Given the collective knowledge of this group regarding golf course architecture and what separates a "good" course from a "bad" course (regardless of when it was built) what would be a better set of evaluation categories? I believe the current categories (besides tradition) that Golf Digest uses are: shot values, resistance to scoring, design variety, memorability, aesthetics, conditioning and ambiance.
Brad:
In general, I do not believe that there is a strict definition that should be applied to all courses regardless of their intended purpose. There are holiday courses, private club courses, and championship courses; calling the holiday courses at fault for not having enough "resistance to scoring" is as silly as holding the championship courses at fault for not being friendly to high-handicap women. [You'll notice the GOLF DIGEST rankings do the former, but not the latter.]
However, if you want to stick to the general categories GOLF DIGEST has, I think that their top 100 list puts too much emphasis on difficulty, which comes up in both Shot Values AND Resistance to Scoring, and not enough on playability, which they do rate but only use when evaluating public and resort courses. A great course is one that balances playability and difficulty ... GOLF DIGEST's list tilts hard toward difficulty.
Likewise, they could combine Aesthetics, Memorability and Ambiance into one or two categories at most.
Personally, I don't think they should be using Conditioning as a factor at all, because it can change so much from year to year and even week to week, and there are many GOLF DIGEST panelists who over-value a course which spends opulently on maintenance-for-aesthetics, as opposed to maintenance of a playing surface.
So, if it was me, you could boil it down to Shot Values, Playability, and Memorability and throw out the rest. I'd love to just take their data and see how that would reshuffle the deck, but of course they don't print the Playability numbers for us to do so. However, if you just looked at Shot Values separately, here are the courses [based on 2015 scores] that would be most vulnerable:
Under 7.5: Diamond Creek, Double Eagle, Hudson National, Kittansett, Laurel Valley, Maidstone, French Lick, The Preserve, The Quarry at LaQuinta
7.5 to 7.6: Arcadia Bluffs, Bandon Trails (!), Black Rock, Blackwolf Run, Calusa Pines, Canyata, Cherry Hills, Eagle Point, Estancia, Flint Hills National, MPCC, Mountaintop, Rich Harvest, Shoreacres, Streamsong (Red), The Valley Club
The only courses in there that I think belong in the top 100 are the three shortest ones - Maidstone, Shoreacres and The Valley Club - and they are probably victims of long hitters' interpretations of "Shot Values". Other than that, maybe they should just make Shot Values the whole ball of wax.
The funny part is, I don't think what I've suggested would have much effect on their list. I think most GOLF DIGEST panelists start out with thinking a course is a 7 or an 8.5 or a 9 -- that it deserves to be "in the list" or not -- and then fill in seven numbers that average out to that result. I say this because you never see results where a course got 8.2 for conditioning but only 5.5 for shot values or memorability ... the numbers always seem to be in a narrower range than that. If we eliminated all the other categories, half these courses would find a way to stay on the list, because they've been on it, and most panelists secretly feel a need to defend their system by voting in favor of past results. But if a bad formula hadn't put some of those courses on the list to begin with, I don't think anyone would vote for them.