A few years back I stated a thread asking the question "Who is qualified to rate (review) Golf Courses?" And I quickly came to the conclusion that I was not qualified for a severe lack of golf experiences. Your life choices must permit you to immerse yourself into it over an extended period time.
My only claim is that I live in Tidewater Virginia and have a good sense of what is a good bang for the buck in a 40 mile radius.
Carl,
Ten years ago despite having played several hundred golf courses in the U.S., I hadn't been anywhere that "made a difference" as far as GCA. So I probably felt a lot like you.
Now, I've been fortunate to have played some of the world and US top 100, and I 've played several of the courses that make discussion fertilizer around here.
But I still sometimes feel un-qualified to comment much, for the simple fact that I think the "best" courses mostly get a lot of credit for being damned hard. I can't get past the feeling that courses like Pine Valley, Carnoustie, and many others, aren't a whole lot of fun for 90% of the people who play them.
I'm big fan of the "State of the Game" podcasts and when they had author Chris Buie on to talk about his Pinehurst book, he used the term "sporty" to describe a golf course. I liked it as much as they did, because it describes the courses I like.
I guess my point is that you needn't minimize your ability to rate a golf course, there are a lot of well-traveled, highly skilled golfers who aren't as qualified as you, if only because they prize difficulty far to much.
In recent months I have seen a few of those very golfers denigrate The Old Course, and praise the Jubilee Course in St Andrews.
Which is all I need to hear. I'd rather play Cullen GC at 4,600 yards and par 63 than have to try to survive another round at Jubilee. (Although, to be honest, if I could get on, I'd head to Elie in a heartbeat.)
K