Jamie,
You wrote, "Isn't the point of an interview to ask someone to "defend" certain philosophies, styles, positions, etc? Perhaps I should word it "explain why he feels that way." "
You then followed by saying, "There in lies the problem. If Fazio, Nicklaus, and Rees feel they do not need to explain themselves or at least expand on a position, then it's arrogance. They are building these courses and asking us to pay a lot of money to play them, so asking them why they feel a certain way is not out of line. If they feel that they do not owe anyone a little commentary, then they've got the problem."
The problem is more than one of semantics. You change your phrase from "to defend" to "explain" as if the mere use of a different word will make a difference, yet you follow it up by saying "If F/N/R feel they do not need to explain themselves... then iot's arrogance."
Why is it arrogance for someone to choose not to answer questions from someone who is openly and knowingly critical of their work, sometimes even to an extreme (I am speaking in gneneral here and not of you specifically)?
As someone who conducts interviews for a living (meager though it mat be), I can state without any doubts, that a good interviewer is NOT one who is hell-bent on either making the person he is interviewing "defend/explain" his opinions/postions or act as a P.R. shill for that person.
In all of the posts so far on this thread, I have yet to read ONE question that someone feels they want to ask either of these three men. I believe it would be most interesting to see what we might want to ask them as an example of what they would be subjected to by an interview by GCA.
I would start by asking a simple question that could lead in a number of different areas depending on how it is answered. For example:
F/N/R, of the courses you have designed, not those you have helped to reconstruct or refurbish, which one are you most proud of and which one least?
Now that is a benign enough question, but why would any architect want to answer it? Doing so puts them into a position of telling a group of people he did work for, his client, that the work he did might not be satisfactory.
Because of examples like that, one has to really plan and phrase a question properly in order to get a response other than something like, "I view all of my courses like my children; I love them all equally."
Also, remember that just because questions, benign or not, are asked, it doesn't mean that an answer will or has to follow.
For example, in writing my book on the 2002 U.S. Open (due out in March 2003), for a chapter titled "What Do They Think of it Now" I asked a number of people, including some well and not-so-well known architects to comment, on what they thought of the refurbished Black course and how it performed in the Open. One architect responded to this innocently benign question by saying, "In truth, I don't really think I have any unique insights to offer about the course, and though I respect his work, I don't really see any point in my adding to Rees Jones' stature as the Open Doctor."
This is a very honest answer. Some might think it petty and little, others might feel that it's about time someone stood up and said it. Depending on the interviewer, he might feel the necessity of asking the architect to "defend" this position and to do so vigorously and in a manner that the one asked will not appreciate.
Just because we have questions we would like to hear answers to, doesn't mean that we will or that we can even be in the position to ask them.
So, what questions would you like to ask of these three men?
Maybe someone can ask them.