Mike,
I think you are discussing the most important aspect of golf and golf courses. However, to begin to dissect a course to describe its soul I think you begin the process of diminishing the experience. That is what bothers me about the ratings game. Anytime a course is mentioned some raters come on and say okay give me a break down on hole lengths, par, direction of par threes, on and on. They must analyze it in order to fit it into a system that will spurt out a rating and it is absolutely meaningless. What I feel or you feel when we step onto the place and how we feel as we play it is the most important test and it is something they can not factor in. Most people look to the Grammys or the Academy Awards, or the magazine rankings to tell them what is good and they lose their ability to know what they think is good. That is a sad aspect of these rankings, and the need to rank every thing in our culture. Most of the movies that have been so highly paraised I finally rent and watch and without exception I find them to be junk, but we are told these are great. I think soul, greatness exists all around us if we look from within our own soul, as long as it has not been polluted by someone else's opinions and thinking. Which for me means soulful, great things are probably on the fringe of obscurity, undiscovered, but they exist and give their treasure to those that can see it.
Haivng said all that I can relate to Geoffrey comment about the heros whom have giving their spirit to a place. I think I always felt that about Colonial because of Hogan, but when I played Colonial it did not grab me inside, and make me want to come back. The great thing about it were all the scantilly dressed whores that came to the tournament, the Green Oaks Inn, where as a kid I swam in the pool and none other than Fat Jack jumped in, and as a kid that beleived in heros I thought I might hypervenilate, and the clubhouse that overlooks the three finishing holes. But the course did not grab me when I played it. So the history in the ranking is a little bullshit really. And then there is Klein's reccomndation that environemental stewardship go into rankings. What crap that is. I just spoke to a great group of environemntally oriented people, a collection of environemntal professionals, about land based design and Hawk Pointe, but I told them that first and foremost my obgligation is to the strategic design of the course, not to the environment, but that does not mean the two are incompatible. However, this is a game and it must be designed to the highest level of strategy possible. We are not trying to create sanctuaries or arboretums. I think Klein's environemntal ranking is dangerous and deceptive. It gives the wrong impression to people in the environmental movement, and when you must insist on a golf hole being a certain way eventhough it might initially impact the environment they feel you betrayed them, yet if the strategy is severely compromised otherwise you have to stand up for the course, for the game. Now, maybe his point is to reward courses in their maintenance practices, but why should that impact the rankings of a golf course. It really shows how ridiculous this whole ranking system is. There are plenmty of people at there whom are very sensitive to the design and management of a course within the environment yet they do not do it in a way that draws attention to themselves, theya re jsut good people doing their best everyday, striving for excellence every day without the need to publicize it.