I don't know that I'll ever buy into the notion that, for non-architect golfers, not-playing a golf course is somehow more instructive than playing it. When someone walks a golf course, do any of the shots they "hit" in their mind not turn out perfectly?
There's no denying it's fun to bump a 5-iron into a green from 110 yards or something like that in order to try and take advantage of some contour or another, but is that really anyone's preferred shot in that situation except perhaps in extraordinary winds or drought?
If the only time an architectural feature is relevant is to a golfer who is just kind of messing around and not concerned with making a score on the hole, isn't that a sign of that feature's practical irrelevance?
I played Mountain Lake yesterday and looking back on it, there's nary a single feature that doesn't matter to a player trying to make a score, no matter the handicap. My colleague, who was playing the course for the first time, used the big Redan green slope almost perfectly en route to making a par. His grin told the tale of how relevant that feature was.
I'm not saying it's not fun to mess around on the course, but features that only come into play while messing around are not nearly as consequential as the ones that matter to someone trying to make a score, be it against par or an opponent.