Scott,
I mused as to whether real talent passes to a generation to answer your real typed question of whether the second generation Dyes and Jones should be golf course architects. Tommy sort of addressed the talent part for the older generations - Bell and Maxwell were two who not as talented as their fathers, by general acclamation. And, to continue my other businesses line of thought, the stereotype of the kids who take over sucsessful businesses of any kind is that they run it into the ground, probably because they never had to struggle through the tough times to form the business like their fathers did.
Is the fact that the Jones and Dyes are in business for themselves 20-30 odd years (and maybe even a few years that weren't so odd.......
) testament to the fact that they aren't part of that stereotype, or is there something about the gca biz that is generally different than others?
My sympathies would naturally lie with those of us who got in the field the hard way, and with passion. However, when you talk to Rees or Perry Dye, they have fond remembrances of going to job sites with their famous fathers, much as we might have gotten our passion for golf itself by playing with our fathers. So, I can't discount the fact that they may have the passion, and are not mailing it in as part of their "birthright" as members of the Lucky Sperm Club.
I guess the answer in the question is how are their courses ranked? Certainly, Rees is coming close to his famous father in well recieved (if not here, then elsewhere) courses and redos. Its a complicated question, because starting out as a famous gca like Rees did probably nets you better sites, clients, budgets and even magazine rankings, especially when they started, and there were fewer journalists going to really see what is out there.
All I know for sure out of all of this is that it is sure tough to get anywhere in the biz w/o those connections........which limits reasonably talented gca's from getting the shots at the best jobs and even further demonstrating their talents. So, it seems sort of self reinforcing, and thus even more refreshing when one of the unknowns or out of the loopers does break through to the general consciousness of the public or even golfers.
Sorry for the topic drift, but one reason I like the GD and GW rankings that specifically break out areas for golfers to evaluate is that I think I fare better than in general magazine rankings, like Golf where a few "experts" generally rank courses. If you are trynig to build your rep on good work (which Art Hills always said was his only formula) then having someone try to break down a course that way is, IMHO, more condusive to a course being ranked fairly than a general ranking. I hope that some rater looks at the various features at, say, the Quarry and says to himself, "Wait a second, that really is as good or better than the last famous guys course I rated."