David,
Thank you for that thoughtful answer.
I understand the distinctions you are drawing, but would add something to that.
From my perspective, the person who does the "planning" is the architect, whether in your example that person is the original primitive linksman who walked around the dunes without any plan and just "laid out" holes, or someone sitting at a drafting board or CAD program with a topographical map or whatever, even if like Donald Ross at times they are simply mailing it in remotely.
Yet, as you alluded, there are really two parts to the architectural process, aren't there? There is the routing of the holes along the land and then there is the planning and creation of any man-made features, whether they be bunkers, mounds, ponds, or other earth-moving tasks that are intended to make the routed holes more interesting and/or challenging.
Technically, as in the examples like Stonewall I provided the other day, I believe that it's possible for one person to plan the routing and one person to plan the interior hole features; in fact, I'm betting it happens a lot more than we realize.
In that example, I'd provide co-credit to both, although again using Stonewall as an example, I'd claim it's a Tom Doak course primarily because he created the features, the green designs, the strategies, and altered the routing where feasible and desirable to achieve a better course. I think he'd agree and I also think he'd be honest enough to say that Fazio deserved more credit for creating the initial routing if he really believed that.
The lines get blurrier beyond that, especially with the example of a team like Doaks where guys like Jim Urbina and others have latitude in the field to try different things. Yet, even in that example, I'd still credit the principal architect, because ultimately they are the ones signing off on the design and on the construction. Thus, even though I'd bet that Fred Pickering added some touches and creative flourishes based in his years in construction, I still wouldn't credit him as some type of co-architect of Merion.
Instead, I think due credit there should be given to 1) whoever created the routing, and 2) whoever was responsible for designing the internal hole features.
I know we strongly disagree on who that first person(s) was in the case of Merion, and we also probably disagree on the second.
In either case, just so we can get on the same page and possibly a better understanding, I wanted to make sure that your thoughtful answer received one in kind.
I guess to summarize, I would still break it out simply between design and construction, even recognizing the various permutations and venues I've just outlined.
To