Doug
I usually don't care if others think highly of a course if I don't unless I think perhaps I just didn't get it, but that isn't the issue. Sticking with Carnoustie as the example, I think it is a very good course, just not the type of design which does a lot for me - thats just one opinion. I readily accept that courses can be good or great and well worth playing even though I don't care for them. Because I don't personally love Carnoustie is no reason to bury my head in the sand and not acknowledge its quality as a generic recommendation. I wouldn't push people toward Carnoustie if they weren't considering it anyway, but I wouldn't say skip Carnoustie if folks want to go there or if they will be nearby. Why would I? Carnoustie is a higly respected course by practically everybody who knows it?
Now, I would say folks shouldn't leave Carnoustie without playing the Burnside. I prefer it to the big course, but I wouldn't say it is better nor would I normally say it should be seen over the big course. I would say the punter will get the exact same clubhouse, town, views etc experience (which isn't up to much!) on a well designed and much more affordable course than the Champ. But that is merely my own values coming to the fore as I don't have a strong desire to play great/famous courses just because they are great/famous. Some folks don't care about anything else but course quality and on that score, even though I think it is over-rated and not really able to hang with the big boys of GB&I, it is undeniable that Carnoustie is far better than competent design. Thats how I feel about many championship courses, but they have the rep and whatever else, that rep matters to travelling golfers. It would be a totally different story if I knew you well, knew exactly what you were looking for etc, but that isn't what the Conf Guide has become. It is a generic book of recommendations.
Ciao