Don - I think an architect of modest talent, imagination, and aspiration will invariably fail to make the most out of a good site, and will usually manage to make very little that's good out of an average site. But I don't think you're asking about that kind of architect; you're asking about architects of talent and imagination and aspiration. And in that context, the question becomes harder to answer, for me at least i.e. I can't judge whether a site was good for golf independently of/separate from my judgment of the golf course itself. And if the routing of that golf course flows simply and well, if there is a sense of continuity and unity from hole to hole and throughout the round, and if the vistas sneak up on me and seem organic to/in keeping with the golf itself, then I would assume that maximizing the quality of golf itself came first, and was the architect's main priority. If on the other hand I'm constantly doubling back or re-tracing my steps, and if there is a jagged edge to a series of holes (seemingly jammed into their surroundings) immediately before or after an unusually striking vista, then I might start doubting the architect's intentions. But really good architects --the kind I assume we're talking about here -- don't tend to make such obvious mistakes, and so I think it would be nearly impossible (for me at least) to determine whether anything of golfing import had been sacrificed for the sake of a great site and/or majestic scenery.
Peter