Tom Doak,
Well, I wasn't thinking politics when I wrote that, but was thinking of other art forms. Just as someone wonders how we got from great to perfect (Guess I am to blame....) going from overly perfectionistic to not striving for excellence is also a bounce back too far from great to good.
In fact, looking back at my 20 year old designs, always seeing some changes I would make now, but many (mostly the munis) all tend, trend and blend towards the median, usually a result of market and maintenance forces.
I wonder if onlookers wonder just how much effort went into trying to make the course very good, if not great. And how much time, low maintenance budgets, minor design changes in the name of maintenance or satisfying a green chairman's ego, etc. take away from the greatness left opening day. Of course, in other ways, it should get better, with maturing trees, turf, etc.
But, there are a lot of ways to look at the basic assumption of the thread. The "pure" architecture questions might revolve around degrees of strategy and/or degrees of allowable mix. Does the golfer have to hit the far edge of a fairway to have an opening, or do you soften that to the correct side, third or even half the fairway in the name of accommodating everyone?
For that matter, say you design that fairway as you see fit (let's assume tee shot right to edge of fw) what percentage of golfers even notice? For many, presumably most mid handicappers, they miss the point of some additions we might all treasure here, but might appreciate the purty flowers, etc..