I think I'm hearing that one of the criteria for rankings should be the "Fun" factor, however one defines it.
I also think I'm hearing about another possible category which argues that architect's should get some additional points for pushing the envelope, for being daring, for stretching the boundaries of what constitutes golf course design, and while that may be true, I'm also thinking that Desmond Muirhead would get a 10 on many of his courses if such a category existed and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
redanman and I had a conversation recently that discussed "fairness", and about which modern architects are willing to push into that red-line territory, and how close each is willing to edge towards what might be viewed as unfair, unconventional, and even sometimes head-scratchingly baffling. That doesn't mean they always succeed (sometimes these holes fail miserably), but it does mean that they also sometimes break new ground and create almost wholly original and daringly exciting holes.
Using three very popular and exceptional architects (C&C, Doak, & Hanse)as examples, we agreed that C&C were the least likely to create something viewed as unfair. Doak is a bit more willing to walk that tightrope, while Hanse generally stays very close to the edge on almost all of his holes. Kelly Moran is another one who seems to design without a care of what the modern golfer thinks is fair, or appropriate, and it certainly makes for some original designs and exciting golf, unless one is too much of a card and pencil type.
Strantz is also someone who fit in the category of breaking molds and stereotypes, but in a bit of a different way than some of the others. As mentioned previously, sometimes it fails grandly, while other times the results are original and sublime, but boredom is never, ever the issue.