Tom Doak:
I play by the "rules" that exist -- when thoughtful magazines (is there such a thing?) include a waiting period I shall do likewise.
Tom -- when you ask whether BD or PD would be were they are I say this -- of all people -- you should know that the "word" on the street takes many forms and you even created an "inside rating guide" for your friends which later morphed into "Confidential Guide."
The success of BD and PD goes way beyond what GD and GM say -- I don't need the stamp of a commercial magazine to tell me what a great course is to paraphrase the late Potter Stewart. The world we live in today has may outlets for communicatoin and it's a rare day for any course of high quality to escape attention. That may have been the case years ago but no more. What bugs me is that too many people zone in a few candidates and they eat up the attention cycle where other bonafide contenders get chucked aside.
Tom -- a waiting period only serves to allow 'OTHERS' to see a course before the tiny grouping of select panelists weigh in too strongly with their opinions -- as you correctly stated. I believe that is what happened with Hidden Creek -- to name just one course. There is way too much initial "bounce" that comes with the first review and waiting a short period of time for others to weigh in will lessen / prevent this from happening to the large degree it does now. As was mentioned by others -- I'm sure we shall see the same thing when Friar's Head is officially listed.
Tom -- the magazines chose to end the waiting period -- they should know, but I understand their thinking (let's be first rater than be right is the credo) because I'm in the business. Tell you what -- I can withhold the placement of the "new" ones I have in my own personal listing when they do likewise.
Mark Fine:
Lehigh is a fine course -- no doubt about that. However, it is not top 100 in the United States. I don't doubt for a New York minute the course got lost in the sauce for tooooo long (myself included!), but it doesn't have the firepower of a few long par-4's (I have mentioned this before) and the par-5's are at best OK to rank among the highest of courses in the USA IMHO.
Mark, you have to realize that although you are keen observer of courses and a plus to GD's rating panel -- at the of the day you have a vested interest in Lehigh since you're a member there. You should be quite proud of the Flynn design but I don't see the totality of the challenge that a course meriting such a lofty position must have.
When you speak about Saucon Valley I cannot agree more with you. There is no way the Grace or Old Courses should receive the kind of ink both normally do. The Old is on the better land but it doesn't have the uniqueness or collective sense of shotmaking Lehigh does. The Grace is simply a long and boring William & David Gordon design -- I think of it as Stanwich-lite.
Tim Liddy:
You are quite corret -- having a regional listing would be helpful and going with a smaller grouping of folks at the national level would help. Right now the proliferation of "raters" is nothing more than a Gallup or Zagat's poll. Yes, there are no doubt clear courses worthy of all the ink (Shinnecock, WF, PV, NGLA, CP, etc, etc) but you don't need all those people at the "national" level because so few people really traverse the country with that sort of regularity to weigh in with some sort of informed opinion on what is happening. Clearly, some peoplecontinue to rate "certain" courses simply because that particular course has always been listed. I see it way too much of the time.
I have always contended that too many modern designs and the younger designers involved in the business don't get much ink and as a result their designs are often relegated to the sidelines. Beforeanyone chimes in -- I'm not suggesting that any design by the new crowd merits such recognition but when I see The Kingsley Club and Hollywood (NJ), to namejust two examples get little rightful attention I have to wonder what people are looking at when I see Shoreacres (help me stop laughing) continues to "MOVE UP" in the ratings when no less than one-third of the course is pedestrian stuff!
I can also name Black Mesa -- just ouside of Santa Fe as an example that comes to mind. Here is a sensational layout by Baxter Spann but it happens to be in New Mexico and the "buzz" says that no quality golf can occur in New Mexico. It can only happen in the designated places such as the Hamptons!
The issue with the ratings is that the "inner sanctum" of people responsible generally provide a very narrow thought pattern on what constitutes "great" courses. Too many of these raters follow the "star" architects -- either past or current and as a result you get the same "name" courses bouncing around while the isolated (I have to say this because not every modern design is worthy of being considered but there are some no doubt IMHO) superb modern courses exist in obscurity.
There needs to be much more due diligence (and reforming the procedures of the ratings themselves) in these matters because a number of people within the golf industry (general managers, directors of golf, superintendents, even architects themselves) question the capacity of these people to make the kind of decisions you are seeing. The ratings panels of all the magazines would be better served in following a 'less is more' philosophy in the disposition and size of their panels. Will it happen? Doubt it -- because the appeal of such things sells and keeps the hype going.