Dan, I hate to agree with Rich, but this is a terrific topic. If I were you I'd stick with the first phrase as my thesis: The essence of great architecture is a series of confounding choices. "Confounding choices" pretty much covers it in my mind. I prefer "confounding" because it carries more of a notion of the potential to be fooled.
Websters' second definition of 'confounding' is "To mistake for another; to identify falsely.' If a choice is close enough, a 'spectrum' as you describe it, many times a golfer might be slightly or drastically on the wrong end of that spectrum, but be convinced he has made he correct decision.
Another way to describe it might be "confused confidence." This would describe a golfer who thinks he has it all figured out, but really has no clue.
For example, lets just suppose that there is more to Holes 1 & 2 at NGLA than "JWL" above realizes-- I wouldn't know because I have not played the course, but just suppose this is true. Also suppose that JWL has played the course only once, as seems to be the case by his post. Now JWL is confident that the course is easy and Nos. 1 and 2 are pushovers. This is based on his success on No. 1, as well as Jack Nicklaus' success. He has explained away his mistake on No. 2 (hitting into the bunker) as merely misalignment. So based on his experience he knows all he needs to know to to consistently conquer these holes. Now supposing my supposition is true, then JWL is 'confidently confused' about the hole. He is sure he is correct but he is incorrect. Upon repeat plays, this would lead to quite a lot of frustration, followed perhaps by eventual enlightenment. In my hypothetical, the architecture confounded JWL into thinking them pushovers, when really they were not.
This strategic technique is particularly suited for confounding the modern golfer, whose mind has been numbed by playing courses where the choices stand out like RuPaul at a Christian Coalition convention.
Tom H., I think that this is where temptation fits in-- by making the golfer an offer he can't refuse. Tempting shots present an option or series of options that so entice the golfer, that he can no longer rationally weigh the other options. In the extreme, he may not even realize he has another choice. Think of the discussion regarding CPC 16, at which the temptation is so strong that many werent even able to consider the safe play.
[By the way Tom, the holes at Rustic have names and No. 12 is named "Temptation."]
This notion also takes care of Patrick's golfer, who always thinks he knows where he is going and how to get there. Patrick may be correct that the vast majority of golfers never feel "confused" on the tee. But just because they think they know something doesnt mean they have anything figured out. Confused confidence. Like a husband driving with his wife to a unfamiliar locale-- he thinks he knows where he is going. And just because he eventually gets there doesnt mean he went the best way.
Patrick, if you disagree with me on this, why don't you and your friend TEPaul come out to Los Angeles next spring. After a morning round at Rustic Canyon we can go to the Nissan Open and view one of TEPaul's favorite holes. We'll stand behind No. 10 for a few hours and then you can tell me whether you still believe that golfers don't face confounding choices off the tee.
And Patrick, to answer your question, in my opinion a blind hole doesnt represent the epitome of great architecture for the following reasons, and probably others:
1. A blind shot has other archtectural pitfalls, such as creating a dangerous condition.
2. A blind shot loses some of its intrigue after one plays it once or twice and figures out the proper line.
That being said, because most golfers are target oriented, blind shots can add to the golfers confusion, discomfort and indecision over the ball. I prefer 'Elvis Presley blind shots,' where the golfer can see from about the waste up. That way the golfer sees players, but still cannot see all the ground for which he is aiming.