Of the holes mentioned that I've seen the best example, in my opinion, may be Ross's 2nd at Rolling Rock, mentioned by Adam Messix. The reason may be simply because the rest of the hole is really not much, basically nothing, other than a long shot. But what goes on with that green that may not look that complicated just exudes everything backward bigtime from tee to hole out!
It seems to me many of the best holes, and best architecture in golf sort of revolve or center around maybe just one thing and when that one thing actually looks somewhat simple, or natural or minimal but really isn't in play you just may have a golf hole and architecture for the ages!
It seems to me that creating really good architecture, at least in the somewhat prized "minimalistic" vein is a lot like really good acting or really great actors---the one thing they all seem to fear is overacting. They seem to capture the entire essence of a scene or feeling with the barest of physical output.
Great golf architecture, great minimalist architecture anyway, is probably some of the old stuff simply because if they didn't have anything truly interesting to start with sometimes they really couldn't or didn't move or even create that much in the mid-bodies of their holes as today's architect do almost as a matter of course. In many cases where some of the old time architects didn't have much to work with from tee to green they didn't do anything at all---other than just put something really meaningful at the target or destination (green) that cast meaining all the way back without sometimes obviously appearing to. Many of today's architects are like over-actors, they just try to do too much, some or even most of which really has not much meaning in play.
I think a really great way to create good architecture and particularly great minimalistic architecture is to come up with an interesting concept (strategy, strategies, whatever) on a golf hole and then design it up as much as you want---then look at it very carefully to see if you've truly caught the essence of the concept and then proceed to start removing things until you hit that point where the essence of the concept might just start to diminish but hasn't! You might then find that you have a hole and architecture that revolves really well around one single thing that doesn't look that meaningful but really is in play.
I guess another way to look at all this in a less wordy manner is something my Dad used to say about learning golf itself---eg. "let the ball be your teacher!" The same can probably be said about really good architecture.