I take these ratings with a grain of salt. I disregard the private courses as I don't run in those circles to get an invite. The most prestigious course on any list that I have played is Pebble Beach with my dad, yeas ago when it was half the price. It was more about being with him than with the course itself. My belief is that any course is a challenge and that playing only once isn't a real disadvantage. I also I fell that if a course is in good shape and well taken care of, that's just fine. These lists are just fillers.

I know this is off subject but who can play these courses? I've noticed that when the conditions get REAL the pros don't score well. I really would like to have an old pro stop by a couple of our home courses and have him give it a swing. The normal golfer who gives his cash up for this game plays cow pastures and want to be golf courses. When I visit any of these plush courses I score better than at home. Granted the pros are good but we play course conditions they do not see.

I sometimes wonder whether anyone involved in golf ever thinks outside the box. We constantly complain about slow play, but have a thousand rules that seemed designed specifically to slow up play and scare less expert golfers. And we follow the same criteria in designing and rating golf courses. A difficult course promotes poorer and slower golf in poor players. And since we have a lot more difficult courses than easy courses, we have more poor players than good. So I would like a system that guides me to intriguing and beautiful courses that do not "force" timid golf. Perhaps one category for 10 and under handicaps and one for everybody else. (I read something by one of the greats. He felt that golfers who learn how to swing drop to a 10 overnight. But from there on every stroke dropped gets progressively harder. That seems to still be true.)

Haven't seen the word "fun" or "humor" in any of the big-time ratings gamers' criteria. Design elements that force a whimsical smile from you are rare, memorable & worth much more to me than a nice set of sand traps! And fun is the whole point of playing !

Memorability is the top factor. The photo of the 11th hole at Merion was where I attended one of the best keg parties in high school. Merion's 7th hole is a great sledding area in the winter.

As a turfgrass professional I have been able to play many of America's best courses. In many, if not most of these rounds, I am not invited into the clubhouse, grill room, or locker room. For this reason I believe I and my Superintendent cohorts are well suited to honest course assessments. We aren't wowed by the fluff as we don't experience it. Take away the perks, rank a club based on 18 holes, and evaluate it. I have a distinctly different take on the Top 100...unobscured by ancillary trappings.

Having had the opportunity to play Sand Valley last fall it is ok but not even in top 10 in Wisconsin

You failed to mention with Golfweek that you rate all those categories but then you give it a rating totally independent of them and that is the only number that is used in determining its ranking.

I suspect that many of the journalists are biased towards how well they are received at the course, the "perks" they get when playing it, and the lunch / dinner that is offered by the course. The actual standards of the top courses do not vary much and the amounts of money thrown at them for their maintenance and upkeep, really set the standard for how good they are.

Call me cynical but I suspect my opening comments have more to do with the "ranking" than most of your criteria listed above.

If you want to have a rating for the 100 best courses that is fine, as an interesting exercise and fun reading. But to be most useful to the majority of people, the courses should be grouped into Private, Public and Resort courses. The rating criteria would probably be different for each category. All would have a consideration of the cost and is it worth the money.