I thought this was a thought-provoking quote from Matt Ward in response to Tom Doak in another thread.
Tom D:
How many times must one play a hole before you can comment? If that's the case there are a number of courses in Confidential Guide in which I can certainly say I outnumber you in terms of total plays from key respective courses.
Candidly, I don't think the amount of times is the most important element -- it's how cogent and insightful the analysis is.
So how much can you pick up about a hole or a course based on one playing? Obviously you are limited to seeing it in one specific set of weather/wind/maintenance/setup conditions--those which exist on the one day you are there.
But with analysis and imagination can you essentially "get" everything the hole or course has to offer?
My gut feeling is that you probably can get the basic gist of a hole or course on one play, but unless you've actually seen it many times in a variety of conditions, you can't fully understand all the possibilities or mysteries of the hole or course. And from there I think the reviewer is walking on shaky ground when making generalizations about the hole/course or comparing it to other holes/courses. He really should probably stick to "First impressions: What I liked/what I disliked" comments rather than definitive "This hole/course is better/worse than..." comments.
[Then there is the issue of how much you can remember about a course if you have played it only once. I think I have a pretty good memory, but it is amazing to me just how many details of a course I have forgotten when I go there for a return visit after a long absence. It makes me doubt my ability to honestly rate and compare the courses I have played, when many of them I have only played once--I am not a rater, by the way.]
I guess it's the old "depth" vs. "breadth" argument--whether it is better to have seen (1) a larger number of courses, but with only a "snapshot" view of them, or (2) a smaller number of courses, but with a deep understanding of them. Obviously the ideal is both, but there are very few, if any, who can claim it!