Niall - My thinking behind that question was two-fold:
1. Unless we embrace the use of massive earthmoving equipment and a wholly artificial golf course that's created from scratch, it probably doesn't matter much which/how many great architects we have designing our Par 3s, 4s and 5s. Any natural site, no matter how good, and a minimalist's approach to routing and designing a golf course, wouldn't likely result in a set of 18 golf holes any better than, say, a Tom D or Dr Mac would come up with on his own. No site is that ideal that it constrains/impinges not at all on the greatness & talents & potential genius of the architect(s) involved.
2. But even if we did embrace a wholly created/artificial design, I'm not sure what we'd be getting from each 'component' of our composite architect; indeed, we might be getting contributions/golf holes that are far from their best. What I mean is: what I think defines & characterizes a Colt or a Ross or a C&C or a Doak or a Mackenzie are their *choices* -- choices made so often & consistently that, examining their body of work over a lifetime, we can begin to identify-posit an individual style: a style that makes a Colt a Colt. And those choices have to do with how they use the land/site: e.g. where they 'see' the Par 3s, where they 'find' the Par 4s, how they 'identify' the green sites, and what 'compromises' they might make in order to get, say, an easy flowing walk and a compact routing, i.e would they tend to 'sacrifice' a great hole for it? would they introduce a transition hole or two? All of which is to say: I don't know what kind of Par 3 or 4 or 5 any of the architects named so far would come up with if they didn't (on their own) have to or get to make those same choices.
In short, I guess what I'm saying is: I'll take my chances with the devil I know instead of the one I don't!
