Daniel,
Thanks for responding. Regarding these golf designers you mention, Tom's original quote in his first post said,
"Nearly every month now I pick up some magazine or other and read an interview with a golf course architect I've never heard of, who may or may not have ever built a golf course."
Well, what can I say? If he's never heard of these people, how can he or you or anyone judge what they know, what they are intending in their work, how well they are pulling it off, etc., etc.? Maybe Tom is assuming the worst, maybe he misspoke and he does know who these people are. Either way, why do you take disparaging comments about these people at face value? And does it further this discussion or is it a bit quick to cast aside people copying golf holes/features who may be trying to further the game, at least as they see it? That's just a question. I would hate to see two standards for what is acceptable in golf design. One standard for the named designers, and one standard for those just starting out. It is a complicated issue, so rounding it out might be worth some time.
And the reason I ask about NGLA is that it would have been a shame if MacDonald had been discouraged from building holes that were meant to be copies (maybe not exact copies, but copies nonetheless) because someone told him at the time that it was in some way a "cop-out". I know that is a little different than exact replicas, but it is on the continuum.