George,
I'll work from Tim's post ... this wasn't my response, but it was what I was getting at.
1. Hitting shots and understanding architecture have nothing to do with each other. If you can see the alternatives and understand how they work, it doesn't matter whether you can execute them.
2. You see more by walking and watching others play, than you do playing yourself. You get a limited window into the architecture of the course based upon where you go. Being off line is often revealing.
I watched Dunhill Cup players come through and try solve a front pin on the 14th at the Old Course. The one that finally did played to place I didn't expect them too on the second shot. Then used a clever running approach that involved the mound and the angle he had set up. I would not have figured that out in one, two or even five plays. I walked in with that group to watch more of his play. That day I spent eight hours watching shots, I learnt more from that day than I did playing it a few times after.
3. The better you play, the less you observe, because the more score begins to matter to you. If it matters, you focus harder on your own game and the result. But, if you don't worry about score, you will learn more, because your more likely to try something to learn about the course.
For example, I hit every ball in my bag into the 13th at Fraserburg to try out all the ground alternatives from 150 yards. It was a 40 mph wind day, so the course was empty and I was curious on how all the slopes around and on the green worked. I collected them twice and went back to do it again. That's how you learn to make things work the way you want. You have to see them work and figure out what slopes you need to build to do that. I actually walked through on four holes that day and hit multiple shots on others to learn about slopes.
I guess my original point is I don't like the generalizations that this thread was based upon. Colt was an outstanding player, MacKenzie was not, Raynor never played ... three of the very best ...