Jeff, Jim - thanks for your responses. It's a personal/idiosyncratic list no doubt, and one that I came up with very quickly. But I must say that the more I think of this romantic-logician divide (one that I hadn't given much thought to), the more I like it. Seems to be more interesting (to me at least) than calling architects penal vs strategic or minimalists vs maximalists.
Just to say, here's a few examples of what I was 'thinking': I called Macdonald a Romantic because, more than the homages/templates and principles that he created and espoused, he was actually all about "the story", i.e. the birth of quality American architecture, founded on tradition but moving in its own new way, and "the meaning" of these courses in relationship to the ethose of the game. I think of Dye as the Logician because, despite his flash and humour and style, he is about testing golfers and their games and using features and obstacles (real or imagined) in a very cool-headed way, and then to this end moving dirt or draining away water like an engineer. I think of Simpson as a Romantic because he seems to me to have consciously styled himself as such, all flowing style and rich drawings. I think of Mackenzie as a hybrid (leaning towards logician) because, while he designed artistic courses (for lack of a better word), I think of him as someone who enjoyed and thought about architecture AS architecture, i.e. it was enough for him that a course worked on 'principle', and he didn't need much more story than that.
Anyway, I suddenly feel like a bad comic trying to explain why a joke that didn't get a laugh is actually funny...so i better stop.
Peter