First, thanks for taking time to reply.
1) We are all traveling on our own dime and we all have day jobs, so our ability to go back and see every course again to keep reviews fresh is limited by reality. I have not changed too many grades in the book without seeing a course again, but I did ask around a bit about Rockport's condition and the reports were not encouraging. The drop in grade is also reflective of the fact that Bill Coore has built many better courses since then, making Rockport somewhat less newsworthy than it was in 1988 or 1996.
Second, I object to this line of reasoning. Forget who designed it, this is a course people should see. For one thing, development courses don't get architecture like this, even / especially in the decades since it was built. You can't say that about Sand Hills.
The course is a library of some of the more remarkable features and concepts of old courses. Lion's Mouth, massive convex bunkers: who takes chances like this? And how many such features survive the decades?
The course is worth study because it it short by today's standards yet no pushover. It regularly hosts regional event and does well. Add in the wind -- Rockport is one of the windiest coastal areas in the Continental US -- and it's fun.
To be clear, I am not commenting on the number. 5-6 feels about right (at least by the original CG standards). I wish the 'panel' put the time in to see it. It's an hour from Wolf Point, which is already a time-consuming location to get to (and worth it). I feel this is a 'blue box' course. (Yes, I know it's not my book.) People should see it.