Bill McKinley: The more courses that I have played, the more I can care less about what tournament has played there. I used to get more excited to play the Firestone's and Balustrol's of the world than the Kirtland's and Canton Brookside's, but not anymore. Simply put, the later two are a lot more enjoyable to play than the former two, regardless of what tournaments have been hosted there. I would take a tee time on Crystal Downs (with no tournament history other than a Senior Amateur) over 95% of the courses that have hosted a US Open or PGA Championship.
If you are going to rank course by tournaments that have played there, then call the ranking the most "famous" or most "norotious" golf courses. However, the rankings say the "best" golf courses - which means (1) how much fun it is to play, (2) are the holes well designed and is there strategic interest to the holes (ie. use of angles and hazards and green complexes), (3) does the course challenge good players while being playable for average players, (4) is it able to be walked (this is important as artificial looking courses with cart paths down the sides and long walks from green to tee are not golf as it was meant to be played), and (5) is it well maintained. I am sure there are other criteria, but these are the main ones. If you want to include a ranking for "intangibles" - fine and if someone feels that a tournament course has more intangibles because of its tournament history, fine. However, that intangible category can just as easily provide credit for really cool places like The Dunes Club in New Buffalo, Michigan (thanks again to Terry Lavin - I love everything about that place).
Re: needing to relax on the rankings discussions. rankings are a part of the golf landscape. They are very important to clubs in terms of membership and notoriety. Rare is the club that does not care about them. In fact, you now see clubs adding things to help them in the rankings (ie. adding caddie programs, performing restorations and catering to raters). So they are a part of golf today, whether we like it or not. I think the ranking systems are flawed for many reasons (including the fact that remote courses often have not been rated enough to get their credit - ie. Rock Creek Cattle Company). However, they provide a standard of comparison and for that reason are useful. Plus, it is what guys like us have to talk about in our spare time (it is a whole lot better than Phil's belly putter).