JNC:
Here's what you originally posted --
You stated the names of some of the more preferred archies on this site at the end of your post.
You then made a generalized comment on the overall value of AH courses -- based on what sort of sample size ? Two courses ?
Which you later amended to three (3) played. How do you presume to throw a generalized tag around the neck of someone's work with such a tiny sample to base it upon.
JNC, you are an astute and often times laser-like analyzer of courses -- but in those cases you have demonstrated homework that is much more than a scratch the surface type. I have tried on this thread to point out that the AH firm (since some people take umbrage that he even does the heavy lifting anymore) has done some interesting designs that I have played which are scattered around the country. I have not said that these layouts are at the Balyneal, Clear Creek, levels. But there are a few worthy of someone's time and $$ to play. I think it's fair to say -- what Alex Miller said is true -- that often times when AH firm hashad superior sites they have failed to ge the most out of it (e.g Half Moon Bay, CrossCreek, Bay Harbor, etc, etc).
Variety is worth doing -- as you indicated in your post. I'll say this again - for what it's worth -- avoid the blanket tag-line approach to a designer -- especially when you extrapolate conclusions from a findings list that is so utterly small. AH is e-z to shoot at because his portfolio of courses doesn't have the one or two home run designs that make most top 100 lists. He does have a few layouts that I have played that are worth playing -- not as the prime attention spots but as secondary ones which are indeed better than his general norm.
*****
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.