GOLF Magazine greatly impressed when it unveiled Sand Hills to the golfing public at (something like) 14 in the world after SH had just opened. Same again for PacDunes and its stunning debut.
Sure, time can make some early prognostications of 'greatness' appear flawed (Shadow Creek/ Golf Digest) but so what? The Shadow Creek top ten ranking created much healthy discussion.
Now take Golf Week. It is both the only annual ranking and the first ranking out each year. In the ideal world, its process/people should be adept and nimble enough to highlight the best modern that opened for play the year prior. If they can't, why do it annually?
And yet, three exceptionally fine modern courses - Friar's Head, Rustic Canyon, and Hidden Creek - are absent from GW's 2003 modern rankings. These courses may make it in 2004 but such an event is no longer news.
Isn't it fair to hope that an annual modern ranking will reflect the 'hot' architects (i.e. those that at present are doing the very best work, assuming such work exceeds the top 100 threshold)? If I look at GW's 2003 modern ranking, I would assume that C&C did little last year to add to their resume. Yet, that perception is grossly inaccurate.
I can't help but wonder if Golf Week's ranking is missing its opportunity to be more interesting (and therefore more meaningful)? Perhaps its ballot deadlines are too far in advance or its requirements for # of raters to see a course are too rigid but whatever changes need to take place to make the GW modern ranking more timely, I'm in favor.
Cheers,