Jeff goes to Dr. MacK and uses the quote and then talks about "features":
"piling up a huge score" with forced carries, penal bunkers, etc., when one well placed green side bunker could set up strategy for all players.
Doak's quote used by Mark speaks in terms of "bounce"
...and that bounce is something I put there deliberately to make it hard from that angle."
Then I consider Jeff's response about his particular disbelief of the extent that contours were considered by the ODGs on the brazenly provocative or amazingly uneducated thread.
I'm wondering if Jeff sees the course primarily more in terms of hazard creation, bunker and water placement features to force angles and strategy, and Doak and many of the ODGs see the ground, contours and greens surrounding contours primarily to achieve strategy. Does one first see the ground and the potential path of the ball along it or related to it, and one see the flight of the ball, over things and avoiding things?
Are weaknesses to be observed in order to create strategy, those of imagination and ability to make shots after determining to approach byeth ground or byeth air and adjust the stroke, VS deft touch and ability to hit a shot aerially to a spot and stop or spin for position on the hole?
Is this a valid distinction between evaluating weaknesses of different golfers? If so, does that define the range of architectural abilities?