Isn't the only thing that matters whether we build a golf course that's fun and interesting to play? And if we do, then why would you try to dismiss some versus others?
We surely wouldn't say an architect is great if they had a decent piece of property, and were familiar with all the great classic design hole styles and principles of their strategy, and then went out on that land and designed and oversaw a boggy incoherent mess; would we?
I find David Davis's comment very interesting about someday seeing a 'landcadd' program that analyses a detailed topographic map and has all the criteria loaded in, to factor ideal or template golf holes, and finds the best logical routing with least amount of cut and fill, etc. I think that may very well be possible.
The modern era, post economic crisis sparcity of golf projects, and the state of the regular customer golfer market being relatively stagnant, seems to weed out bad or incompetent architects. Any remodel or new project is going to pay special attention to architect and construction reputation and competence, by nature of heightened awareness of need for efficient competence, and track record of the architect/constructor reputation.
Fun and interesting to play are definitely important criteria, and we require that of a competent architect, of course. But, if it costs an impossible amount to maintain, and is only fun and interesting when conditions are perfect - and often is a sloggy mess, or is not targetted in the right market to the right demographic, then both developer and archie and the decision to pick one archie/constructor over the others, seems critical and matters, IMHO.