Garland,
Okay, didn't mean to bust your chops, but used you to make my point.
But, I stand by my position.
Most of us in the biz probably hope to have one top 100 course (I know I wish the Quarry had made it, but it falls just short of points, but does rank highly on the public list). But never have I figured that my career would be made up of all top 100 type opportunities. TD has had a historically good run, but I bet even with great design, his percentages fall rather than go up just because that is the nature of the biz. He had several "once in a lifetime" commissions right in a row!
Nor would I judge myself that way. In fact, I believe that JN making his courses generally much easier as his career progresses is a great thing. He has stopped making courses tourney tough, even if that was his brief from early owners, realizing that they just don't all hold tournaments! And I applaud the fact that TF based his career on providing signature design with less difficulty than Pete Dye, Jack, etc. He saw the kind of course that was truly necessary to build (well, for affluent clubs anyway)
Lastly, the talk about top 100 lists here and elsewhere is a driver of too hard courses. Isn't the desire for a "Top 100" course and for the gca to outdo himself what drove Pete Dye away from a charming Harbor Town style to PGA West? And RTJ and Wilson to build such tough courses?
I think some to 100 list ought to be driven by the "could play it every day" criteria. (not that some top 100's can't be) or perhaps the speed of play or minimal loss of golf balls quotient.