Well, since all of gca is (or so I'm told) "subjective", the value/success of a golf architectural critic has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong about any given course or any list of the such courses; instead, it has everything to do with whether or not he has something interesting to say, and can say it in an engaging/entertaining way.
That's why Wind and Darwin were so good, and remain unmatched; one laboured over every word he wrote, the other seemed to toss of little gems with ease, but in both cases, what they themselves created (essays) were of as much intrinsic worth as what the architects had created (golf courses) -- and often offered more quality and charm.
I can't think of a single gca critic today whose work is of value simply because of that work itself (the writing), and not based on what he/she is writing about (the golf course).
Joe P seems like a decent fellow, but I can't remember him ever writing a fact/opinion/idea that surprised me even a little bit, or that was delightfully off-kilter, or strikingly original. And that seems to apply to every professional critic I've come across.
Sometimes, on the 'amateur side', JK can come close -- at least for a line or two (before tending to gild the lily)
Peter