Here's a question (all right, four) for Carl, et al...why must prior hole be connected to subsequent hole? What is wrong with separation? Can a course be united when holes do not necessarily flow into each other? Must a course be united?
First, notice that I cheated. The original question was, "What Makes a Great Tee Box?" My answer was personal -- that is, what makes for me, personally, a great tee box.
My game, such as it is, is about feel and flow. I play better when I get going and get in a rythmn, and don't have interruptions. So, I think I play better, and am happier, when I am on an uninterupted journery. (Notice another, related, point I made was that I liked tee boxes that made me feel comfortable.) One could argue that, in fact, a "great" tee box is one that is disruptive, in the sense that the journey is disrupted, and makes one feel uncomfortable. That's a reasonable perspective. I'd say that could be "great" to challenge the best players in the world, but not so great for the day-to-day enjoyment of the game for the average recreational golfer. Notice "journey." That's how I look at a round of golf -- others may prefer 18 different, individual experiences.
Second, from what I would say is a more objective standpoint, the connectedness is as much a physical -- lay of the land -- experience as a subjective, emotional experience.
Usually, the lay of the land does not vary much in short distances. (Obvious . . . you come to the edge of a cliff and there is a dramatic change.) If you look at the total journey, I enjoy the experience of the physical transitions -- natural -- from hole to hole. As I finish a hole, I like to see immediately what comes ahead, and relate it to what I've just finished. Again, this might not be a "great" feature. Maybe "great" is to present completely unexpected land changes from hole to hole.
Third, I'm definitely influenced by experience -- it is tough to get away from that. My home course, which I've played many, many, many more times than any other, fits the pattern that I've said I think is "great." With two exceptions, one being from 9 to 10 ("the turn"), we have very natural connections from green to tee. The course is unified. So, maybe "great" is just what we are used to.
If none of this makes any sense, then I will analogize to Justice Potter Stewart's infamous defintion of "obscenity." I'll paraphrase. "I cannot define it [the great tee box], but I know it [the great tee box] when I see it."
Now, to translate this general rambling response to your specific questions:
(1)
Why must prior hole be connected to subsequent hole? Answer: It does not have to be -- I just like it that way. (2)
What is wrong with separation? Answer: Nothing, in the abstract. It might even be better from a challenge = greatness standpoint. (3)
Can a course be united when holes do not necessarily flow into each other? Answer: depends on how you want to define "united." [As you are the language expert, I don't want to take on discussion, in which I would not be able to compete, at the definitiional level.] (4)
Must a course be united? Answer: No, it (a
golf course) most certainly does not have to be united. But for me, personally, I prefer a "united" course (by my definition of "united," which has to do with a physical, spacial unity as contrasted with a conceptual unity). I think of the word "course" as in the course of a river or stream -- which is all connected. Relate this analogy back to your question (3) and the word "flow," that you use. So, I relate the "course" in "golf course" to a course like the course of a flowing steam or river. Is that fair? Is that relevant?