JK's question above brought this to mind:
That, while I suppose I like the ocean and sand and tumbling topography as much as the next fellow, it's remarkable how fixed and nearly unanimous the definition of a great site has become for us.
Joel just has to ask the question in its simplest form - has Gil had a great site - and 90% of us know, or think we know, exactly what he means. It's as if the underlying and unquestioned belief is that only a Bandon or a Cabot or a Sand Hills could reasonably called a great site (and, by implication, could possibly serve as the basis for a great course).
I know I've brought this up again and again, but it really does strike me as noteworthy, i.e. how powerful and all pervasive is the current consensus opinion about what makes for great golf.
The narrowness of this view (and its implications) pops up everywhere, e.g. several threads and hundreds of posts about a Sand Valley course that's yet to open (lots of sand there, I hear, and tumbling topography) but only one or two, with a few dozen posts, about the Loop - which has opened, but which is not dominated by sand or tumbles or water.
Was it a great site for Merion? For Shinnecock? Pinehurst No 2? Oakmont? Chicago? The Country Club? Seminole? Winged Foot?