Tom,
Clearly, the straight lines had lots to do with Raynor's engineering training. After all, there aren't that many straight lines on the great Scottish holes CB was trying to copy, although, there are some. Pete Dye told me he got the straight lines idea from the little ditch at Prestwick 18. According to him, he realized everyone was doing curves, so he would do straight lines, just to get a different look.
Its not uncommon for LUI or Wadsworth to send shaping personell around to different architects jobs. I know of times when the shapers will tell me "that's how we did it on the last Fazio job." I also have examples of them transferring my ideas back! It would have happened back then, as well.
So, assuming American Golf was already experienced at the time of NGLA, with another architect, they would have had more influence. Seth had to be asking questions about what to do, and CB wasn't there every day. So, if the contractor had some knowledge, it would have gotten in there somehow. What's interesting, is the difference in the MacKenzie approach - go natural - versus the Raynor approach - force into the topo 18 reliable strategic concepts.
It appears to me that Raynor did get a bit more rounded and natural as time went on. Perhaps because of different shapers. Perhaps because he was interested in what other architects did, perhaps pressure to conform, by making his style a bit more rounded. Just speculation.
As to Rich's question about influences of your "history" that was hammered home to me yesterday watching La Costa. Mentored by Killian and Nugent, they always told the story of wanting to break out of the RB Harris mold. They studied the work of Jones and Wilson, and selected Wilson as the basis for their style. Although my style has evolved over 20 years of independent practice, that is mostly trial and error, and being willing to import other concepts from historical or even modern courses. When you look at the LaCosta style, especially the bunkers, mine are still similar. I have tried, but I just can't really do the Pete Dye style bunkers, for instance. As you suggest, that is how much your early training is drilled into you!
If you are asking about what associates under me influenced my design, then I can say that the men (in my case) in charge of the projects under me always exhibited distinct style! For example, Jeff Blume, who recently posted here, seemed to have a fondness for clusters of bunkers. On the fisrt project where he was drawing the greens plans, he changed several greenside bunker complexes from single large bunkers to those clusters, whereas my intent was to do one cluster for variety......Jeff and a few others have struck out on their own. Like me 20 years ago, I think we both had the strength of personality to want things our own way. Associate architects never feel they have enough input.
In my case, I left K and N because they wouldn't do the grass bunkers and mounds that Ross did. They did Dick Wilson! Its not that I wasn't intent on starting my own firm anyway, but I recall them ordering me to replace a grass bunker because "we don't do that" as the impetus to go! And that was after they stood on the tee and said it looked interesting.
I'm sure Kelly and others could tell a similar story.....
PS. My future - and very old school - father in law naturally questioned my sanity. After deciding to marry his daughter, he then heard I quit a perfectly good job because I didn't want to follow orders from the boss. I thinkk he had apoplexy when he found out we were moving to Texas without either having any job prospects in hand.