Shelly, Jim -
yes, I think using the analogy in regards to golfers/players (as you both suggest) works very nicely; but I still think it works the way I used it as well. I do indeed love jazz, and while 'contempt' is too strong a word to describe how the great jazz men felt about their 'source material' (i.e. the popular songs of the day, including Cole Porter tunes) I think they did see those tunes mostly/merely as a series/progression of chords that allowed them a solid base from which to leap into the creative and their own creativity, i.e. a structure through which/out of which they could improvise and share of themselves and their musical ideas freely. (I can't even count the number of new and 'uncredited' solos/riffs/songs the jazz men happily based on the "I've Got Rhythm" changes, and Bird's famous and influential "Ornithology" is of course "How High the Moon".) Now, I hope that folks like Mike Davies and Rees Jones have more respect for great architecture/courses than did the jazz men their source material; in fact, I'm almost certain that both men would say they do have great respect for that architecture and that in no way are they using what exists on the ground as a structure for their own creativity/design ideas. They'd say instead, perhaps, that they were 'preserving' and 'updating' and 'maintaining the relevance' of that great architecture. And that's where Cole Porter and Fred Astaire come in. Imagine Cole Porter (or Donald Ross) deciding that the first 9 beats/holes of their song/course would be 3 quarter notes, 2 half notes, and 8 eighth notes (please just imagine the equivalent set of par 4s, 5s, and 3s for Ross' first nine holes). Well, there'd be a reason they 'designed' their song/course that way, probably many very good reasons musically/architecturally (even setting aside personal tastes and style). Now, even though I do appreciate greatly Frank Sinatra's and Charlie Parker's musicality and Mike Davies' understanding of championship golf, what rationale do they have (other than, to put it bluntly, "I know better") to re-imagine those first nine beats as, say, 3 half notes, 4 eighth notes, and 2 quarter notes? Yes, Frank and Bird can make it work, and make it work in a way that a Cole Porter never envisioned -- but is the equivalent process appropriate for Mike Davis and his presumed respect for the original architecture? If Donald Ross simply and clearly didn't intend for, say, a short Par 4 to follow a long par 3, what rationale/justification does a Mike Davis or Rees Jones have for changing/setting up a golf hole in a way Ross didn't intend? I can't think of any. Will their changes/decisions 'work'? Yes, maybe -- at best, the way Sinatra's or Bird's choices 'work'. But again, I presume that Davis/Jones sees the original architecture much differently than Bird saw the original tune/changes -- and if they do, they really need to ask themselves what they think they're doing. Unlike either of those men, Fred Astaire put himself 'aside' and simply served the song, i.e. allowed Cole Porter's talent and taste to shine clear and true, unfettered by any of Fred's own 'ideas'.
Peter
PS - Joe, good one, and thanks for the laugh. Best to you and yours