And another very well written article -- thanks.
I'd not thought of this before, though the thought itself is quite obvious:
A golf hole like the 12th at St. Andrews isn't static -- it doesn't exist there as a 'great golf hole' in-and-of-itself, ie independent of a specific golfer, on a given day, actually playing it. It wouldn't be a 'signature hole' anywhere -- indeed, that's the point: it comes from a time when even the concept of a signature hole (whether because it photographed well or even because it was a 'great design') was unheard of, if not absurd.
I've never played anywhere, but from reading Mike's article it's interesting how, even fairly early on, the 'architecture' of a golf hole like the 12th, in the mind and hands of a Dr Mac, began to transmute -- to become more conscious and formalized.
Now, some 100 years after the Australian courses, it's become completely conscious & formalized -- and so the modern architects' magic trick is to somehow manage to make it look/feel/play as if it's not.
Peter