"People are mean, and architects are an easy target. I know Rees. Rees is a friend of mine."

I always enjoy SI/golf.com's Confidential but this week's left me feeling like it's now becoming another vehicle to defend the established thought, which, if there were ever going to be a Confidential killer, that would be it.

After a great back-and-forth on Golf Channel's announcer-lite telecast, an oddly timed and poorly executed defense of Rees Jones resorted to the pedantic "tour players are spoiled" and "Rees is my friend," therefore, their criticism of the Cog Hill changes must be off base.

Lipsey: Anybody who complains about anything at a no-cut golf tournament with a $7.5 million purse and a chance to qualify for another tournament where you can win a $10 million bonus needs a lobotomy.

Bamberger: People are mean, and architects are an easy target. I know Rees. Rees is a friend of mine. And let me tell you something: these people dissing Rees, they couldn't build better greens if you spotted them two tons of St. Andrews sand. East Lake is one of the gems of the South — nay, the entire golf-speaking world!

And wasn't Donald Ross the original architect of that one?

Herre: I agree, Michael. It's easy to take shots at people who really can't defend themselves. I think that's why the USGA, PGA, R&A and even the Masters, to some extent, routinely get hammered. They are easy targets because they can't fight back in any meaningful way.

Uh, they're the ones with the microphones and podiums aren't they?

Evans: A course doesn't take a poll of tour players before it makes changes to its layout. Players seldom like changes. Get over it.

Gorant: I think, actually I know from speaking to him, that he truly seeks to build courses that will be a challenge to the pros. I don't think some of those guys are used to it or like it very much. The feeling is, if there's no way to shoot a 63 out here, there must be something wrong with it.

Precisely! I'll leave it to the Good Doctor MacKenzie, who wrote it so well:

As I have suggested before, it is no criterion of a good course that the record is high. This is usually an indication of a bad course, and only too frequently means that the putting surfaces are untrue, the approaches unfair and the greens small and blind. On the contrary, if the average score is high but the records extremely low--sixty-four or sixty-five for a course under seven thousand yards--it usually means that a first class player gets full reward for accurate play.

The seeming inability to post the occasional low round (Tiger's '09 62 not withstanding) ultimately gets to the heart of why players find Jones redos lacking. He often rebuilds greens to create anti-birdie hole locations and by going on the golfing version of a pre-vent offensive, the architecture ultimately feels contrived, cynical and soulless. And that's before you look at the artistic quality of the work, which is bland at best, irresponsible at its worst at places like Torrey Pines where any ties to natural beauty were squelched.