At the risk of sticking my head in a blender, I begin this thread with some fear and apprehension.
The shortcomings of magazine course rankings have been well documented. I don’t need to restate them here as they will naturally come up on this thread. There have been, however, some positive results as well. Obviously, there are no hard facts to substantiate these opinions. Nonetheless, they seem true.
1. Courses like Crystal Downs and Somerset Hills have been given their due recognition.
2. Young or little known architect’s careers have been helped by their ranking success: ie. Mike Strantz, Tom Doak, Jim Engh, Steve Smyers, and Mike Devries.
3. Many courses have discovered their architectural roots and have taken steps to restore, with varying success, the original intentions of the architect of origin, be it bunker restoration, green site renovation etc.
4. Many “ordinary” golfers have “discovered” shot value, course balance, and the names of golf architects.
5. In the past ten years there have been many many books published on golf course architecture. This is due in no small part to the heightened awareness of golf course architecture.
6. I wonder if Bethpage Black would have been restored and used as an Open venue, if it were not for the Tillinghast connection and the publicity garnered by his other Open courses.
OK, we can have at it.