No, I don't think we have been stifled. To demonstrate that fact, I will call BS on this thread.
There is nothing that is more stifling than automatically praising/denigrating a course just because who the architect is. A course should stand on its own. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut and "even" Fazio and Jones (II) can build fantastic courses (World Woods, Chambers Bay) can build fantastic modern courses. And Arthur Hills did a pretty fine job with renovating the University of Michigan course.
To advocate a view that we should automatically shout down any course not designed by Doak and C&C is the most ridiculous thing I have heard around here. It is pretty pathetic, frankly.
Is that none-stifling enough?
Richard, et al:
I think you can read any post I have written on this site, including my first post, and I think you will find that I NEVER, repeat NEVER, wrote that we should shout down any course not designed by Doak and C&C. In fact, I have only played one course by those two architects (they don't do a ton of work in the Northeastern US), so I would be in no position to make that call. I have seen several modern courses that I have like, including layouts by Mike Young, Robin Nelson, Pete Dye, and Craig Shreiner.
My main point is this: the work that the high-priced modern architects do is often garbage. I've played courses that are either original designs or re-designs by Fazio, Hills, Nicklaus, Rees, and RTJ II. These courses have involved heavy earthmoving, contain manufactured, un-natural, contrived features, often focus on artificial beauty rather than natural appearance and strategy, and cost a ton of money to play. I understand that these guys occasionally put a great course. However, for the most part, their negative contributions to golf course architecture outweigh the positives. Fazio and Rees have ruined several great classic courses with ham-handed, careless renovations. Their new courses destroy the pieces of land on which they are built.
My home course, the East Course at Oak Hill, contains a contrast between 14 Ross holes and 4 Fazio holes. The fourteen Ross holes, while re-done by RTJ and overgrown Fazio, still involve a graceful routing that highlights the best land features on the property. These holes culminate in beautiful, simple greensites that are very fun and require a great deal of thought. The four Fazio holes are the exact opposite. They are awkward, contrived, busy, at odds with the land, difficult for the average player and completely out of place with the rest of the course. The course demonstrates, in 18 holes, the greatness of Donald Ross and the absolute recklessness of Fazio.
As for why criticism has receded in the recent years, I think several of you have offered good explanations. In general, it has become worth increasingly less for people to see these modern courses. It is not worth the time or money when there are better courses for a much lower price. I have to agree. I rarely seek out modern courses, and I believe I will learn much more from an obscure Ross course than I will from an overpriced Fazio layout. Why would I play Atunyote at Turning Stone Casino when I can play Leatherstocking for one-third the price.