Mark,
Maybe I'm not totally undestanding what you are trying to say, but where would this leave George Crump, Hugh Wilson, Robert Hunter, Max Behr and others who didn't really do that many designs?
But from a modern view, I have seen an large amount of work from architects out here, (Ted Robinson, Billy Bell Jr., Schmidt and Curley, some of who have been too ultra repetitive (Robinson and Schmidt and Curley) to those who haven't (BB Jr.) and it has everything to do with creating from scratch or having a budget that cold get an architect into trouble by doing too much or not having enough and creating something phenominal. (this is not a bash, it is an opinion.)
My point:
Goose Creek compared to other works by Schmidt and Curley-These guys COULD be very good, Goose Creek is an example of building something with no huge budget and they got a piece of ground--a corner of a riverside cow pasture that took some intersting routing and the result is a course that has the series of holes that work real good together (With the exception of the 18th which just doesn't work, but they really tried.) Meanwhile their other stuff at Talega Valley, Oak Quarry and SCPGA is very similar because of the use of a paticular green complex or par three hole over and over and over. They do it again at Crosby National a couple of times and they used it three or four times at Landmark's 36 holes, but still they have some other good golf holes to go with it. I think the amount of work they had got them in trouble creatively and ultimately in the final product, it sort of shows.
Ted Robinson is known for using the same holes or paticular bunkers over and over and over. Repetition is an understatement. Then, you get to #9 at his Tijeras Creek in Rancho Santa Margarita and it's like it was something you have never seen before, only to diaspapear at #10 which is just like any other typical hole you have seen on any Ted course. The next hole its back to a style of architecture you have never seen Ted do, and it stays that way until you get to the 18th which is just like the 10th hole parallel to it--horrible. simply put, when he had the land that was going through the wild areas of canyons and such the course is the best of Ted's ilk and it is actually impressive to me! Think about it--Minimal Ted!!!
The second he got to do some masterplanning and didn't rely on the natural element, it has the feel of every Ted course one has ever played.
I don't thing there is anything wrong with emulating strategies as seen on other courses, but I do think there is a certain aspect to all of this that can get a bit horrifying when architects create the same thing over and over whether it is on purpose or not. Nicklaus's Bears Best is a perfect example, IF the holes are created exactly like their originals, where is the provocative chance in creating great golf holes?
Another thing I would like to add is, while I have seen far less great courses then you, I can attest that I have met people that have seen far less courses then myself and understand golf architecture better then I ever could. If people like myself are given great architecture and can get past all of the modern gimmicks, no matter who the architect. its all aout creating, refinement and going the distance.
Also....If Donald Ross was repetitive, and given my minimal experience with his courses, how come in one round at each of the courses, Plainfield, Gulph Mills, Lu Lu Temple, and a short walk around some holes at Aronomink, I can see features of Ross's subtle genius of routing and use of evolved hazards? Its not just because of my interest in analyzing golf architecture, it has everything to do with what you see and the genius of what he wants you to look at. How did he come to find all of this? Where was he getting all of this inspiration to put golf holes and hazards?
Donald Ross come back, Modern golf architecture needs you!