Mike, your cynicism is one of your most attractive features. More seriously, I think that you undersell the pioneers in the field. We should remember that prior to the golden age, there were no "rules" regarding building courses. While there existed marvelous natural courses, the best example being the Old Course, too many were formulaic with cops, cross bunkers and the like. But a variety of new thinkers arose who spent considerable time and thought trying to figure out what made a course great. At or near the same time, the Haskell ball rendered many older designs obsolete thereby creating greater opportunities to experiment. So architects like Park, Colt, Simpson, Abercrombie. MacKenzie. Alison etc. came to the fore in the British Isles while MacDonald/Raynor, Ross. Thomas, Behr, Flynn, Wilson, Emmet, Langford/Moreau etc. were active in the USA and Canada. Not only were they changing the nature of design, each bringing their own perspective, but they collaborated and exchanged ideas, sometimes on site and more often in writing. The numerous books and magazines were more than marketing devices, there was real thought and debate. Examine the views of Joshua Crane and the responses. Compare the views of the naturalists versus the "template architects". Many of the issues raised persist today. I note that there has been a revival of thought provoking literature in recent years as exemplified by Tom Doak's output, but I suggest that the most fertile time occurred in the Golden Age. That does not denigrate today's work, nor do I suggest that all of the architecture of the Golden Age was truly "golden". But I think in your attempt to make our view of that era more realistic, you tend to underrate its importance.