I am starting to realize that one of the reasons this idea is so popular is that it allows people to talk or write about the ideas behind the individual golf holes.
Think about how seldom that happens for most new courses. They're described in general terms; then someone picks a "signature hole" that's best to photograph so they can use the same hole for all the advertising and establish a brand identity. Tom Fazio never talks about the ideas behind any of his holes or why he is excited about them ... he just talks about "the owner's commitment to quality."
The writer of the piece above didn't actually meet with me or Jim, he must've been there when we weren't, and been given something I wrote a long time ago about where the holes came from. I deduce this from the fact that he cited the 4th hole at Scotscraig as the model for #7 ... that WAS going to be the model for that hole before we decided to move the green onto the dune. But, the fact that I could cite specific models for the holes (whether or not our versions are very similar to the originals, like the Eden hole, or very different, like the Biarritz) gives the writers a "way in" to discuss the individual holes on some level more than what they look like. And I just realized how rare that is.
It probably worked for C.B. Macdonald back in the day, too.