While there are certainly cult/niche courses out there, it goes beyond that to cult designers and even cult design takes or positions within GCA.
Initially, while Sweeten's is certainly one of the darlings of social media, I was able to play it back in 2015 when it was relatively unknown. I certainly didn't know anything about it when I stepped out of my car. I was supposed to play Lookout Mountain that day when we were rained out and found out that SC was open. I went around three times and enjoyed it a lot. Variety, character, formidable vexing greens, yet difficult to lose your ball and multiple ways to attack the holes. I saw it as nine holes that could be as fun or as challenging as you wanted them to be and not once during those 27 holes did I have a boring shot. It was the passion project of King and Collins, both of whom likely thought that might be their only opportunity to showcase their craft in the way they wanted and expressed it in detail throughout.
I've wondered before, however, why a place like the Skyway course at Lincoln Park, 20 minutes from Manhattan, doesn't get similar social media treatment. It's nine holes as well, created from a former Superfund site and is wonderfully firm and fast with wind being a factor more often than not. It doesn't have the visual panache of SC but there isn't a public course around that plays the way it does. Its affordability, accessibility and walkability, not to mention its location, make it worthy of a lot of attention. Yet it doesn't have that cult status or social media pilgrimage worthy title. My guess is this is because it doesn't need any of that. Because of its location, its tee sheet is pretty much booked day in and day out. It addressed an overwhelming demand in that area and is essentially accomplishing its purpose. Corica Park South falls into this similarly, yet I imagine there are some other issues at play there.
I see cult or niche as another word for trendy. If one goes to Winter Park or SC and posts photos of them at the course or whatever, that will get validated a lot more than if that same person posts photos of Skyway. Inherently, it's easier for that person to heap praise on the trendier places, which validates their troubles getting there and the experience they had. In turn, it's easier for that person to critique Skyway because there won't be so much blowback from the masses. This applies the same way in rankings and even exclusivity of access.
Part of this is the individual. Someone above essentially claims that you shouldn't be able to offer critiques of courses unless you know what you're talking about. I know a lot of people who, even if they do have criticisms of a course or outright don't like a course, will not communicate it at all because they fear they might be missing something, or "don't get it." Conversely, it's much easier to criticize what's trendy to criticize because there's safety in numbers. You're much more likely to hear how Rees Jones is terrible than you are Gil Hanse. My position is trends and social media have a lot more to do with that than we'd like to admit. So in terms of if there's any serious criticism of course architecture, most of I see is what I'd call "safe takes." Rees Jones is a butcher, Tom Fazio is generic with no substance, anything decrying trees or rolling back the ball, etc. There are exceptions, of course, Tom Doak on this site will offer some interesting input from time to time and I really think Derek Duncan's podcast asks a lot of interesting questions about the state of GCA that should be discussed a lot more. I've always tried to offer criticism in my reviews instead of avoiding it, for what it's worth. But in addition to magazines avoiding critical pieces, you don't hear a lot of designers getting critical of each other, other projects, or their past projects. I'm sure there's a lot of politics there and it's certainly a business but there' s a lot of protecting the field. So what are you left with? The guys who do know what they're talking about won't get critical of their colleagues, most major media won't go there, all because of the risk built into going against the grain. [size=78%] [/size]
In terms of cult/niche/trendy courses not mentioned yet, it's a long list. Some of them deserve the accolades. Some of them, because of a more wide spread proliferation of information, have been "discovered" by the general public. I'd put Seth Raynor in general in this category. Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal. I'm not addressing the merits of any of these but these and it's a small sample size. Why are they niche or cult depends on the place. Some time it's that sense of discovery and journey. Perhaps, like me at SC, it's that unexpected surprise factor. Or maybe it's simpler than that; they're courses offering really good golf that don't receive the attention many think they should.
As for rankings, they're important for certain reasons. They are not important with respect to whether I should like the course or that the higher ranked course is "better" than those below it, but they foster discussion and attempt to put some, well, structure I suppose into the whole thing. As someone above mentioned, rankings are all over this site and elsewhere. Functionally, they've helped me figure out some courses to check out in an unfamiliar area. I suppose those who know enough to ignore them can consider them trash but there's an entire group out there that have to start some where and it's helpful as a general guide in that respect.
I wished it would be possible to play courses like a blind bourbon tasting. The most revered or popular bourbon rarely wins out and the taster is left judging each sample on its substance alone. Like anything else, there's a lot of other factors that typically influence one's assessment of a course, whether it's a podcast, social media, rankings, cults or even what they've seen on television.