What's the difference between an owner-dictator of a public or private course and a dictator of a member-owned coure? Both have control over the operations, for good or ill.
I relied on statements by Tom Doak and a couple other sources for Mr. Dey's control over the work at at the Creek Club
Was Hootie Johnson merely a figurehead at Augusta? Not according to sources on this site or general views of the club. What committees were responsible for the revisions? Pat, you would know better than I would. Also, was Roberts not answerable to Bobby Jones at all? And what about his control over the course? Was he responsible for the changes to the eight hole?
Have the changes to Riviera been for the better? Not according to Geoff Shackelford, who has backed up his views with very close analysis of the course and the changes. Whether it remains a great course, despite the changes, and whether any of us would like to be a member is not relevant to whether the dictator has exercised appropriate control over the course.
Sorry Pat, but limiting the discussion to only "benevolent" dictators is dumb. The question is whether a dictatorship is more beneficial for a course and club than more diffuse member or committee control. Otherwise, I say that having "benevolent" tennis players control golf clubs is good, since I can define benevolent however I want. Benevolent anything is fine.
Patrick, you have expressed admiration for Dick Wilson's work. Is it a good thing that his work on that course is basically gone? Would a benevolent dictator think that having the course as a pga tour venue is more important than preserving Wilson's work? If Deepdale decided to have a tourney, would it be ok if the benevolent dictator there wipe out the course's character?