DMoriarty,
It's not a matter of exempting their opinions from question, it's the tone of dismissal regarding their opinions, as if they didn't think about them, or that they don't have the capacity to understand.
Remember too, that many on this site prefer the classic to the modern design style, so their opinions might be inherently different from those of the modern day architects.
That doesn't make their opinions invalid, just different.
I was taught never to use passive voice or indefinite pronouns because they confuse the reader and muddle the identity of just who is doing the doing. But some find passive voice and indefinite pronouns to be useful tools-- if muddying the identity of the actor is their goal. Some even use passive voice and indefinite pronouns to make accusations while stopping just short of identifying the accused. Grammar's rhetorical uses can be quite interesting, dont you think?
Anyway, I dont really think I have anything to add to my previous post, at least until I figure out just exactly to whom you are referring, and the basis for your concern.
On another note, I thought you might be quite interested in this thread, as it seems to offer you an opportunity to try to hunt out bias. Mind you, I am not saying that there is bias, but there might be enough inexplicable conduct to bring into question whether the architects are truly evaluating courses without bias. (I am assuming that you would hold them to the same bias standards you apply here.)
Now again I am not claiming bias. But I am trying to figure out whether the following are an indication of bias, or whether there is a well thought, well informed, good faith reason for the ratings. Will you help me out?
1. Torrey Pines South. The architects (at least the ones that voted on the course) picked Torrey Pines South 57th in the world. But since this wasnt enough to boost Torrey South into the top 100 in the world, I think it safe to assume that the other voters didnt even have Torrey close to the top 100. Moreover, most of those who have played Torrey and have commented that they think that 57th in the world is higher than it should be, and not by a little bit.
2. Pacific Dunes. Again, the architects view Pacific Dunes quite differently than do the rest of the voters. The architects had Pacific Dunes at 76, while the final list had PD at 19. Presumably, without the architects dragging down the score, Pacific Dunes would have been voted better than 19. Now you have seen Pacific Dunes and many of the other courses on the list. Can you think of any logical reason why the architects (who voted) had less regard for Pacific Dunes than the rest.
3. I noted above that the "overrated" courses seem to be scewed toward the older. The opposite appears to be true of the "underrated," especially if we consider renovation dates. Any explanation?
Is it all explained by your suggestion that those on this site prefer classic design over modern, and this prediliction might be inherently different than the architects as a group? Wouldnt the opposite be true? Wouldnt these results suggest that the architects as a whole have a prediliction toward modern courses as opposed to classic courses?
And if the architects have a prediliction toward modern courses, should we consider that a bias?
At the very least, isnt this prediliction something that Golf should tell the reader, so the reader might understand what they are reading?
Just curious as to your opinion.
Regards
David