Alex,
First thank you for proving, yet again, that every topic on GCA has already been done on this site, often more than once.
Would you say Ross represents getting the most out of the land? Over a long career he delivered consistently excellent courses in a variety of climates and settings. I would think recognizing this type of genius is to recognize contemporaries who garner deserved acclaim.
As for number 2, does the HORSE course in Nebraska constitue genius, at least in conception? It remains to be seen how successful that will be. But you have to appreciate the willingness to invest in an alternative concept of what it means to "play" golf. Fixed yardages, tee boxes, par, slope and rating, handicap index, recording every round, these are concepts that define the context in which golf is played, at least for many. Is there genius, if that's even the right term, for whoever can reinvent the experience of golf in a way that challenges those concepts, possibly opening up new ways to play?
For example, there was recent discussion about Thomas's LACC North course, and his attempt to build a course within a course. Some holes could be setup to play as Par 3 or 4. One of the limitations was that if the par changed, the course would need different slope ratings, suggesting those setups only be played on special occassions. That he would try this concept, though, strikes me as genius of the second type.
Are there other opportunities to convention. It's often lamented that courses aren't equipment proof. A par 3 designed with a long iron mind evolves into a mid-iron shot for every class of player. What if, instead, the teeing instructions were simply "hit from where you would normally hit a 3 iron". Hit whatever you want, just pick that distance.
The same approach could be applies on any hole, I think, however, the idea of course "distance" takes a beating.
Are there architects pushing the envelope in these types of directions? What's the link to the prior thread?
Dave