Mike,

I understand that they are ranked as a group differently. What I am trying to understand is how the numerical grading is done so that we can appreciate that there are some non-classical courses that deserve to be considered among the outstanding courses of all time.

Frankly though, as I understand how it is done, a rater visits a course and scores it numerically according to standards that they are given to judge by. They are not asked to score it based upon how they scored xx course, only on what the course deserved on the day they were there.

So then, why should Shinnecock be automatically considered a greater course than Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes simply because it is a "Classic" design? Both have better "ratings" than SH.

So I am asking WHY it is important for Golfweek to make this distinction, other than to be different? Are the differences in scoring criteria so large that would make Pacific Dunes 9.23 way out of line with Shinnecock's 9.23, and if so, why?

Adam,

I am probably trying to ask my question the wrong way.

I understand the cut-off point and basing it on construction techniques. That aside, I am trying to get a feel for how the Golfweek raters & system compares golf courses regardless of construction date.

Just because modern construction techniques were used, shouldn't we be able to compare the pyramids to the Empire State Bldg. From a pure engineering standpoint, both accomplishments can be compared favorably with each other. Likewise, shouldn't Sand hills be comparably judged against Pine Valley? If so how?

As far as having 200 courses ranked, they have ranked far more than that... they only publish 200. Why not publish a separate publication that would list every course receiving a rating? Call it "A Grand Ranking of American Golf Courses." I think it would sell well.