Thanks, Tom - that's kind of you to say. Yes, I do believe something fundamental can be discussed here. And the fact that so few have responded so far proves it to me.
I think that the challenge in answering your question lies in the fact that the very parameters have changed, i.e. that 30 modern experts – whom I think would form a more experienced, wide-ranging, knowledgeable and committed group than could even have been imagined back then – would refuse to be constrained by the artificial constructs and frameworks of the past.
I think there are a few architects working today who have "in their bones" an understanding of and appreciation for the fundamental principles of golf course architecture that has never been matched, either in breadth or depth. They see for what they really are the conventions about how shot-testing principles must manifest themselves on a golf course and through golf course architecture, i.e. they see them as just that, conventions, not the principles themselves.
I think there would be no consensus about what was ideal in any regard, either in practical terms (construction techniques, irrigation) or in theoretical ones (design and business philosophies); and that the 18 holes that might eventually be selected would have only one thing in common, i.e. they'd each be sui generis, one of a kind – and one of a kind because each would manifest fundamental principles that were inextricably tied to and realized through a unique site/topography/landform that could not be copied.
In other words, the 18 great modern holes would be great not in spite of the fact that they couldn't be replicated but because of that.
All of which suggests to me that this thread might develop the theory that we are living, right now as we speak, in the true golden age of golf course architecture in America. I'm not saying a "renaissance" of American golf course architecture, which is a word I know you’ve used in the past. That word refers to the re-birth of the greatness of 1920s architecture, while I'm thinking that the golden age was actually born here about 20 years ago or so, after a 60 year gestation period.
And I think that characterizing our era as one of birth instead of one of re-birth opens up the door to a very fundamental (and maybe very fruitful) re-thinking our what we're doing and striving for today and what those in the 20s were thinking and striving for.
Anyway, that’s what occurred to me after I’d thought about your question/thread for a while, and why I thought it was an important one. There are no “facts” here, Tom -- as you may have noticed in the last year, for better or worse I'm not all that interested in "facts", which I think are a dime a dozen and easily memorize. But still, that's the reason I didn't want to comment originally. And so if this post seems all a bunch of nonsense, please feel free to completely ignore it....even if you're the one who encouraged it
Peter