Matt, Thanks for the suggestion to alter my view on what I think is quality.
You can rest assure that I have no bias to classic architecture. As a matter of fact, my resume on the classics is rather weak. I do however have a bias to golf architecture that attempts to fit naturally into it's surrounds, and, when those surrounds are comparatively benign or lacking oddles of character, to architecture that juxtaposes it's features to the natural. i.e. Lawsonia. Rather than do a half assed job (likely on a computer) where plans are handed to a third party construction crew. Either way, I'd like to think I appreciate thoughtful design, possibly in the dirt, and am learning how to have a more critical eye thanks to some contributors to this web site and some of the gracious hosts who have invited me to see their courses.
The majority of the work I've seen is modern. Odd that you jump to the conclusion you did about my bias. But if it stands the test of time, especially on principles, that is classic.
BTW, I've been to Arrow Creek a few times. I don't recall which course we played there. I remember the massive houses lining the hillside and a few holes that confused the golfer on the width available, but other than that, oh wait.. the course we played started with a ridiculous hole with a water feature guarding a narrow green set at an oblique angle, not much else. Wolf Run had many a memorable hole with greens of varying shape, size, and, orientation. Some even rolled front to back, oh my!