Dale,
I think there is a middle ground, for some.
(Most) golf architects can provide drawings to convey preliminary ideas to club committees. Detailed drawings (should) only be required if the work is to be turned over to a contractor, and the golf architect plans to only visit the project periodically.
In my view, most important is:
Who's supervising the work, in the field?
Ideally, it's the golf architect and/or a talented associate on-site, throughout the duration of the project.
Second: Who's doing the shaping work?
There's no doubt a talented design associate/shaper (or the golf architect), who's passionate about the project and tuned right into the objective, is preferrable over an "operator" with a "9-to-5 mentality" reading 2D plans.
Detailed drawings or not, true success ultimately boils down to how those 2D recommendations on paper (or 3D ideas in our minds) are translated to 3D on the ground, in the field, through shaping and construction work.
Edit:
Just for you, Dale... I had to make an edit here, to add this Vernon Macan quote:
"The usual practice with many of these architects is to draw plans, put a construction man in charge of the work and visit the site occasionally, some times as little as one day per month. I cannot do that. The design and construction of a (golf course) is to me a very personal job. Liken it to painting a picture, and what artist could invite another to put the paint on his canvas? Strange as it might seem, I spend infinitely more time on a golf course site during the construction period than any of them... This is the only method I know, and the only way I can satisfy myself."
Genius
