Jeff:
That's an interesting question. I was always biased the other way because Jack Nicklaus grew up at Scioto, but that's just ONE example, and perhaps the exception rather than the rule.
Still, to make an accurate analysis, you'd have to consider that there are 16,000 potential courses in the USA to grow up on, and only 100-200 that ever make a list of great courses -- so do more than one or two great players out of every 160 grow up on an outstanding course?
And even after that, you could make arguments either way about whether growing up in a family that has the means to belong to one of those great courses is an advantage in going toward the Tour, or a disadvantage because the kid won't be hungry enough.
Tom,
I haven't played Scioto, but I gather it's an old traditional northeast Ross course, not dissimilar to Augusta CC where I grew up.
I would think such a course would be a great place to grow up with room to find it, yet difficult short game options.
And frankly I wasn't really meaning great as in Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods, but more in a good level amateur and up say 2 handicap and below to include tour players.
It just seems courses loaded with OB and water wouldn't produce free swingers-but maybe they simply grow up blocking it all out.
It certainly isn't fun to play a game where you're constantly losing balls when learning.
The other problem with modern courses is they are mostly very tough to walk and that's hard , esp. on younger kids who may seldom play unless their parents are providing a cart and with them. (and nobody's getting better if they only play when their parents are available)
In my opinion the best enviroment is a working family with enough money to afford golf(at least access), but not so wealthy that the kid is not hungry and everything comes easy (which I see all the time).
But that's got little to do with architecture.
No doubt it's the club's culture and juniour program that matters most, but that's not the discussion here.