Mike; I am prepared to concede that some of the features and strategies that work came about by accident. Much of the architecture we love at the Old Course was not the work of a plan but merely evolved. Similarly, planned courses often turn out poorly. But it does not follow that because unplanned courses can produce interesting strategy, or even that there can be unintended consequences from planned courses, both good and bad, that we should refrain from analyzing them. Understanding what makes for a good golf hole/course gives one a better chance to improve existing courses and build good ones. At the end, producing a good product requires a confluence of factors. Among them are good ideas, a budget sufficient to carry out those ideas, a site that permits those ideas to be implemented, and artful execution of the plan. If any of these, and I suspect, other factors are lacking or are inconsistent with the others, the product will suffer. But surely the sustained excellence of certain architects when contrasted with others is more than mere serendipity, luck, or the ability to obtain good sites. They possess a talent which consists of the ability to create superior playing fields by understanding the possibilities inherent in a site and creating a series of interesting golf holes. The study of architecture, beyond the technical aspects, involves an attempt to understand the principles that make for interesting challenges and how to place them in appropriate places on a site. While this pursuit can be over- intellectualized (if that is a term) I suggest that we are not in any great danger of that happening here. What we are dealing with is an exercise that is a complex combination of art and science where there are rarely any right answers or perfect solutions. It is why we struggle to agree on general principles and why even when we agree on the principles, we often disagree on whether a particular course embodies same. I appreciate your point; we can't take ourselves too seriously and paralysis by analysis is always lurking. But it is somewhat disingenuous to come on to a board created to discuss and analyze golf course architecture and then suggest that such analysis should not be undertaken.
For those who suggest that engaging in these discussions is an excuse for not trying to improve one's game, I suggest the two are not mutually exclusive. Similarly, if applied properly, an understanding of architecture can increase one's enjoyment of the game and can even improve one's scoring. If you can figure out what the architect is trying to do, or to Mike's point, the accidental strategy, you can plot your way around the course. Of course you still have to hit the shots. Hopefully, that will never change.