Ronald Montesano's observation about Arnold Palmer as course designer raises an issue I've long thought about, without necessarily limiting it to any one player-designer:
How invested was Arnie in the design process? Did he ever get dirty in the field? Did he learn about irrigation, drainage and other elements of the biz as others must?
Golf course architects have long understood the value of having a successful playing pro on their team, but Montresano's questions imply that the pros might not be fully legitimate architects. My own thinking is that an architectural firm must have people capable of understanding construction and engineering and aesthetics, design. And selling! Achieving a successful golf course requires both formal and functional capacities of its designers. That the playing pro might not possess formal training in the design and building of a course might not disqualify him or her as an essential part of the team, nor diminish the importance of the roles they do play in producing a course. On-the-job training over years of involvement in a complex process can be very productive. Some might say equally productive to the attainment of a certificate or academic degree.
Still, it would be well to know which of the great players who've achieved successes as course architects or designers genuinely steeped themselves in construction and engineering issues, to the extent they were more that marketers, brand-builders, or deal-makers. To such people, I think, we owe more, rather than less admiration, while we still admire the work the rest of their teams perform.