Isn't a great course a number of different elements? If walkability is one positive element to you can't the courses that aren't walkable make up for that with other positive elements? If a course doesn't allow carts that is a negative to me and many others that have to ride since it limits access. That doesn't make it not great because it is just one element of greatness.
Tim:
It's a fair question, with many answers.
I think most agree that a course that truly isn't walkable or meant to be walked is a big negative. And it remains a fact that such courses are held back significantly in most ratings -- GOLF DIGEST list has a couple like Alotian that are apparently not walkable, but the GOLF Magazine list of the world top 100 really doesn't have any. Neither ranking specifies how much "walkability" should be worth -- GOLF DIGEST tried years ago, with poor results** -- but it is apparent from the results that there are a lot of traditionalists on both panels who think walkability is important and non-walkability is almost disqualifying.
Sure, if you try to define what is a great course to any sort of specific criteria, walkability is only one part of it, and even at that, there are degrees of walkability.
Arguably, the least walkable course in the top echelon is Augusta National - you sure as heck wouldn't walk 18 holes there in the summer carrying your own bag, but they get a pass because they close in the summer and you can't carry your own bag anyway and, well, it's Augusta and everyone knows it has to be ranked highly regardless.
Further down the lists, though, the walkability does factor into the rankings. I always wonder why Stone Eagle and Rock Creek are not as highly regarded as some of my other courses, and I think walkability is a factor. They are both quite hilly -- and even though I have walked them both many times, and sometimes in the company of 65- and 70-year-old members who had no problem walking them, I can't argue that they are as walkable as Pacific Dunes or Cape Kidnappers.
** My recollection is that GOLF DIGEST awarded a binary two points on its scale for Walkability - you either got them or you didn't. But the editors didn't want to make the tough calls on which courses were walkable, so they based it on whether the course / club policy allowed walking or not -- so a lot of unwalkable courses declared walking okay, even though they knew nobody would walk, in order to get the two points, while other courses in places like Myrtle Beach did not change their policies, and tumbled down the lists. [Two points will take you from 100th place to out of the top 200 on the GOLF DIGEST ranking, and the effect gets bigger the further down the list you go, as so many courses are bunched tightly together.] I believe they dropped the 2-point bonus after a couple of rating cycles, and now include walkability as part of Ambiance, or some such fudge.
I personally don't know if I could vote for a course that was unwalkable as one of the greatest courses in the world. I know that I did not when I was on the GOLF Magazine panel, because I just never saw the course that I thought should be made the exception to the rule.