Tom,
I understand completely what you are saying, but I am clear in that I stated that John Fought was quite involved in this project. The fact is that Andy was the architect working with the owner originally and that they chose to bring in another architect to work with Andy (or Andy to work with another architect) for reasons that I do not know. As you know the owner can make their own decisions as to who did what as in the case of one of my other former co-workers, Mike Stark, who actually approached the tribe that owns the Rolling Hills Casino in Corning, CA, designed their course from the beginning through to the end, yet the "architect" they credit is John Daly. He visited once during construction, after seeding.
But, please don't misunderstand me here. Andy has nothing to do with me posting this, I simply wanted to point out that sometimes the line is difficult to assess as to who the named designer is/was and whether that crossed over into co-design or not. From an owner's viewpoint a co-design isn't as sexy or as descriptive in nature as naming a sole designer. I think that good work should not go unwarranted and I simply wanted to elucidate you and others as to how good a designer Andy is and that his work on this project goes far beyond that of a design associate. As I understand it he was head of his own firm the entire time he worked on this project so design associate probably does not adequately describe what he did anyway.
I have always been careful in describing the work I did while with G & P as I was an actual design associate and everything I did under their banner was clearly their work. That was a clear line. One independent architect working with another independent architect is a little muddier.
I think it is fair to say that Sand Hollow is the better for the dual involvement of both men, both very knowledgeable and both very talented in their own rights.