Bob
Of course you are right. Shinnecock is a superior golf course to NGLA--only the most obsessed CB-heads or the most sentimental golf historians would say otherwise.
Golf--whilst many other things, to many other people--is above all a sport and a game. It is a test of skill--physical, mental, psychological, situational, etc. Shinnecock excels in presenting all of these tests to all players. Its tests are demanding. Even the slightest error leads to an exponentially difficult next shot. It is "penality" of the Chinese water torture ilk--more like the grinding down of poker than the win/lose concept of roulette. The better player will almost always win at Shinnecock.
NGLA, on the other hand, is fun! Anybody can shoot a good round there--even me! It is like the Boston Museum of Science, with all sorts of historical and tactile and engaging displays. Even the chronologically challenged of us can enjoy its charms. And yet, there is some point in our lives where we make the decision about golf as to whether it is a game of charm or a game of more significance. When in Boston, do we go to the MOS and play with the van de Graff generators, or do we go to the Gardner Museum and contemplate how the masters of art chose to look at and express life and relate that to our own experieces and knowledge and capabilities?
NGLA is huge fun, but it can be had. I'm sure it can be "tuned up" to challenge reasonably top amateurs (e.g. at the Singles), but elite players will eat it up, and clinically so, regardless of its "maintenance meld." Not so with Shinnecock.
My personal favorites are courses that combine the fun of NGLA with the challenge of Shinnecock. There are a few of them out there, but they are getting fewer and fewer as technology exposes the "weaknesses" of many of our most revered venues.
C'est dommage, mais c'est la vie!