There's really no sign of argument in the interview. I suppose that's in keeping with this site and the nature of the piece, which is not meant to be investigative and salacious. I've discussed interviews with the folks who write the questions and they state to their subject, plainly, that they want to ask a few bodacious questions on controversial yet connected topics, to elicit strong opinion. If the subject agrees, the more powerful interview results. I suspect that Amy Alcott would have wanted no part of such a proposal.
Moving on, it doesn't surprise me that Alcott would have been a fan of graduated rough. She was not a long basher in her day and admitted to relying on accuracy and shot shaping/placement for success. I remember as a kid just loving the exotic name "australian blades" that Dunlop was selling. Had no idea how they differed from regular blades, but knew there had to be something other-worldly about them. Nice of her to rekindle my interest. If they have no grooves left, I wonder how that 1964 wedge might, unless she has a supply of them.
It's a shame that she pays little more than lip service to Maples, Clark and Hanse. There's little to go on and I wish that she would have been comfortable enough to open up more on that question. I really enjoyed all of Dan Maples' The Pit (soon to be Pinehurst #9) and enjoyed parts of his Little River Farm golf course just up the road from the Pinehurst town center. They are very different pieces of land and the courses that resulted are different for that reason. I would not say that "elements of traditional design" as Amy Alcott worded it, leaped at me on either course, so that quote confused me.
In conclusion, whether I agree or disagree with the wording or the opinion of the subject, I am better for the bit of access provided. Thanks, Joel.