Matt,
I think the problem is the definition of "quality architecture". That can mean entirely different things to different people. some people equate great architecture with level of difficulty, some with width, some with strategic options and so on. there is a level of architectural snobbery on this site that lends itself to groupthink (corporate bingo word). donald ross and the other old masters built some bad courses. thats a fact. rtj built some great courses... far more than he gets credit for. thats a fact.
i have the pleasure of going to the masters every year, and personally i preferred the old version of agnc better. that being said, have the changes made all that great a difference to the members (those that actually play the course regularly)? my guess is probably not. their tees are in the same places... so if you're judging from the perspective of the average golfer, not a whole lot has changed there in the past 20 years before it began dropping on some lists.
i think golf architecture snobs have lost perspective on how much "beauty" plays a part in the eyes of the average golfer. most people that play golf do it once a month as an escape from their daily lives. they don't go to the course to debate the merits of shot value. they go to hit a stupid white ball around in serenity. the golf digest list puts more emphasis on this. let those guys have their list... and we have ours (gw).