Steve - As I am expected to produce a weekly course review for the golfdigest.com web site, that's 52 different course reviews a year. So my objective is to write something a little different each week (nothing worse than a course review that's little more than a shot-by-shot, hole-by-hole recounting of how the sportwriter struggled with the course), and to examine each course on its own terms. So sometimes my review is like a travel piece, more about the locale than the course. Sometimes it's about the architect. Sometimes it's the back story, how the course got built, etc. Sometimes, as with Twin Warrior, it's a more straightforward "movie" review: after playing it, here's my reaction.
Mike, I often try to consider the "intent" of the course, because that's what the owner and architect usually concentrate upon. If it's a low-budget daily fee, it's hardly fair to scrutinize the course as a potential 100 Greatest layout and then list all its shortcomings. If it's a residential development course, I look at how well (or poorly) it integrates with the housing (or empty lots), how well it might help sell homes, how enjoyable it is to play given the usual constraints of housing courses, etc. If it's a resort course, especially an upscale one, I consider how accommodating it is to first-time visiting golfers. I have nothing against blind shots and hidden hazards. In fact, I love 'em. But they're local knowledge features that must be used sparingly when most of your play is resort tourists If Twin Warriors was a private club, I'd been less harsh about the awkward tee shots, because members invariable develop a feel for where to hit, even if the shot is not well defined (or is particularly ill defined.) They'll aim for a far mountain peak, for instance. But first timers don't know those landmarks.
Clayman, I'm not sure I always approach a course with a certain perspective in mind, but I hope, as a writer, than one or two perspectives emerge by the time I've finished "studying" the course (playing it, touring it, photographing it, talking to people about the course). At Twin Warriors, two perspectives emerged. One was the use of the natural land (which I thought was not as strong as it could have been, leading to those awkward tee shots I keep harping about) and the other was that it was an Indian casino related course, although I downplayed the big-bucks aspect of that particular phenomenon. Although I still think the waterfall exists mainly because there was plenty of money to build it and someone wanted a postcard waterfall hole. Sometimes, you can spend too much money on a course, or spend it unwisely. With a good many water features on a good many courses, this is often the case.
I had one reader write me and say he'll stay away from Twin Warriors because of my review. I wrote back and urged him to play the course, telling him my reviews are meant to stimulate thought and discussion, not make or break owners. That's the problem with trying to be a critic. People reduce it to thumbs up or thumbs down. I thought I was giving Twin Warriors a more neutral vote, noting that the holes along Snakehead Mountain were worth the price of admission. Somehow, everybody has focused on my criticisms of the place. That's to be expected, I guess, since I am pretty much a grumpy old man.