"Anyone else disappointed in this?"
Well, ah, yeah, I guess so.
![Wink ;)](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
Even though I have almost complete antipathy for these ridiculous magazine ranking lists, Wayne and I were involved in a real restoration bunker project with the Cascades in the last 3-4 years which made the course's previously really bland bunkering better. So, ah, yeah, if this is how GD's rankings rewards a good historic bunker restoration project, then I guess I could say I'm disappointed.
But looked at from the flipside it doesn't really concern me that much if one just looks at the ridiculousness of the entire concept of magazine numerical rankings. In my opinion, golf courses shouldn't be numerically ranked, they should merely have their architecture written about in those magazines.
The recent spate of threads about how to fix those magazine rankings with "super raters" or altered criteria, or the hiring of some statistician to recallibrate them or whatever just makes me laugh.
The most positive thing that could ever happen to those magazine rankings in my opinion, would be to simply shitcan all of them!