I just finished my ratings. That was the first time I had used the Doak Scale. I had only played one course I could give a 10 too and maybe one or two 9s. I had a lot of 7s. Of course if I did a second time right now I might come up with something a little different. For me conditioning, mowing patterns, etc. are a big factor. For example, I've played #2 more than any other course that could be in the top 100. And while the architecture is great it is currently being wasted. The course is almost always very soft no matter what time of year I play it. The ball can't really be bounced onto the greens - and lately you haven't needed to. And the fairways are mown way too narrow for the architecture. There are almost no fairways bunkers left - just rough bunkers. It's a real shame because I think the architecture is great. For me many of the courses that I have played on this list have good architecture but the difference comes down to how they are presented. The "would I make a special trip" part of the Doak scale was interesting to me - because most of the courses I could rank I did make a special trip to see but it doesn't mean I would do it again. I'll be interested to see how I ranked the courses versus how the group did.
Ian - will it be possible to get a copy of our ratings? I guess I should have written them down as I went. I also second the many other ideas on making this a dynamic ranking.