Jason, while intuitively I'd assume that JK's reaction is more 'accurate' than those of the regular golfers you've spoken to, I do think that all of us here have used the notion that a good/great course requires "multiple plays" as a bit of of a dodge, ie as a defense against any negative comments (or even less than unanimous praise) for courses we happen to like but that others may not.
And I know we've done that for two reasons: first, because in the last few years many modern courses (you know their names as well as I do) have not only debuted on the Top 100 lists but debuted very highly; and, given that in some cases they'd been open only for a few months, I doubt that many raters could've played said courses more than once before submitting their scores. In other words: apparently we *don't'* need multiple plays before deciding that a course is one of the Top 100 ever built in America. And second, because I can't think of a wonderful piece of music, or an inspiring film, or an engrossing book, or an good & interesting person or a beautiful and vibrant city that I've even needed to experience "multiple times" before deciding whether I liked it/thought highly of it or not.
As per my one-word answer thread, and the many different priorities listed there: it just may be that TF is a fine golf course that very much appeals to some (like JK, Geoff etc) and at the same time doesn't appeal at all to others (like regular golfers and tour pros). No slag against the course at all -- indeed, I find myself wondering a) why we think this *shouldn't* be the case, i.e. that some like a course and others don't, and b) why we look for a unanimity of opinion when it comes to a golf course that *we* consider great, as if that unanimity 'proves' anything
Peter