Adam: I would suggest that there is no such thing as the perfect golf course and there are some changes which an architect would make after a few years of play to any design - I'm not saying anything major but just a tweak - like softening a green, moving a bunker, adding a tee box, etc.
I think the comparison with JN has been done already and is not nearly as subtle or interesting as C & C versus Doak. I have no idea how Ballyneal would be different if Jim Urbina had worked on it - do you?
As Tom Paul says, it is very hard to answer questions like this, because in the end, I don't think any of you really understand how
fleeting design can be. It's made out to be a complicated process, but part of that process is inspiration, and inspiration is a moment. I change my mind all the time when I'm out on site, based on what my associates have been working on and looking at, reacting to what we have built already, and what the client has said, and perhaps even my own mood.
People ask whether with the benefit of hindsight, I might build a different hole now than I did ten or twenty years ago. Heck, I might build a completely different hole in Florida next week than I did last week. But, that is also why I am less likely than most people to second-guess my own designs ... because I know that any new idea is just as fleeting as the old one. So as long as the original design is working, there is nothing to fix.
As to our work changing generally over time, I think it's almost inevitable that most architects' work gets a bit more conservative over time, as more attention is paid and more money is at stake and as clients think they know what we will do. I've tried to fight that tendency inside myself, as much as anyone can.