RJ (and George)
For the most part, guilty as charged. I used RJ's post - where I disagreed that the GD readership needed any help in knowing what they like , and the idea that Ron "tweaks" the ratings as editor - to touch on a few other topics.
The simple fact is that Ron has not conducted the best new survey for at least three years now. A panel at GD does the work now (it got too big for a one man job) and Ron simply writes the article. I sense he puts his own opinions in that from time to time, tweaking his own magazine in the process, but thats another story.
Some other related opinions - RW wants people to think about architecture, but never has told people how to think about it! He knows that the FH style works some places, ANGC works some places, and that there is no formula for style that should be forced everywhere, just as there should not be formula golf holes.....I share that opinion.
RW always evaluates architecture, not architects. RW knows that every architect has both good and bad work. Period! Of all people, RW will call a big name designer course bad, and a lesser known archies course good, if the holes are good! That has been a great service to all architects - and his readers. If all his panelists and all participants here did the same, it would be a better world and internet site!
RW is, IMHO, the most passionate about golf design of anyone here. Hard to prove, but he is certainly in a tie with someone for first place. I'm glad George thinks I have passion, too.
I believe in the power of numbers, vs Matt's suggestion of Ron simply making it "one man's list." I know they have had problems getting panelists to remote places, and also there is some randomness in that one panelist sees some courses, other panelists see others. But I don't think having even a dozen "intelligencia" who travel together and see all likely candidates would necessarily give a better indication of what's the best is out there, it would probably give less indication of that, and more indication of that groups limited perspective.
No matter what system they implement, its not going to be perfect. Same of course, with Brad Klein and anyone else who attempts it. (The white guy in pajamas top 100?)
These guys are passionate, and try to do the best they can. Its IMHO "intellectually lazy" to sit at a computer and quickly type out objections or suggestions for improvements when you don't have all the facts, or don't really have any stake in the process, other than not liking the winner.
If GD tweaked its rules every year, trying to get a more "suitable" winner, and around the office, that rule change was commonly called "the Friar Head" rule, the "East Coast Bias Rule" or the Fazio Shouldn't Win Each Year Rule" (just some examples that could happen!) the system would be fatally flawed, IHMO.
Granted, thats all a lot to infer from RJ's post!
Lastly, RJ, reread my post's PS - While you may have brought up the GCA and Pompous in the same sentence, but what I'm saying there is Ron used those words. I've used those words. Hell, I'll probably get emails from a dozen architects saying "Right on!" since they probably all have used those words regarding the opinions of this group!
okay, rant over again........
PPS - For those wondering, I am not typing this in pajamas, but rather sweats and my Dallas Stars Jersey!