called well intentioned.
What about those done in house by someone who wants more than anything (function, greatness) to say they designed a golf course? What about those in the past who did it in simpler times? (i.e., amateur sportsmen, Merion, etc)
Are muni courses, designed for fast play and to serve beginners and D players poor intention designed golf courses? Were difficult CCFAD public courses, designed to get awards for all involved, at the expense of every day fun well intentioned? We sure didn't think so at the time.....
I will go back to my main point - a golf course designed for primarily any particular subset of golfers is probably well intentioned. There are hundreds of details that must be considered to make it function well. I just finished a conversation with a staff member. He had drawn some cart paths. At first glance they looked fine, but I applied the checklist to them, and some failed.
Did they follow the natural inclination of golfers to take the shortest route?
Were they safe? (He was actually in favor of some circuitous routes to get golfers as far away from the last green as possible, but the real solution is to space them out a bit to follow sentence one above.....)
Did they follow the shortest route so we can spend more on other items?
Do we really need to expend path to get to the back tees for that 1%, or should we align them primarily for the convenience of the middle tee player?
Was there a well spread out approach to greens and tees from logical spots on the path?
Etc., etc., etc.
Just today's daily dose of a gca reality. We may not like it, but we HAVE to think about that stuff.......