Mike,
Certainly any owner can choose any construction method they want. There is a reason all of those exist.
My comment on how they would feel reflects long ago discussions with Dick N, not anything to do with any of your comments.
However, to use your term, some of us do believe "getting the canvas ready" is an important part of golf course architecture, too. Most golf courses serve many functions concurrently with golf, including real estate amenity, detention area, wetlands filter, wildlife sanctuary, and on and on and on. Not to mention, in some cases, we are planning for 2, 5, and even 10 or 20 years out. Obviously, plans are needed in many cases.
If we design all elements from the start (using engineers to tell us how big a detention pond needs to be, but us designing the shape and location and allowing them to double check the calculations, all of which has to be done before getting a floodplain permit in most cases) then we aren't preventing or covering up an engineer from "F ing up the site" we are in control of it and designing it right for the golf course from the start. To my mind, that is an important distinction between our views of what golf course architects can and should do.
And, while not to be condescending to anyone, when you have my opinion of what constitutes golf course architecture, those who put the finishing golf touches on top of someone else's canvas are just playing in the dirt. Sure, it is important, and that is what most of us are interested in, and more power to those who can make a living doing only that.
As mentioned, there are lots of different types of golf design projects. While the golf buffs on this site probably dream only of dream sites, I am mentioning all of the above just to educate them that the Pete Dye method isn't applicable to all situations, and there are times when you simply can't leave it all to the field. It costs too much to redo the engineers work (if even allowed) just because you didn't or couldn't design it on paper in the first place.
No building, road, bridge, etc. has ever been built without them, which should tell us something. I, too, love that golf doesn't require us to get down to inches and we can free lance in the field a bit. Plans aren't always perfect, but it is what I believe to be the best design process to accomplish many aspects of golf course design efficiently and quickly, at least on the (for me) typical project.
Of course, both you and I are free to tout the benefits of our respective methods, and we know there is more cross over than these arguments would show. All what you call "hype" is hoping to educate an individual client to make an informed decision about the skill set of architect relative to their respective projects. They often don't, but that is a discussion for another day.
Cheers.