"Is this another example of the romanticization of the amateur one hit wonder golf architect?"
The romanticization of the amateur one hit wonder golf architect??
No, of course it isn't. The reality of that early time when those significant amateur architects who produced the likes of Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley et al is that they were just about all very good golfers, consequently they were either asked by their clubs or they took it upon themselves to design and create those courses that are attributed to them that have remained so famous and well respected architecturally and otherwise.
That thread is simply an acknowledgement of that reality which is the way they were looked at and referred to back then in print and otherwise-----eg "experts."
For people on here to try to deny that or rationalize that fact and reality away somehow is ridiculous and a misreading and misunderstanding of the actual and factual history of that time. This is what particularly the likes of you and David Moriarty have tried to do on here with certain of them; it's interesting to me that you both seem to make an exception of Macdonald (just one of a number of very good "amateur/sportsmen" architects from that early era) this way.
The proof in the pudding of your misunderstanding and rationalization is that the written records from that time is absolutely rife with them being referred to that way. To rationalize away that fact or to deny it the two of you have to constantly claim that everything that was said by anyone and everyone back then is either a lie, some example of hyperbole or some concerted attempt on the part of numerous people to construct some factually inaccurate "legend" or whatever. At this point it seems pretty obvious that virtually no one believes either of you or your distorted logic. That's basically what ultimately happens when bad analysis is submitted to comprehensive peer review----eg those who keep trying to foist it on us lose their credibilty.
"In most of these cases you'll find an experience man lurking in the shadows."
I think your confusion on that point is your misunderstanding of perhaps who some of those people were you refer to as 'an experience man' and exactly what they did and probably didn't do. In many cases they were the contractors or construction foremen, greenkeepers, club professionals et al. It was a pretty stratified world back then that way (socially and culturally) compared to our world today but you probably don't realize that or are unwilling to admit it for some reason. Was it politically correct that way back then the way we think of it today? Of course not; nevertheless that was the reality whether we like it or not.
Those ones I've singled out and referred to as the "amateur/sportsmen" architects were not the types to go out there and take off their suits and get their hands dirty----eg they hired people to do that. But they were the idea men and conceptualizers largely responsible for the designs and if you don't understand that or fail to acknowledge the reality of it back in that early era, then you don't know much about the history of that time and you're a pretty poor historical analyst with golf course architecture of that time, in my opinion. But I think you already knew that.