Courage,
For me this is measured along a line of 'potential to fail'.
And then, what does that failure mean to the person who is being courageous?
Take the architect/designer/artist - all should be taking risks, being courageous in their work, to challenge their creativity, and build/design/create something new that will provide enjoyment in one form or another for many years to come. If they are not taking risks, then their work is 'pedestrian'.
Now add commercial reality, what is the brief, financial constraints, and land or materials available to work with, to build or create with. Then for the golf course architect, add environmental constraints, government guidelines, etc.
Finally, the course founder, owner or developer, where I think lies real risk, for this person or group, failure would usually mean financial ruin, loss greater than just reputation alone, loss of associates, friends, peer's & shareholder's investments.
Take Michael's example of Bill Coore in China, his reputation would tell us that he is at the top of his field, takes his role extremely seriously, and will give his utmost to produce the very best he possibly can for his client and his clients guests and golfers. But, if this course is a failure, the risks Mr. Coore engaged, are they really courageous? As the price of failure is not life changing, but it may well be for the developer of the the course on Shanqin island.
So for me, the risks the current days GCA's are taking are those in their earliest projects, where if they do not/did not succeed, they may not have found a career afterward, so for those that did not play it too safe, that took some risks and they paid off in delivering an interesting and perhaps new golf experience, that was courage and victory. I believe that some early projects did not want to "risk" their project on the "rebel" young Tom Doak, the perception that he was too controversial.
- if a developer is only exposing himself to a portion of his wealth or investment pool in building a new course on some far away place, then where is the risk? This does not appear especially courageous.
Wouldn't it be great if those charged with delivering a new course for the Olympics, we're courageous in their choice of designer, and then courageous in their brief to the choice?