Gene, someone else recently observed on one of these threads, that perhaps the big earthmover, big landscape designer-framers feel that sites such as Pac Dunes and Sand Hills are discounted because they only demonstrate the archie's ability to route and construct minimally upon the land as it exists. There on such sites, their engineering and design abilities aren't fully identified. Perhaps they have a mindset that unless the project calls for detailed engineering of drainage, irrigation schemes, grassing and landscape themes, on a blank slate or problem site, that the archies talent isn't exposed. From what it seems the Friar's Head site has demonstrated of Coore and Crenshaw (not all that remarkable of terrain like real links-dunesland) and their work at Chechessee, Hidden Creek, and Talking Stick, they have shown that they can do their magic on relatively blank slates as well, and without the bombastic earth moving. As for Doak, I am waiting to see how the Texas Tech course is evaluted. He needs some more work on blank slates, similar to his High Pointe and Apache to drive his message and style home. TT will equal most of the big earthmoving projects, and if that becomes a highly regarded course, then I think they have to give him his due as one that can do it in all types of conditions. C&C have already made their points in that regard, and deserve to be thought of as highly skilled on both naturally conducive sites, and blank slates.
And, sometimes I think we must also make a concession to the lead archie's TEAM, and their tastes and styles. Te Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones teams have a sort of signature approach and design philosophy that somewhat trademarks them. I think it is very interesting that some cross pollination has taken place in the Coore Crenshaw-Renaissance teams. Sure they follow their leaders ideals. But, there are some strong headed and talanted people on those teams who I think have their fingerprints on the final product and it shows.