Before I make a series of remarks, allow me to make a full disclosure. I was one of the raters who input a fair amount of these ratings (there were others who contributed more). I have played 6 of the top 10, 8 of the top 13, 11 of the top 28, and 13 of the 50. To those who have offered compliments regarding this list, thank you.
To those who have criticized some aspect of them (editing errors, inclusions, exclusions, etc.) I would suggest to you that walking through freshly fallen snow with no footprints to guide you is a very difficult task. Ran took that challenge on and I think got this ball rolling...and it will lead to much improved lists in coming years...because future lists will build on the first one and inevitable errors will be corrected. If you do not believe me, try two exercises...first, try building an spreadsheet or writing a letter on Commodore desktop computer from 1982-1985 or so. Second, and closer to this topic, go back and review early "Top 100" lists and see what they contain. The "Top" lists started when Golf Digest published a list of the 200 Toughest courses in the USA in 1966...and this was following by another 200 Toughest list published in 1967 (both listed the courses alphabetically so there was no #1, #2, ..., #100...#200).
Of the 1966 list of 200, 49 (24.5% never appeared on any "top" list again and 73 (36.5%) only appeared again on the 1967 list...then never on any list again). So 61% were "gone" after 1967. Of the 249 courses that appeared on the 1966 and/or 1967 lists...184 (73.9%) have not appeared on any list of top list after 1990). Want some pretty good "missing" from 1966? How about Shinnecock, NGLA, Bethpage Black, Plainfield, Quaker, and Interlachen.
Want a doozy of an editing error? When GOLF published its second World Top 50 (it published Top 50's in 1979, '81 and '83 and then top 100's after that) it included Royal Durban Golf Club (in South Africa) when it meant to include Durban Country Club (the listed included yardage and architects which proved the error was real)...I should note that this was before Tom Doak took over running the GOLF World list.
Tom made the best point of all the comments made on this topic...creating a "Top" list in numerical order is extraordinarily difficult when very few panelists have played more than 35% of the candidates....not even mentioning the difficulty in creating a list of candidates.
I look forward to much improved 9 hole listings in the future...which will have been led by Ran's efforts with this baby...and may well include some of the missings you folks have cited.
PS...one other factor that could have multiple answers is which 9 holes should be eligible and which should not be eligible for this list. Categories for consideration might include:
1. stand alone nine holes
2. 27 hole facilities where they rotate the usage making an 18 out of two of the nines and the third nine becomes the nine holer of the day...and these roles rotate thru thee three combinations
3. 27 hole facilities that always (or almost aways) operate as a unique 18 and an unique 9 (for example, The Country Club and Morfontaine)
4. 36 hole facilities with four individual nines...only one I can think of is Montclair in NJ.
5. courses with "close to" 9 holes, say 7 or 8, or 10 or 11
Ran limited the list this year to #1. I would think the appropriate answer is #1 plus #3. But I do not think there is a "right" answer.