Jason:
Thanks for your thoughts. But as a 9 handicap, you're far from an average golfer; you're a really good one. (The average handicap of those that keep them is a 20; those that don't keep handicaps are rarely better than a bogey golfer.) Thus, I'm not surprised about your views on maximizing each hole corridor at the expense of the whole.
"It's such a unique property that, for me, a lot of the appeal was how it took advantage of its terrain."
This, to me, is really what the debate is about. Yes, it's a unique property for these parts. But did the architects take the best advantage of its terrain? In certain cases, yes -- 2 is a great short par 4, 8 is a really fine hole, 12 is very good, and 17 (well, before they denuded the esker) is a nice one as well. But could the architects have included those holes and found others that made for an overall course that included a better, more intuitive routing? Maybe not; maybe the land and the other demands of the course -- championship caliber, elasticity, an initial decision to move very little earth -- inhibited that. But I'm not so sure.