Oh boy. Well, here goes:
One of the points I am trying to make has always been that it is easy to compartmentalize the designs of Raynor and Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald.
Agreed, although you could say that about MacKenzie, Ross and Tillinghast as well.
I disagree for different reasons. MacKenzie's design style seemed to vary by geographical location. His courses have a different look depending upon the time spent on site and the work crews involved.The California courses differ from the UK courses and differ from the Australian courses. Ross's design style varied over time as his designs evolved. It is especially evident at the green end. However, Tillinghast is a bit easier to compartmentalize relative to Ross and MacKenzie and certainly more so than Flynn.
You seem to focus on the "artsy" side of the ledger whereas I seem to focus on the "game" side of the ledger.
No, not at all. I focus on both the artistry and the playability. In discussing the best of the best architects, I expect both to be prominently on display. You subordinate almost to ignoring artistry in favor of the "game side."
CBM-SR-CB created wonderful challenges.
They achieved this through natural/normal holes and template and variations of template holes.
CBM much more so than SR and CB. However, they used templates on every course. Their designs relied on it to varying degrees. Their fairways and greens were offset far less frequently. The tee shot and approach demands have less line and distance requirements than others that used angles more often.
In the PLAY of the game, the values, challenge and enjoyment as they relates to the PLAY of these holes has endured, virtually intact for 80 years.
Endured for whom? Are you saying that the challenges of their courses remain intact after 80 years. To all classes of players? I disagree. One of the reasons for this is they generally did not plan vertical elasticity into their routings.
In the intervening years, very few of those holes have been altered, yet, an enormous number of NON-Template holes have been altered. Why ? Is it because the values of those holes, as they relate to the PLAY of the game, have been recognized/appreciated as extra special over all of these years ?
That is too simplistic an analysis based upon your predisposition to see things that way.
Take the 5th hole at Mountain Lake, their Biarritz.
Playing that hole repetively is fun.
It's at least three holes in one.
The diversity in look and play when the hole is cut in the front tier, swale and back tier is fabulous.
Please understand that I never stated that the design isn't fun to play. I criticize the Biarritz and other template designs when they do not fit into the surrounds and looks overly man-made (that includes many of their courses) but also the use of this and other templates on every golf course they did. If you like the concept, why have it on a rectangular green with a perfectly perpendicular swale of consistent depth across the green? Why have flanking bunkers that are perfectly flat? I think the concept has merit. It is the repetitive use of it and the way it is presented that I criticize.
No matter how many times you play the hole, you're never bored and the challenge never diminishes, especially with some dicey pin placements.
In my case, this is not true.
So why fault, dismiss or diminish the architecture on that template hole?
It's brilliant in the context of "playing the game of golf"
The original use of them may be brilliant. The copying (conceptually or otherwise) is not brilliant by my definition. This is one area where we disconnect. That is why I find fault or diminish the architecture of template holes, in addition to geometric features and flat bunkers.
Downhill Redan's have a character of their own, I just prefer Redans that present more of the "storming the castle" feel.
Then you should consider Flynn's Redan concept at Shinnecock Hills superior to Macdonald's version. Macdonald's was below the tee elevation, while Flynn's is clearly above it.