John L told me something recently that I think reconciles the different views here. He said, he looks for variety in whiskey-tasting. Primarily that is his goal, not to find the "best" whiskey or reject the worst one. It's an approach I've come more and more to accept and am getting away from the classic "what is best?" approach.
I think one can argue that all whiskey is an acquired taste. Most people don't acquire it in that a majority of spirits sales are in the vodka and blended whisky categories (blended American whisky, and Canadian whisky, have relatively little traditional whiskey taste).
So to begin with we are in a minority area and it breaks down from there. Also, most whiskey-drinkers mix it with soda or vermouth so even then one can argue that the straight taste didn't really appeal even to the core audience.
Jack Daniels is a good example, it took me many years to acquire the palate and I like it now, partly due to the generally excellent Single Barrel iterations now available, but also I think I just "got" the taste finally, just as for anise drinks from Europe which I couldn't stand originally. I truly admire good Scotch and Irish whisky but again only after many years of sampling them now and again. All the traditional whiskeys are pungent drinks and indeed if blandified too much - I think some wheat-recipe bourbon crosses the line - depart the sphere of the traditional palate in whiskey.
Nonetheless for bourbon, definitely there are some I don't like. The current Beam profile is one I cannot accustom to (or so far), it's just not my thing. But 100 years ago, if that was the local available taste and I became a spirits drinker, would I have taken to it? I think so. So it's all relative in other words and provided a bourbon is in the range of what the type is - is not blended, or a liqueur, or gin, say - it is as valid a taste as any other in the range, and some will like it and many won't.
The old Heaven Hill profile, which featured a strong "eucalyptus" note that today has (IMO) been almost completly eliminated from the bourbon, was something I didn't like. I much prefer the range now.
To summarize: I like most bourbons produced today. In terms of the house flavours, Beam's is the only one I can't abide much but in a pinch it is fine too. Woodford Reserve has never been a big favourite due to its evident pot still flavor - it's a good example I think of historical bourbon, but probably too an example of why, as John argued again recently, so much pre-Pro whiskey probably was blended or vatted to get an even, consistent taste.
If you ask me what is the "perfect" bourbon, I would say, i) it must be rye-recipe, and ii) it should be rich, on the sweet side, and not too old but probably 6-10 years. ETL when it is on is just about perfect for example.
But to return to the point I am trying to make, it's all good, basically.