Phillipe,
It is late, and I have the flu, so please excuse me if this is rude. But I would like a specific example, rather than a generalization of this "weird fact". Did you have one or a few architects in mind?
Without some specifics, I can hazard a few guesses as to this situation, including the fact that the architect only had "one novel in him" or that he got incredibly lucky on his first site, or with a good contractor or owner, oe owner with the lofty goals of creating the "best" etc. As Tom says, not all sites, and really not all owners can support that kind of course.
But, that project may have sold another job (I always say the second is harder to get and even harder to do) which exposed the architects flaws. Or perhaps he lost interest with a lesser project.
Or in a real sense, someone else is doing the work. I recall going from a one man shop to being a salesman to keep the guys busy in a hurry. You have to learn to adjust to those circumstances and control the design, while delegating efficiently and training.
Lastly, your own perception may have something to do with it. Looking at perhaps the most creative architects of our age (I trust you are not channeling from some other era onto this site, although I don't rule it out after the opinion piece by Max Behr!) like Pete Dye, I was in awe the first time I saw his early style - mostly because his design "assumptions" were so different from what I might have done, but when I saw it again, not as impressed, simply becausse I had seen it before. When he got even more dramatic, like TPC, I was again impressed. When I saw PGA West, less so. When design gets into one upmanship - even one upping yourself, then certain trends go out as fast as todays pop music!
I suspect that anyone could say similar things playing their second "Brauer" course. Like Paul, I try to vary my thoughts and themes over time, although change is slow. If it works, you try to vary the theme, not recreate, at least for a little while, until you get tired of seeing it from yourself!
I think all designers and artists are somewhat conscious of this. Anyone remember a George Harrison album, when he was on the downside of his solo career titled "Ohnothimagain"?
I think Paul is saying about the same thing. I think the problem, one which critiques helps combat, is that as time goes on, an architect cements more rules and "general principals" in place, which aer a result of critiscms or just outright failures of certain holes or principals. Of course, this limits the options he even considers, much less implements!
Pete Dye was so successful because he through out the existing paradigms of "mowable slopes" , all "natural surfaces" - ie using railroad ties, Playability (ie design for the good players, don't worry about using long grasses for definition, and so on. At the time he got famous, my mentors would have never even made basic assumptions about design that those things were possible. So, they didn't do them.
As Tom implies, you do look at things a certain way, for reasons above. And architects are human, so they listen to praise, criticism, and top 100 and best new lists. Lastly, we listen to owners, who as a rule, are not risk takers, although there are exceptions, so many feel stuck in a style for business reasons. Few owners tell you to do something really different after paying good money based on what they saw you do in the past, any more than you would pay for an airline ticket, and on the way on to the plane, tell the pilot you would like him "to try some new tricks today, like a barrel roll or something!
Jeff