I'll try and stammer an answer as to what is different between the "tastes" of the broad body of contributors to GCA and the panelists named on about the last page of the Golf Mag top 100 thread. In looking at the list of names, and having had a pretty fair sampling of meeting various GCA junkies, I'd say that those on the list have a greater career or vested interest in the game or the industry of golf. They are predominantely fine players at the pro or high stakes amatuer levels, or architects(or dabble in both) or association rules committe directors . The panelists are obviously far more widely travelled than the main cross section of GCAers. Although we have some extensively well travelled contributors on the GCA (some who even have a legendary nicknames to highlight that fact like "America's Guest
), for the most part, we GCAers are not so closely associated with the game as to have seen the large sampling nationally or world wide, because we are regular type joes who can't in practicality obtain that kind of exposure to the universe of golf courses.
I'd say it is much the same as any club when it comes to tastes. The panelists form a certain body of conventional wisdom and group knowledge that relates to their group's common ties to the golf industry, and GCAers are provincial, and often reinforce our own thoughts as we converse here on the internet. That is not to say that GCAers nor the panelists are one more ignorant or savvy of the nuts and bolts of design than the other group, except for the actual panelist archies and construction related people.
Our GCA learning curve is steeper, and can not catch up to the panelists because of access to the cream of the crop in storied and exclusive courses and everyday ability to make time in our lives, or afford to see them. But, the desire of the GCAer is higher to learn. I think that the passion to participate in GCA demonstrates an interest factor in design that is higher than the panelists, and that the panelists may in fact be a bit elite in that regard, as they know they have greater exposure, and may look down on the more focused GCA participants and their search for the essence of the subject of golf course design.
The panelists create the buzz through their conventional wisdom and group selections, and the GCAers (though many of us put down the notion of such priority on the importance or meaning of lists) can't stop talking about the damn lists.
