Marty,
I have noodled on this thread for a while. Yes, I think we can over analyze and its not a great thing.
For that matter, if my legacy is that average (and "unitiiated" or "ill informed") golfers love my courses, but critics are lukewarn, I think I would be happier.
Forget Motzart. Think movies, like the light fluffy comedies that so many of us go to watch for escape. The millions in box office reciepts say they struck a chord with the masses, even if the critics say the content is poor. Or pop music. Many tried to intellectually compare the Beatles to Motzart but those buying the records didn't care.
I do agree with the notion of not telling your friends about architectural heritage. I know that at Sand Creek Station they mention some of the templates/classic models I used. My sense is that golfers pick up on that a little, but in reality, they like the holes for whatever they like them for, and kind of like the verbiage just enough to additionally justify/rationalize their emotional decision to play there.
And those things that they like, but can't describe, are probably more design elements we don't talk about here much - like scale (things are bigger than most courses they can play) preservation of trees (this is Kansas, trees are valuble) and the bent fw, which play better than the fescue/blue fw they are used to. If there is a design element they respond to, I think its just the overall "feel" that things were arranged somehow, not the specifics of how they were arranged and that the aesthetics of the bunkers, greens, contouring, etc. just sort of "feel right".
Or in short, they appreciate the landscape architectural/aesthetics of the course more than the strategic design features. And, as Seinfeld would say, "Not that there is anything wrong with that!"
But, I am already over analyzing, aren't I?