Jim,
I can tell you that within ASGCA we debate how much any tour pro is really an architect when they apply. In the eyes of most, JN now qualifies for reasons he pretty much gave while discussing in an interview whether Tiger is a gca right now (no, but he will get there, I think) JN has been around enough projects to learn the technical ins and outs of design.
I think he qualifies because I have had a few ex employees go to work for him, and the stories they tell about his involvment in strategy and routing sound legit to me. I have heard contractors personell say he always kind of understood land and how it can be used, if not on paper then at least in field reviews.
Having become a gca the hard way (my green jackets come from Macy's or Dillards) I have sympathy for the traditional view of how to be a gca. At least until we started using computers, I could produce every drawing my office made, although we pulled an old green detail out with my initials on it the other day and commented that a final plan actually drawn by me was a rare find!
Frankly, in any design biz, having the top cheese doing final drawings is a gross misappropriation of resources. I doubt JN wants to do drawings past the sketch stage, nor do I think he should, but I think he does read topos well and critique routings (word is he reversed the routing for Shoal Creek, if I recall) and my ex employees say he truly does create the strategies on his signature courses. His legendary memory for details is supposedly still strong, too! They say if he says to lower the bunker six inches, he knows if it wasn't, etc.
So, in general, while I would have trouble jumping in and out of the process, (although you could argue that leaving the site for lunch allows things to happen out of your control!) I have concluded that he can and does and is able to keep his stamp on at least his signature courses through his business model.
I also agree that his business model focuses in part on numbers of courses, and I love the "boutique" shop model that I follow (and TD and CC follows) I don't think its any surprise, for instance that I garnered two best new wins from GD after my staff trimmed from 7 to 2 post 9/11. I spend more time closely involved in my biggest projects (and frankly, they are all big to me) If the focus is on keeping the monster running by taking all types of jobs, yes, the sites, owner quality and personal time for each project naturally diminshes. I won't say it hurts JN's projects, because I don't know and because his associates probably have the same passion for projects we all do. But, based on my much smaller experience, I suspect it does or might.
Someone said the best comparison would be best course to best courses, not lists. I would add on similar sites. If Dismal River ends up being considered inferior to SH by a great margin, using rankings, general buzz, rounds, or word of mouth as your guage, or if the top gca's all get nearby ocean front courses in Mexico, etc. and a pattern emerges, then I by all means you, me, or general consensus can annoint others as the top gca's of our era.
I don't think I ever implied otherwise. My initial post on this thread was that many people value great maintenance, shot values, fairness, etc. that JN values and produces in his designs. I think many of the same people also value the CC approach at SH, which might produce a different and entirely appropriate look there, while generally preferring the traditional look at home.
Perhaps my short version of this would be that there are certainly shades of gray in design, but anytime we make a statement on a discussion board, it tends by nature to move towards black and white, because its easier to assert.......there is just lots of room in this world for different types of courses, and as mentioned, we keep focusing on the top 100 rankings, or whatever. Even if Jack has fewer designs in the top 100 than someone else, it doesn't mean his designs are bad, but that seems to be the tone here, at least IMHO.