Have a look at this at this slide show of Dormie Club with some elevated and aerial shots:
http://dormieclub.net/the-course/course-gallery/ - when looking at this the other day, I was reminded of the following quote which appeared on my desk calendar at about the same time...
"Few golf course critics are able to separate the art from the canvas",
Tom Doak, golf architect and writeAre you able to do this?
Can you easily decipher the design work from the original ground contours and recognise existing features compared to man-made features?
Do you actually think it is important or even reasoable to expect to be able to do this? Does it even matter?
Why is it so important to criticise a hole's design or an entire course's design/layout becuase some of the ground movement may or may not be as the GCA first encourntered on his first inspection?
Did CB Macdonald (happy to be corrected on this?
) have the solution, somthing like "if a hole lacks character - beat the character into it until it satisfies" ?
If the quality of the "art" is of a premium nature, with oodles of character, then should I be able to separate the end result from the designer's original canvas?