What difference does it make? Personally, I enjoy playing unique golf courses. And, unique golf courses derive their character from unique landscapes. Think about it, Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Royal Melbourne, the Old Course at St. Andrews. These course all derive their individual character from inherent site characteristics.
Imposing a preconceived idea onto any landscape results in an inferior golf course. Period. Precedent teaches us that. Imposing a dunesland course on Montreal Island results in a fake links.
Jeff:
I totally agree that the uniqueness of a property (or lack thereof) makes or breaks a great course. I too much prefer playing unique courses. However, I question your reliance on "precedent" in rejecting the idea that "imposing a preconceived idea onto any landscape results in an inferior golf course." Yes, I concede that if by "any landscape" you mean a lousy landscape, the result will likely be inferior, and yes I concede that if your notion of "preconceived idea" necessarily means one entirely at odds with its landscape, then again you'll have an inferior course.
What I suggest, however, is that an exceptional "preconceived idea" "imposed" upon a rather neutral landscape, such as a sod farm, or flat plain, can still yield very good to exceptional golf courses (I have in mind Tall Grass on LI and Whistling Straights in WI). Because I share a preference for a course that appears found in the land vs. one created on the land, when I visited Kohler, I prefered the River course to the Straights course, but I can't say the Straights course is necessarily inferior, it's entirely different.
Perhaps Pete Dye is the modern master of "imposing" his will upon
landscapes, but classic design has its examples too. For instance, as many on this board have discussed Lido was literally raised from the sea. I've not seen a sea that I looked at and said, ahh, here I see a tee shot and over here I see a green site.
My point when boiled down is this: let go of precedent to the extent it inhibits creativity, reflect and draw from it but do not dwell on it (I realize your post does not suggest looking only to precedent), reject the idea that a links-style course can't be built on unlikely landscapes because in todays world, unless you're travelling half way around the globe or you strike Linksland gold somewhere, most landscapes (with notable exceptions) will not be as good as those at Cypress, Shinney, National, etc.
Thus, I again conclude that while there may be, there shouldn't be, a criticism of a course as "fake links." Rather, it should have or want merit for what it is not for what genre it ostensibly originates.