I just wanted to be the first to reply to this semi-groundbreaking post!

In terms of the topic at hand, though, I have no idea  

John,

Could you also extend the title to Coore and Crenshaw? Strantz? Nicklaus? Palmer? even the older boys from generations past?

Surely its site specific isnt it?

Patrick,

Didn't we establish that we want our architects to grow....through learning or whatever means necessary.

Probably the king and prince of templates were Raynor and Banks.  They didn't seem to have a problem getting business.  It is the customer demand that drives a lot of the development.  Often the choice is if it works, go with it and keep going with it.  Hollywood and TV follow such a model all the time.

I do not see the work of Doak as being rigidly consistent in look and playability.  While it is easy to recognize a Coore and Crenshaw design, the ones I've seen have a great variety in how they play.

You can't on one hand call golf course architecture art and on the other accept the franchisement of its artisens..

So it's all fine and dandy if an architect finds a style that fits his eye and the public accepts and he sticks with it.  I guess it will be as easy as going to a McDonalds in a strange town..no surprises...the model of a successful franchise.

John,
Actually it is.  If Fazio started building courses that looked like Doak's, he'd be in trouble.  Some of us might not think so, but his clients sure would.  
Mark

I think there are a bunch of different angles regarding this topic, some of which have been discussed before.

One aspect is the idea of branding, and expectations that come along with a particular product by a particular author.  Are golfers and clients expecting a particular brand of golf when they note a particular designer?  Are people expecting a particular course and experience when they see Tom Doak's (or Nicklaus, Fazio, etc.) name attached to it?  Are designers succombing to those marketplace expectations with what they produce?

I certainly don't know for sure, but my guess is that Mr. Doak doesn't necessarily feel he is giving in to expectations, but that he is creating a product that in his mind is the best golf course each site has to offer - within those constraints remains the aspect of what Doak feels is the right thing to do with each site (i.e. his style).  Just like the MacD/Raynor/Banks style incorporated template holes, it appear the Doak style is one where the product should appear natural, whether by virtue of the site or by the architect's hand (hope I'm not putting too many words in Tom's mouth) and with that style comes the inevitable similarities whether it be in bones of the course or merely the aesthetics.

I do not have a depth of experience with Tom's courses, but my guess is that the similar aesthetics (which seems to be what is being discussed here) of his courses mask the fact that the holes all probably posess great variety and are rarely repetitive (this probably applies to many architects) i.e. just because many Doak courses have rugged bunkers and a natural looking style doesn't mean that you are going to step on Stone Eagle and say "hey, didn't I see this same hole down at Barnbougle?"

Keith.

John, care to give an example? This is a meta-question that has an agitational affect, but without specifics it's vague and meaningless.

Rawls Course doesn't look anything like anything else I've seen of Doaks - in part because of the huge containment berm that focuses your eye inward. Water hole par-3 10th and par-5 18th are conventional in many ways, yet the long par-4s on far side of property are unlike anything found inland in the south. Bunkers have greater delineation than at Pacific Dunes or Sebonack. Greens have less kick than Lost Dunes.

A lot of the answer to this might depend on the tastes and preferences of the developer, as well as the site, yes?

If a developer had a site and a particular look in mind, then he might be more likely to contact a GCA with a proven track record with that type of site and that type of look.  As Mark Fine says, if the GCA then built something entirely "out of character", those expectations would not be met.

John K - please outline what you consider to be the core elements of this template.

I would guess, fairway contour, green site location and shape, bunker style, fairway edgelines, hazard locations and yes I'm sorry to say framing of natural features.

Yes John it is, he is building consistently great golf courses on consistently great sites one after another yet each is unique.  Reading Doaks earlier  comments during the design phase of Stone Eagle reveal a man who is extremely passionate about what he is doing.  What more can you ask for.

I agree and am not questioning that he is building consistently great courses...and I also believe that in a few years he will build a few courses out of this mold..As probably our hottest young architect working today I don't think it is too much to ask for him to take a chance here and there and advance his craft even further.