Adam - I too would like to hear the et al (Ian, Rob and Jeff) give their views, as they will be informed and expert in a way mine can't be.
I can only give you a layman's perspective, and a simple one at that. To me, it wasn't surprising to learn that Dick has been in the business, literally from the ground up, for so many years, and that he has worked with and for and on so many golf architects and courses. Because simply put, Copetown Woods WORKS -- and it works in an understated but very satisfying way: It doesn't try too hard to mask its roots as a former farm - the earth movement is gentle and minimal, and the imported wild grasses/fescue that define the holes looks natural and not overused. It has a wide, wide variety of hole lengths and shapes (for all the pars, 3s, 4s, and 5s) and the holes change direction and play with or against or angled into the wind in a very pleasant way. The tees are at, I think, about 6800-6900, 6400+, and 6100; the greens (including the double green at Nos 1 and 18) have movement/tilts and some undulations and hints of plateaus, and are angled to the line of play in interesting (but unforced) ways. It is an easy and pleasant walk and the routing is good, but the course/club also welcomes riders and their carts. It welcomes everyone, really (especially since the $45 or so it costs to play is a wonderful bargain anywhere in the Greater Toronto Area.) I think the slope rating from the back is around 128 or 130 (I don't remember); I know that we used to drive out the hour or so from downtown Toronto with a group that had high and mid and even once or twice quite a low handicap player -- and we ALL enjoyed it and could compete on it and never lost a ball. (By the way, despite its popularity and the full tee sheets, I don''t ever remember any of those marathon 6 hour rounds or long waits happening there; the pace of play was alway decent.) The course makes sense, and has a wonderful feel about it. I think what it feels is "unforced" - that's what I'd say about it, Adam -- like it is the work of an experienced and confident craftsman who wasn't trying to impress.
Apologies: I know you could have used many more details, but my 'on course' memory -- whether I'm describing Copetown or Crystal Downs -- remains not very good, especially if I don't have a scorecard handy to remind me. Like Rob said, it succeeded, and succeeded right away. It works; it serves the golfer. You know, Dr. MacKenzie could write about a great course giving the greatest pleasure to the greatest number, and people have been quoting it ever since. I have never met Mr. Kirkpatrick, but judging by how little he posts here (I didn't realize he was a member of the board until a few moments before I made my first post), I don't think he is a quote-meister or a man who engages in much self promotion. But he has captured and honoured the essence and value of Mackenzie's statement very well, in the most unlikely of places and in a quiet way. I admire very very much the outstanding and famous work that we read about on these pages day after day and year after year (and often by architects who participate on gca.com) -- those courses are well deserving of the praise they get. But as the years go by, I am growing ever more fond and respectful of the good work done (often on plain/uninspiring sites) by unsung heros like Mr. Kirkpatrick. I think it is that kind of work and those kind of heros who keep the game (and the profession) alive and well.
Peter