I've mostly sat back and avoided the contretemps, but I'll chime in now and say that I have played a lot of golf courses in Chicago and I honestly can't say that I'd use the word "stunning" to apply to any finisher. I've played Exmoor. I really like it. I like the 18th and its gentle rise to the West Wing look of the clubhouse. But "stunned", I was not. Pleased, yes. Do I like it, respect it, want to play it again, yes sir, Senator, but it is far from stunning. I was a member at Olympia Fields for many years. I really like the South course, but the only stunning hole on it is the sixth hole. Even the ninth hole (originally the finisher for the now-gone #3 course) is more impressive and visually arresting, in my opinion. I don't necessarily think that the presence of an impressive edifice behind a finishing green makes the hole itself stunning.
Some mentioned Skokie. Skokie is a great course, but the 18th is a ridiculous par-4 and a cheesy par-5. Does it have a great green site? Sure. Is it fun to play? Sure. But stunning it ain't. Going mentally through my top 10 in town, I don't count a stunning 18th on any of them. Not one. But each course has at least one hole that is stunning. #12 at Chicago Golf Club, #11 at Shoreacres, #3 and #14 at Olympia Fields North, #8 at Skokie, #12 at Medinah #3, etcetera.
So you can put me down in the no stunners crowd when talking about this limited field of finishing holes. But if they had flipped the nines at Medinah #1, the finisher would surely qualify as a stunner. A phenomenal par-5 with a tough up hill third shot to a great plateau green. And it even has an unbelievable clubhouse as backdrop for the building architecture crowd!