"In the discussion about many of the architects of that era being true "amateurs," one point has been omitted ... golf in that era was really not a business at all. Most of the great courses of the era were built for the love of the game by founders or members who were not looking to turn a profit."
TomD:
That's an important point about the so-called early "amateurs" and an important point that may help explain the remarkable quality of some of their courses because of the modus operandi they generally used to create them or to complete them.
Perhaps the best example showing a lack of interest in a profit is the April 1, 1913 letter to recruit members from PVGC president Howard Perrin in which he explained that potential members should not expect to make money or even realize a return on their investment---that the only reason for the course and club was the love of the game amongst a group of like-minded golfers.
I think it's important on here to delve deeper into the modus used by some of those early "amateur" architects particularly because it's hard to deny the correlation between some of those men and the remarkable quality and fame of some of their courses. Of course I'm speaking of such as Emmet--GCGC, Leeds---Myopia, Macdonald--NGLA, Hugh Wilson---Merion East, Crump---Pine Valley, Fownes, Oakmont et al.
I think it's important to look at whatever similarities there might have been in their modus with those famous courses compared to other courses of their time or perhaps any time, and to identify what the differences might be between the way they went about it compared to others. If we don't do that there's always a tendency to simply assign to those well known early "amateurs" unusual talent or raw talent, that may not be completely warranted or accurate.
It seems that the common thread or similarity in their method compared to other courses of professional architects or others is the extraordinary time they devoted to their projects and to the completion of their courses, often many years or even decades. There is no professional architect in America of which I'm aware who ever devoted that amount of time to the creation and completion of a course with the notable exception of Donald Ross and Pinehurst #2.
Ultimately, this will probably raise the question of whether any architect, professional or otherwise who does not devote that kind of time is in some way or another the real reason why a golf course might never reach its maximum architectural potential.
Since the theory that time is money is probably true, and is also probably necessary to a successful professional architect, it would appear that in some ways the modus operandi of professional architecture is counterproductive to maximum quality golf course architecture, and that extraordinary time involved in a project is the key to maximum quality, even if done by a so called "amateur".
With most of us on this website who are not in the profession at all and are therefore "amateurs" in this business it is often fairly theoretical the way we look at things. That's why I think it's very important to spent time on construction sites, and the more the better, simply for an education in the nuts and bolts of architectural developement, the way ideas, concepts, strategies and features are arrived at, in some cases in very different ways, and the time involved or lack of it and what it all means in the eventual result.