RJ,
I will probably ramble on about as you did on this subject, not a tribute to our literary skills, as much as an important, but multi layered subject.
My first impression of your post was that the Chicago school was not the only ones to do mounds. Certainly, after I moved to Texas, Plummer, Maxwell and others used a series of anywhere from one to five mounds behind their greens. In fact, many around here refer to them as "Maxwell's four mounders".....
I recall Ken and Dick saying that a shaper turned them on to backing mounds. He wasn't with Wadsworth, as they didn't use them much, feeling he was too close to Packard.
Harris used to put the mounds, similar to Maxwell within the green surface, and the last ten or twelve feet of the green would roll off the back. This particular shaper, who had worked for someone else (perhaps RTJ?) and mentioned, or perhaps just varied from early K and N plans, by pushing the mounds off the green to the back.
They saw the architectural merit of holding in near misses, making the putting surface entirely visible (in fashion then, as tour pros redefined the meaning of blind to mean seeing the base of the flagstick) and helping shots hold better. Also, softening the putting surface by placing the rolls outside makes it all cuppable. When concerned about maintenance, and building the lower budget courses that K and N usually did, meaning the smallest possible greens to save money, designing greens to max out cup space was a very practical solution.
I guess I am saying that they were reevaluating design concepts in light of current conditions (it must have been heresey to go against what a guy like Maxwell did) just as we do today. Its just we are in better economic conditions today, so other factors see more balance!
K and N were never big on fairway grading, unless raising for drainage in a swamp, or cutting through a hill for vision and/or to get some necessary cuts. After I left, I did see some courses by both (they have split) that also featured framing mounding, so I think the suggestion that Nicklaus' work at Grand Cypress, or others was studied and copied, not just by me or them, but by many.
I do recall Dick and Bruce Borland looking at PGA West (the Dye course) and Dick saying "What are the purpose of all those mounds back there, they don't come into play?" Bruce replied, "Dick, they look fabulous, and that's their purpose". Eventually, Dick did some more mounding on the second perimeter just for looks.
We all study the biggest names and adapt. Not a knock on Rees at all, but he spent some time deriding the use of mounds, back when he first became known as the Open Doctor. Then, he used them at Atlantic, to rave reviews, and seemed to have changed his mind. Now, his work is less moundy, like most of us, proving either that we all grow and learn, or that at least we listen to critics!
As I said on the other thread, after experimenting with them, I found them to be a largely failure for me. Why? IMHO I need to go all out, ala Fazio, and move about 1 Million CY of earth to really fill them in (I think he is successful at the look he does) or eliminate them. Since I don't get the budgets he does, I have reduced them greatly.
When we do have to do grading, I am trying to get my staff to look at earthworks more like Fazio - as a more integrated whole, especially using new computer technology as a great tool. I feel most architects who use mounds "plop" them on a relatively flat piece of ground, sometimes because of the way traditional contour line drawing makes you think.
I recall Dick Nugent always told me that architects always hestiate for a contour line to cross a fairway or green line. I find thats true, and instill that in my guys daily. He always said to do the final grading plan without the "edge" layers, and we can do that now by turning them off on the computer. If the contours look like a work of art on plan, then they usually look like a work of art in the field. If the contours look like isolated mounds on an otherwise flat piece of land (devoid of contours on paper), then the grading will look like mounds plopped on the ground. Is that too technical?
Back to the original question - Do I like them. Really, I do, if well done. Rarely does a peice of ground fall for 18 straight holes just where you need it or want it. Unlike most other forms of architecture and landscape architecture, golf design benefits from distinct viewing points and sequences, and it is easiest to control the view and or define it, which can enhance the experience. It is a shame to not enhance the landscape for golf in such situations, in the name of minimalism or whatever, if the course can be improved.
However, most architects and contractors don't have the mindset or budget to do them right, and they often come out as repititious, puny, etc. compared to nature. They do have their place in modern architecture (hey, even Ross had a chapter in GHNFM called "Solid Mound Work" although that may have been the editor, and not Ross writing the title) but we are all getting both used to and tired of them. Also, as Lou Duran say, we are beginning to see a negative effect on play, ie, sidehill lies.
Jeff
PS - Don't tell me I don't work hard enough on my routings, or that I am lazy and only use mounds to cover up my routing deficiencies. I won't argue that any more, but I can say emphatically that it isn't true!