It seems to me that this question comes back to our numerous discussions over the years related to the "wow" factor in architecture. Clearly, memorability is enhanced by dramatic features, whether they are natural, e.g the mountains at Banff or manufactured such as the numerous artificial waterfalls we discuss ad nauseum. I suggest that memorability, whether it comes from physical beauty or novel strategies is always a plus. The problems occur when it becomes more important than the underlying golfing values of the course. Thus a course like Hidden Creek gets underrated by many because it lacks overt drama notwithstanding the fact that it is a collection of well conceived, interesting and challenging holes. Meanwhile, courses long on beauty like Arcadia Bluffs which, in my view, have less interesting golf, are pushed too high. So my conclusion is that good golf trumps memorability and, with respect to Pinehurst, I believe there is some very good golf. The ideal is good golf with memorability. Examples abound. The most difficult task is to create a great course where there is nothing memorable in the natural setting. The most disappointing course are those built on sites where it was possible to build the ideal combination but the architect failed to realize the site's potential.