I'm thinking Mike is on to something here.
I've never played Friar's Head and I've only played 4 Top 100 courses, so bear this in mind as I comment but...
Wasn't Yale absolutely ground-breaking at the time? Perhaps because of the land it was on, perhaps because of all the $$$ pumped into it, but wasn't it truly groundbreaking?
As were many of these courses that he's been talking about and as are many of the courses on these Top 100 lists.
I've read these posts over and over and I conclude that Friar's Head is a very good course. But no one seems to have clearly stated a response to his initial question, which was essentially what architectural significance does Friar's Head bring forth in its design? It sounds like nothing that other C&C courses haven't already brought forth.
Some, including, Tom Doak say that architects shouldn't be judged solely by how many revolutionary breakthroughs each and every course they design has. Fair enough, but I think that is what Mike is asking relative to Friar's Head.
Is it a Top 100 course, most likely. Is it a top 50 course, maybe. But is it a revolutionary breakthrough...it sounds like no. And if Mike plays NGLA, TOC, Ballybunion, etc regularly, then why should he go back to Friar's Head?