Rich:
There's no difference at all (if we're talking about great natural sites for golf) between the natural landform which Merion's #5 is, for instance, and Wilson's ability to "use" it!
Of course it has to be "used" properly to be a great hole but even if it wasn't used properly it still would have been the same great natural landform for golf and that hole, just used improperly!
That sort of thing points out some of the complexities of golf architecture, most particularly the routing process. Wilson just identified Merion's # 5 landform and did very little to it except use it as is. But imagine if due to routing considerations he happened to end up with the previous green at #5s green end instead of the other way around and used it in reverse--the hole would not be a quarter as good. Or if Jones/MacKenzie had the tee 20 yds behind Rae's Creek instead of at the green-end! Both natural landforms would have been as good just used badly!
You and I might look at these things entirely differently but that's the subjectivity of golf and architecture, I guess. The so-called "plain" at Pacific Dunes is part of what makes that course to me--it's a great transition into another look and feel--which is a wonderful shift for golf!
If some architect misuses a great natural landform, that says nothing to me at all about the great natural landform except that he misused it.
And I also don't really subscribe to the theory that there are other great routings or holes on some of the world's best courses, as was mentioned not long ago about Cypress Point. Making a theoretical point like that really doesn't work for me. Maybe I'm just from the Missouri School of thought, that if someone wants to make a point like that then "show me" don't just say it is true or has to be theoretically true and leave it at that.
There's nothing even remotely interesting about a theoretical point in architecture that can't be shown and proven somehow.
All of what I say is meant to indicate that what some architects can do and do really well is a complex and impressive art in some cases that shows particular talent. You on the other hand, don't seem to think so, for some reason.
A great site and a great natural landform is just that and of course it takes a Hugh Wilson to "use" it properly for which he should be given real credit and his talent should be recognized for it. God knows, others might not see it or worse yet change it by bull-dozing it beyond recognizability.
But I'm not one that subsribes to the idea that you must have a great natural site to create a great golf course. But if you do have a great site, then lets hope you use it properly and then that may be as good as it ever could have been--and that takes a great natural landform to start and architectural talent to recognize it, in my opinion, and particularly if almost nothing is done to it!