Yes, most of you are zeroing in on it now, I think.
The designer, architect, and construction team that must do more work, but that work is done to the minimal amount, and the result is imperceptable to similar land and style where very little earthwork was done, is demonstrating superior architecture in that particular comparison. Not superior playing strategy over all. Not necessarily a higher "rated" course (and I hate to go to that rated concept). But, a superior effort to utilize all the skills in the architects bag to make it look lightly tread upon, natural and very playable.
BTW, if you really want to make this more complex, then talk about the superior architect, and include the constructors. Many architects use separate construction companies, i.e. Wadsworth, Landscapes, etc. They are not part of the architects in-house team. Design-build as a total package becomes a factor in superior efforts, IMHO. And, I think that it almost always shows. The outside construction contractor is a translator, and has their own chain of command for getting the work done. The design/build team has one less step in the process, and becomes a more direct product of the lead designer/architect. You are far more likely to get the actual conceiver of the idea on a machine getting it done as he wants it, than guide a plan from near (waving arms) or far, call-in from back at the office... or via change order after site visit. none of these things are absolutes.
But, in my mind at least, judging the superior architectural/design effort starts at the notion of the process, and ends with the imperceptable distinction of how heavy a hand was used to accomplish the desired results. Minimalism as a do not disturb is a fleeting notion and a moving scale.