Patrick:
As always, these threads on the subject of routing and what I call the "desigining up" phase of course architecture (basic hole "concepts", balance and variety of types of holes (3s, 4s and 5s), bunker schemes and such, green types, contours etc--eg perhaps shaping) are always interesting and interesting to discuss.
But when one then throws another factor into that interesting discussion----eg amateurs vs professionals the subject gets a whole lot more complex, and yes, probably interesting too.
The fact is the perception has been promoted for many years that these kinds of things (routing and "designing up" a routing) are the purview ONLY of professional golf course architects! Is there any wonder really why this perception was generated and promoted, and yes, many years ago?
It gets silly, in my opinion, when the perception evolves to the point that only professionals can generate good routings and a good "designing up" phase and even sillier still when the perception is generated and promoted that no "amateur" could ever do such things!
The fact is, history very much denies this perception!
The final extent of the silliness is reached when one starts to consider that the only real difference between a professional architect and some who were considered to be "amateurs" was that the latter just never were paid or took pay for what they did.
But does that translate into the fact they did not know and understand what they were doing? Of course not. Does that translate into the fact that they had to basically have someone else (such as a professional) do most or even some of it for them? Of course not.
It's not as if some of the most famous of the so-called "amateur" architects (who produced some of the world's greatest courses and architecture) positively refused to take advice or help from others if they felt they needed it along the way but the point is they probably did as much or more than they have always been given credit for.
On the other hand, what was the real and truly identifiable difference between those really great and enduring courses and architecture off the palletes of the so-called "amateur" architects such as GCGC, Myopia, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley or even the likes of Riviera and most all the rest of the great courses done by professional architects?
I think we will all find if we really do the research and ARE THEN honest with what we find and our interpretation of it, that the the real difference is the so-called "amateurs" in all cases took more time, and in most all cases a whole lot more time with their famous projects than most any professional ever did with one of his (with the possible exception of Ross and Pinehurst #2).
Again, I think it would be pretty hard for anyone to legitimately claim that "amateur" architects are as accomplished in all the things that go into golf course architecture as most all professionals are. But this does not and should not ever mean that some amateur architects who for whatever the reasons really do and certainly did have talent can not do what professionals do. That fact has been very clearly proven in the history and evolution of golf course architecture and for anyone to even attempt to deny it is historic inaccuracy and historic revisionism of the worst and most lamentable kind, in my humble opinion!