Tim,
I just had a look at the CR/Slope ratings. At 5710 yds (CR W-73, M 67.
the slope is 128 for women and 129 for men, at the 6,121 (CR 69.9) mark the slope is 134, and at the 6,526 (CR72.1) mark the slope is 140. The course ratings aren't high at the par of 70 but the slopes are more than a bit on the high side.
Although Whitten finds more to be critical of in the way the course plays, both he and Ginella mention its narrowness and it's forced carries. Tom Doak agreed with Whitten "...in the sense that the course is not for everyone", and in looking at an aerial it appears that water must either be crossed, or runs parallel, on 8, perhaps 9 of the courses 18 holes.
While it may be loved across a wide spectrum of players there really seems to be an imbalance that favors the better player, and by a large margin given the slope ratings, the narrowness, the water and the severity of some of the other hazards.
AG,
I don't see it the same light, the focus of the article isn't a treatise on the 'architecture'.
Here's a link to the article. It's little more than two guys expressing mostly opposite(even though they agree a couple of times) views about a golf course,
in one paragraph each. http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-02/face-off-caledonia-golf-clubedit: if a golfer decides to stay away from Caledonia because of someone else's comments about it then they are the fools, not the author. I would think that the decision to stay away from Caledonia has umpteen more do with it's very high green fee than anything a critic might write. What is it now, $200 or so in their high season?