Ran:
I didn't read through all 40 posts, but I am going to lob in on behalf of Jim Engh, who lurks on the site but doesn't post... so I think someone is posting a quote from him without identifying themselves.
You are only focusing on the top of the top of the top of the tip of the iceberg when you focus on World top 50s.
If you look down, where most rounds of golf are played, I don't think there is any question. An average course from the 90s is so much better than an average course from the 60s or 70s when it appears to me that completing a course was enough to please the owners.
Many of the average courses from that same Golden Age are NLE, so it is hard to compare today with then. What's left tend to be private clubs that have above-average means on the economic spectrum of golf.
I interpreted Engh's quote differently, and I don't think he was saying "Sanctuary and Tullymore are better than Cypress Point and Quaker Ridge."
Rokke picked up on this right away, so I know at least one other guy didn't take it to mean what you meant.
That said, there are a lot of great courses that have been built in the last 15 years and may not enjoy the magazine rankings of others because they are run as for-profit vs. equity club. Cuscowilla, Princeville, Kapalua, Pine Barrens, etc... Nearly all of "today's best" have some RE component. Not the case pre-Depression.
I don't think a man in his industry would get many jobs if he went on record with the opposite.
"I think we've been on a downward spiral since man first golfed the Old Course, and I'm trying to do all of my work sooner rather than later so that none of my finished work is awful." - John Conley
Can I design Carthage?