Brad,
Nice article (I just read it). Every thing you state is very true! I've always said, these lists (right or wrong) are taken very seriously, too seriously. At the same time, that has to be understood because that is the way it will be.
John/John,
Thanks for the comments. Believe me I know the sensitivities of these lists and have been living it for many years with GD. I always tell courses on the lists, just be happy you made it (regardless of your number). But as you know, it's still not that easy. It's even tougher when a course has fallen off and you want to go back there and re-evaluate it.
I do, however, disagree with part of what you said in that I feel it should be harder for a course to go backwards than forwards. It should be much harder for a course ranked #57 to fall off the list than for a new one to show up in that position. Most of the big moves on GW's list had a reason for moving such as Fenway, Aronimink, etc. Those courses did work to polish up their property. I don't recall reading one explaination that a course jumped up 30 spots because more panelists came to see it. Did you?
But when a course goes more than 43 spots backwards (remember no one knows if Hollywood is now at #101 or #300), that is much harder to explain. I do realize that a course with only a few votes can move significantly, but a change like Hollywood tells me there is wide variation in the opinions of the panelists voting on it.
I really don't want to drag this out and I'm really not picking on GW as all the lists have to deal with this. Furthermore, I have never played Hollywood so I couldn't tell you where it belongs. I'm just pointing out (as Brad did in his article) that these lists are taken very seriously and I would have trouble explaining to the members in a case like that, what happened.
Mark