I can to a certain extent see Patrick's point that its about the architecture and not the experience. But let me try an analogy...
You are reading a good book, but you are sitting on a scuzzy train surrounded by the scum of humanity. Its got to be a real good book to keep you interested, but if it is, you will be lost in the book and the surrounding wont matter so much. But if you are reading a not so good book, but sitting by a log fire with a great view out the window and your favourite beverage by your side, it probably doesn't matter too much, how good the book is, as the experience is still enjoyable?
The important thing here for me, is that the author has no input into where people read and experience what he has written.
With a golf course, the context for that golf course is unavoidable, whether its an ocean view, stunning hills in the distance, an adjacent graveyard or a huge industrial complex. The golf course architect cant avoid it. Now sure a you could have a bad hole with a good setting or a good hole with a bad setting, but its how the architect responds to that context, that can really lift things to the next level! And he has to respond to the context whatever that may be, otherwise its say no to the commission and build his next course elsewhere.
So how do you follow that book you read on holiday (fire, view, beverage) no matter how good it was, when you are on your commute to work the next week? Well you probably make sure its a damn good book you are reading!
Thats enough of analogies from me for today
Cheers,
James