You really believe that? That only the thoughts of those who can expertly articulate them are of merit?
Isn't the title of this thread about golf
writing ?
If it's just about golf THINKING then that would be a very different subject.
I have to admit that I haven't read a lot of great golf writing, but my level of experience isn't so broad that I can say I've read enough to make any pronouncements about it. It seems to me that "golf" and "golf architecture" are two different animals, as "golf" seems to me something that I'd rather DO than read about, while "golf architecture" seems like a subject that merits study and the reading of books.
Heck, the best books on golf I've read are probably Five Lessons and Harvey Penick's Little Red Book.
Oh, and Jay, the first sunglass-wearing emoticon in Rich's post was a result of typing the number 8 followed by a parenthesis, so he did refer to Updike's writing in general as a Doak 8, and only a 6 as a "golf writer."