Tom -
you hit on the perfect 'example' with Bill S. It's a bit of a sore spot for me.
From my perspective, given my lack of expertise (i.e. I'm not suggesting it should be *your* perspective), I know I did Bill S a disservice for many years:
in recognizing his clear 'bias' towards C&C courses, and his resulting lack of open-mindedness and authority/relevance when it came to courses by, say, Nicklaus, I failed to recognize the level of nuance and the quality of insights he brought to bear when it came to C&C's body of work, to the analysis of how their courses compared to each-other, and a ranking of said courses.
I could've learned a lot more, and been open to learning a lot more, about C&C courses from Bill S than I did & was.
And maybe I *would've* learned more and been open to learning more if he had stuck to profiling only C&C courses, instead of (in the name of 'experiencing' and being 'open to' other architects/kinds of courses) denigrating almost everything else as an overly manufactured cart ball course and almost everyone else as a near hack.
PS - you make an insightful point about your regard for C&C expressing itself in the very high standards you hold their work to. To a new Scorcese fan or to the 'fashionable ones' or to someone in the industry seeking to curry the favour of Netflix executives, my thoughts on The Irishman might seem a tad negative, or even a little critical. But no: I hold Marty to very high standards, and know his work very well, and the heights he has achieved -- and so I *know* where The Irishmen fits in 'the canon' and could explain exactly why. That doesn't make me *less* of a Scorcese fan; I'd like to think it makes me a *better* one.