In fact, pretty much every time I meet a fellow GCAer on the course, my game collapses at a course I thoroughly enjoy (aside from Bayonet).
I've also broken 80 on some very difficult, well-conditioned and highly touted courses that I found to be very bland and/or poorly designed.
Sometimes, spraying the ball allows one to experience interesting features that might otherwise go unnoticed (as Tim Bert's thread examines). Certainly, playing more shots will lead to broader experiences in GCA, even if those events can be filed under "misfortune" in competitive terms.
Kyle:
Please don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way. Or for that matter, any GCA member.
Regarding playing yourself:
--One typically plays to their TRUE ability in adverse or difficult conditions. This may be when you're nervous at a particularly good private club, when you're in a big tournament, or when you're playing in otherwise "unfamiliar" territory. Anyone who's caddied/been around golf for any length of time knows this to be the case. Ever heard someone say "I'm not really this bad!" Sometimes I just want to say, "yes, you are, but that's okay".
Regarding playing/appreciating courses:
--It's my firm belief that in order to understand CERTAIN architectural merits of a course, you have to be able to properly execute the shots required/dictated. I have seen very few people who are not a 10 or better be able to do this.
--Other course architecture can be gauged by the Chop--how easy the course is to get around, how "fun" it is for the high handicap, number of forced carries, balls lost, playability, run ups, etc.
Of course, different "strokes" for different folks. I know many who would consider some of the great courses (who are fine golfers, I might add) piles of contrived crap.
Sure, playing well on a course may mean some people like the course more because they like courses that are easy to score on, but that, in my estimation, that is a myopic way of looking at stuff.