Cardyin,
Interesting that you find a change in their general philosophy. While I would agree that they no longer deface the landscape as badly as their work at Grand Cypress, their overall philosophy has not evolved as much as migrated towards watered down versions of the same tired ideas.
I am not willing to throw the Bear out with the bathwater primarily because his courses often seem to have at least 9 or 10 really well conceived golf holes. The problem is that the rest are either long, bland and demanding or completely over the top.
The reasons his courses are well received by the professionals is that the conditioning is nearly always excellent - although I cannot imagine how much unnecessary money has to be allocated every year to maintain the severe slopes. Superintendents must hate his designs.
Another reason the professionals generally like his work is that they have the high, soft iron shots down to a science. But if you do not have that in the bag - or the distance off the tee to leave a short to mid iron, it becomes a mind-numbing string of impossible shots.
I've said before that golf ought to be 18 different questions, not the same question 18 times in a row.
If there is one theme I see over and over it is that his courses lack degrees of trouble. First, you get presented with a 3-iron high cut, and if you cannot conjure up that ball flight, the ball is deposited in a deep bunker with little hope of recovery.
Either you are on the putting surface, or absolutely hosed. You are either on the fairway, or find your ball on a steep hanging lie with no hope of doing anything put chopping it back into play.
Wedge play was never his strong point, and his green complexes lack any creativity or suggestion of short game interest.
In short, Jack's architecture ultimately becomes I call "Or Else" courses.
Hit the shot, "or else."