Ha! That's wonderful Ian, and very instructive -- thanks much for chiming in. (I was going to mention you in my original post, but assumed -- wrongly -- that you had gone off on your own by the time Copper Creek was built.) It's instructive to me because it immediately becomes the clearest, on-the-ground example that I know of how different architects manifest their differences in philosophy/ethos in sometimes very subtle ways. That stretch of holes is very good, and yet they fit into the rest of the course well, and if you asked me to explain why the stretch stands out I don't think I could've told you. But so many little things: the length (unusually short), the wide but heavily contoured green (which I didn't mention in my first post), the amount of elevation for that short a hole (especially after the long downhill 5th)....all those things taken in isolation/separately are elements that you, or Doug, or many other designers would and have used...but all together like that, coming where the hole does in that stretch...well, that is much more a 'unique' stamp, i.e yours.
Peter