PCraig:
I agree with a lot of your criticisms of the coverage of courses in Minnesota. I think it was one of our weaker sections of the book, because my only real trip around was many years ago, and Ran and Masa had scant experience there. The couple of times I did get up that way, I went to see Giant's Ridge and Northland, instead of more courses around the Twin Cities.
I'm surprised [but not shocked] to hear that Darius left out a course he'd seen on his trip; I would like to hold all of my contributors to the same standard that I hold myself [which is no omissions and no, "no comments"], but I can't make them admit to everything if they don't want to. Either he had a reason he didn't want to review the course in question, or it's possible he just forgot it. [There were actually a couple of courses I had to stick in at the last minute, remembering a long-ago visit of my own.]
That said, it bugs me when people tell me I "needed" to go see such and such course a second time, or go see more in a particular area. I know you know that I've seen all of these courses on my own dime, for travel costs if not necessarily to pay green fees, and that my time for this second career is limited. I'd hoped to get back to Minnesota for a couple of days last fall or this spring, but I just had too many other bases to cover, getting to upstate NY, and Maine and New Hampshire, and West Virginia, and Utah and Idaho, and Iowa and Lawsonia [for a second time 30 years after my first].
I thought it was more important to include courses in those regions, than include more from the Twin Cities, and I was not disappointed by what I found.
As for the two reviews of courses in Chicago, yes, those are my own. In the case of Glen View, I did not go look at it to interview for the job -- one of my associates tried for the job, but I stayed out of it since two of my former associates were also bidding on the work and I didn't want to put my thumb on the scale. But I did stop through and walk the course on a visit, just before they were going to start in on the job. I thought it was a good layout, but that the previous attempt at the bunkering was not well done. And, as for Old Elm, I would have liked to get back but did not find the time. [Indeed, I stopped in to Glen View so I could include it, too.]
Should I have speculated as to how good they might be after refurbishment? Should I rely on someone else's opinion and print that? I say no. I rate the course that I saw and put down the date I saw it. I am quite comfortable stating that those courses were not any better than 6's [which is pretty good] when I saw them.
It's inevitable in any such production that some reviews are dated, and you've pointed out some of the worst such examples, out of a book that reviews 660 courses. My question to you: is that really worse than just omitting them entirely? [Keeping in mind, that selective omissions start to raise questions about favoritism and dodging questions.] Does my having reviewed Glen View and Old Elm a bit vaguely, to account for change, make you not interested to see them?