Ben, to sum up what I think Tom is trying to say is A) don't go in with preconceived ideas, B) be flexible, and C) don't fight get or not get something that naturally fits. There are times when you build a hole, thinking it's original, and it was what fit, only to see it on another course. Would I not have built it "if I knew then, what I know know"? Hell ya. There is nothing wron with holes that have the characteristics of other holes and a main reason why you see so many that have the characterisitics of "Template" holes is because there is something inherant to them that just plain works. While I wouldn't shy away from these, I think most architects will try to come up with something "a little bit different" that gives it it's own identity.
We once built the essentialy the same par 3 on 3 courses built by the same shaper, but each had variations in it. When building the 3rd one, he asked me some field questions and I responded, "hell, what don't you get? You've already built it twice before". See, even a professional 20 yr shaper didn't see it.
Another example: just did a short par 5, dogleg left with a hard left sloping fairway around a lake that narrowed at the greensite into a creek that was on the left side of the water, built into a wooded hillside. Sound like a famous par 5 we all know and revere? Only this one needed a stone wall to resist erosion and a break in the hillside allowed drainage to flow behind the green. Those 2 elements made the design of the greensite totally different than ANGC#13 but, on paper, it looks rather similar.