Adam - thanks. That's very clear, and more understandable to me than the Thomas line as it stands in that quote -- especially your last line.
SL - thanks. That is reading that I want and need to do. Still, that quote, all on its own, struck me as a little strange. Even Tom D's refinement/explanation of it didn't really clear it up for:
that "if a tree spoils the intent of a hole" it should be removed is a clear enough sentiment, but it presupposes that the hole's intent exists as some ideal out there independent of any feature (a tree) that actually exists on the land.
Now, that ideal/intent is in fact probably out there, in the architecht's mind, and if a single tree spoils that intent I can see removing it; but that quote seems to allow for absolutely no wiggle room, as if the intent of a hole -- prior to the hole's construction -- is so fixed and immutable a thing that we shouldn't even consider subtly on interestingly 'shifting' it a little, or complicating it a little, for the sake of a tree (or any other feature?).
As I say, I can't comment on Thomas's design philosophy, but just wanted to suggest that the quote, taking independently of any other knowledge about Thomas' ideas, seemed too restrictive.
(By the way, if the quote means just and simply that one should be prepared to sacrifice a tree for the sake of a good golf hole, who would argue against THAT? But I assumed it couldn't be that simple.)
Peter