More good stuff from Jeremy!
Ted Kazinksly, ah ,Tom MacWood,
Anti - Technology guy, huh? Well, we do agree on the Brownstones being more neighborhood friendly 
Technology is just one factor. Looking at design as it relates to economic conditions, because budget always has (except on rare sites - which only in golf design can allow a better product for less money, where all other design branches pretty well need to spend more to have a better product, regardless of site) been important to final product, I would expect the most of the best American designs to come from the Roaring 20's, 50's and 90's, because of the prevailing economic conditions at the time, and the prevailing mindset that brings to really build something that's more than utilitarian.
The 20's was an era where the designers were trying to learn the craft, and break the mold of both the Scottish paradigm, and the utilitarian efforts of the early builders. They were obviously highly motivated to do so, and did well with their best courses.
Perhaps the 50's was the worst era. The country did go through a period in the fifties and sixties where "modernization" again was the rage. That in part was spurred by the euphoria of winning WWII and being the first superpower, which may have put grandiose ideas in many minds.
Architecturally, it was fueled by negative reaction to the Chicago 1933 World's Fair, when the designers did the fairgrounds in a classical style, and most critics felt strongly their should be a strong, unique, American style of design as well. Perhaps RTJ Sr. and others felt this strongly, too, and applied it to golf. Time hasn't been good to the majority of the courses in that era, but its easy to see the influences that shaped it. Of course, maybe with a little more aging, we will re-appreciate the qualities those courses have.
When American culture hit, what IMHO was a real cultural low point-the 70's (disco sucks!) which was brought on by, or at least concurrent with, a painful restructing of the economy after decades of industrial prominence, is it a surprize that a nostalgia boom hit?
The roots of the Golden Age golf design revival surfaced there. We began reincorporating much of the old style of design, that was seemingly lost in the total moderinzation movement of the 50's.
The point is, with time, as Barney says, the courses of the nineties (which are very eclectic in design style) and even the average courses built especially for public play will be considered far better than their earlier relatives. As an era, I think it will be remembered for diversity, not "sameness" and formula. How could anyone really look at the evidence - the wide variety of good courses out there built recently - and not say otherwise?
On the techical side of earthmoving potential, I have always found that I can either move the absolute minimum of earth to tie a green slope back into it's surrounds (not shorting the toe of slope Jeremy mentions, but just grading only what needs to be graded, like the tee, the green complex and any fairway hazards, or I must grade everything! The eye accepts the grading of the green complex as a necessary and utilitarian reshaping of the land.
Once you decide to add one artificial framing mound,(or landform in modern parlance) not directly related to a golf feature, it seems obviously artificial when it ends. Thus, to complete the illusion, it is necessary to keep going down the entire hole so everything ties together as one, flowing landscape. This is where Dye, Fazio and others have got to, and I can see why. I think the thing people don't like about that (when they don't like it, as many do) is that it is amost impossible for one mind (the architect) or even several minds (his associates and shapers) to concieve of enough different contour forms, as compared to the randomness of "Ma Nature".
So, I generally favor leaving most of the land the way it is naturally, (or in the case of the Quarry at Giant's Ridge, the way it was UNNATURALLY from mining) Of course, this requires something other than a dead flat site.
And, yes, one of the reasons I will take out a hill, is that even if I think it might be fun to hit a blind shot, experience tells me that a lawyer somewhere will find another architect to tesify that it was really crazy and non- standard! Before the legal question is considered, you have to admit, that if you craft a nice green and/or bunker complex, it is always prettier to the human eye if it can be seen by the human eye. And the eye provides us our biggest stimulus, at least today because of TV, but probably always.
However, I can understand the argument that ONCE IN A WHILE, can you break the rules? Of course. But that doesn't diminish the qualities of modern courses that the rules are broken less often, does it? There are good rules and bad rules. Most of the ones we adhere to in golf design are common sensical. I compare it to Andy Griffith versus Barney Fife. Old Barney followed the rules to a tee, with comical results. Andy was the common sense guy about rules and no good rules. Every architect probably looked and or looks for a chance to break out of his own mold, but has to pick the places carefully.
Enough for now. Cheers.
Jeff