Criticism in its traditional form is not about complaining. It's about explaining, elaborating, pointing to strengths, explaining why something works aestheticallly, and why some things don't work, where they could be better. It's not about dismissing things as worthless or mindlessly extolling them as ingenious. It's like any other field of study that requires discipline, study, research, field work, locating traditions, identifying trends. The fact is that anyone can have an opinion, but having an opinion doesn't make it a form of criticism without some significant work behind it. Playing golf is the easiest part of it. And if that's your primary engagement you'll make extremely limited judgments.
Various forms of new media have enabled more people than ever to be more thoughtful critics, and the line between professional critic and amateur critic has effectively been erased, which is a very good thing. But just because more people can do it doesn't mean that everyone' s judgments and opinions are based on the same evidentiary base. Some people here on GCA base their thinking on more varied experience, a more extensive engagement with the literature, the personalities, the breadth of courses, and others have extremely narrow focal points.
I find John Kirk's little memoir revealing and fascinating because he's honest about his circumstances and commitments and also that his interest comes from various forms of complex emotional engagement. If you don't love what you are looking at and you aren't moved by your involvement then your criticism and judgment suffer and you will not be taken as seriously by others -- or worse, yet, you'll just be dismissed as crank or a raving, miserable wretch. For some, that's okay -- the price we pay for the internet, for new media and for living in a democracy. But just because everyone's entitled to their opinions doesn't mean that everyone merits equal attention for their opinions.
To make a living doing this is much harder work than it seems. And while I would never claim that it's harder work than entailed by those who work in a box factory or a Dilbert office or who can't find work at all, doing the work of a critic is its own peculiar and demanding form of engagement if it's to be done well. Not that everyone needs to acknowledge or respect that, or that anyone else really cares.
The interesting thing is that the business of golf architecture has gotten better because of criticism and because many -- by no means all, maybe not even most -- architects are sensitive to criticism. Some are sensitive because they are insecure and just want to be liked, but many are sensitive because they care about their work, want to learn, appreciate an independent or fresh and honest perspective, and enjoy the back-and-forth of engaging in walking and talking with folks who have a perceptive eye, a vast memory, and a compelling engagement with the craft. Those of you who have had that experience with a designer or owner or superintendent in the field know the excitement and joy of such an engagement. It enables people to do better work, and when (some) designers respond like that in a non-defensive way, the whole craft benefits.