Gentlemen:
Compared to most who post on this board, I've yet to even make neophyte status in terms of the study of golf course architecture.
That said, this year, I paid more attention to the courses than the players when I watched "the opens" played on the courses on British Isles over the last three weeks.
The enormous difference in course design hit me like a load of bricks (okay, remember I said
almost a neophyte).
I realize that, in the US, there are vast differences in terrain and weather coast to coast and north to south. Even though I can't prove it, because I haven't done the research, I'm inclined to think that in the early days of golf course architecture here in the US, assumptions were made regarding "US tastes" such that golf course architecture was skewed more toward landscape architecture -- emphasizing the "visual" and "lush" follage. Also, from a historical reference, the citizens of this "New World" had no interest in replicating the look and feel of the "Old World."
IMHO, the superficial focus of eye candy has diluted the use of terrain (meaning just the soil) and topography to create strategic golf.
Most of the inland areas of the US have forests that don't exist on many of the links courses of the British Isles, but even with that difference, most US golf courses have way too many trees.
My $0.02 for what its worth.
