I wonder how much Dan imitated his dad in his architecture, and how much he went off on his own. I know that Ellis worked form DJRjr., but he didn't seem to take much away.
Ronald,This is a good question, and one about which I have thought quite a bit as I've played their courses in the Carolinas over the years.
As a very general answer, I'll say this: I've enjoyed every Ellis Maples course I've played, and I consider him to be similar to George Cobb and Joe Lee in that regard. Perhaps not the top shelf or on Top Ten or Hundred lists, but solid and fun and good for all levels of golfers. Looking at his list of courses, I suspect that he took almost any job offered, and built to almost any budget as well. And some of his courses are showing their age and are probably not in a budgetary position to do much about it, whether because the membership has aged too much, or because they never were in a position to do more.
Dan's courses give the impression of perhaps having been higher budget developments to begin with, and I've liked most of them fine, and some quite a lot. In fairness to his father, I'd say that Dan's work AT TIMES is a little bit less "user friendly" than his father's; The Pit was a notable example, even on that piece of real estate, I don't think that is the course that Ellis Maples would have built.
One interesting comparison of the two is at Bermuda Run, where Ellis did the original course, now the East Course, and Dan added the West Course later. I've played both a couple of times, and I like the East a little bit better, BUT I'm open to the possibility that over time I might come to feel the other way around.
In regard to this thread, I have a hard time imagining that the problem with LR was about the Maples name. Far more likely is that LR got pushed out of one of the most difficult public golf markets in the country because it was an undercapitalized standalone.