Huckster,
So true, and that thought can be applied equally to nearly every art form. . . . movies, dance, theatre, painting. Obviously, you need to closely study the acknowledged masterpieces. They are the cornerstones of golf architecture and an example of design in its most idyllic form.
However, now that I'm actually helping design golf holes, I find that there is nearly as much to be learned from examining the mistakes of others.
There is a tendency to really push the envelope when you first start conceptualizing what to do about a certain hole or individual feature, but I am becoming a great believer that the dividing point between good and great usually lies in the subtle details. . . . . the little swale here, a fall-off there . . . . the precise orientation of a bunker to the line of play.
Anybody can conjure up land forms that scream "LOOK AT ME!!!!!," but its the little humps and bumps - or lack thereof - that make the difference. Those are the things that stick out to me when I'm examining a golf hole.
And you can find something useful to absorb on every single golf course, from NGLA to the par-3 course inside the local horse racing track.
I'll tell you where I learn the most: comparing what makes say, this Cape Hole work better than that one . . . or how different putting surface contours and green complex orientations blend together on different Redan versions . . . . and equally importantly, which ones had seemingly great ideas that did not translate into the real world.