Mark
I'm not sure where you place me in this debate, as I don't really fit the profile in your opening post but since you quoted me, I'll tell you what I believe.
1. Of course you can "compare" apples and oranges. One is orange and the other various shades of red and yellow and green. One is more acidic than the other, etc. etc.
2. I tend to prefer apples. Why? I don't know, I just like them better. The texture, the flavor, the look and feel, maybe?
3. But, I like orange juice much better than apple juice. Why? Again, I don't know. I just do.
4. My "comparing is fruitless" statement was more for a cheap laugh than to make a firm statement. Of course you can compare fruits, or even golf courses. As long as you remember that they come in all shapes, sizes and colors, and some people like certain colors better than others.
5. I personally beleive that comparison is very useful at the micro level. For example, why does the combination of textures, flavors and chemicals in an orange make it a desireable cooking accompaniment to duck, while the same combinations do not suit it to pork? Why do the characteristics of apples and not oranges meld so nicely with pork? If you really get into these things, you can learn something, if you wish--about chemistry and physiology adn psychology and even how to design adnd prepare and enjoy culinary experiences. In a similar vein, discussions which "compare" NGLA's Short with its Redan and its Eden can bring up some useful insights, just as can comparisons of Redans at various courses, or the pros and cons of lacy vs. austere bunkering, or thick or wispy rough, or firm and fast vs. narrow and soft, or whatever.
6. However, when you extending such comparisons to entire golf holes, the number of variables you are dealing with expands exponentially such that it is impossible, at least for me and in my opinion, to make comparisons that depend on much more than "Why, because I like it!" sorts of arguments. You ask enough observers and you can come to some sort of conclusion as to whether the 18th at TOC is "better" or "worse" than the 1st at NGLA, but what does that tell us, really? Extending this sort of comparison to a course vs. course level just compounds the variables and makes our ultimate judgement even more subjective.
7. Finally, when you try to deconstruct the whole process into a series of factors, to which you assign numbers, down to the 100th of a point, you completely lose me. It's like trying to quantify why the duck a l'orange at a retuarnat in Fife is better or worse than the medallions of pork in apple butter at a bistro in Strasbourg.
As to Olympic. I have only played it once, with Gib, this summer. To me it is better than some of the courses which are "ranked" ahead of it that I have played, and not as "good" as some which are "ranked" below it. It is an underappreciated course on this site. Why? Perhaps because it does not carry the hallmark of some revered designer? Perhaps there are just some people out there who just cannot bring themselves to believe that the combination of Reid, Whiting and RTJ could possibly manage to create a "better" course than old Tillie was able to on a nearly adjacent, but clearly superior piece of ground at SFGC? Or maybe it's the musty old lockers and the sense of privilege, vs. the democratic robustness of OC? Maybe it's just the "ambience?"
The bottom line--both OC and SFGC are great golf courses and great experiences that should not be missed. That's all I can say with certainty. Those with more power than I please compare and rank to your heart's delight.
Cheers
Rich