That is correct, JC, that's what I think. And indeed, I'd suggest that even under conditions of 'constraints' minimalism was not utilized/embraced by the golden agers nearly as often as we think.
It seems increasingly clear to me that, while there were striking exceptions/examples of the golden agers demonstrating wonderful routing skills on sites that they left relatively unchanged/in their natural state, in general there was no particular value placed on (what we now call) minimalism, no particular desire to work with the land as architects found it, and no particular interest in avoiding earthmoving, especially if time and budgets allowed for that earthmoving; and it seems clear too that the philosophy/ethos/approach that we today praise so highly had very few dedicated and/or vocal proponents, either before the golden age, during it, or for decades after it.
I'm suggesting that the recent "renaissance" is mis-named; it is a catchy label, and it does convey meaning and a value system, but the minimalism as practiced over the past 20-30 years or so is actually the birth of a new approach, not a re-birth of any previous approach. That some of today's great minimalist courses have the look and feel of some of the golden age greats is, well, not accidental (far from that in fact) but at least besides the point. Some of these modern greats look like they've been around 100 years, and in this they do sometimes look like a few of the great courses that have been around 100 years; but today's courses got to looking that way via a much different approach/philosophy than did the 'originals'.
It really is, this renaissance, a wonderful (and wonderfully effective) trick of memory and time and intention: over time, the golden age courses slowly melding and blending "naturally' into the very surroundings that we now, after 70 years, assume had originally existed in that state; and then students (like Tom and C&C) who fell in love with and admired and respected the great courses and architects of the past come along intending to pay homage to those early examples, and they do so (and pull off that homage) with skill and talent, but via a method and a philosophy hardly dreamed of by their predecessors; and then fading/non-existing memories have us all (architects and afficiandos alike) forget and/or re-work the past so that we don't notice the trick any longer -- which is exactly the way we want it, as it connects us to the past and to the history of the game and of the art-craft of gca in a lovely way, and produces courses that make us feel at peace.
And finally, I'd suggest that the notion of the renaissance (and the design firm named after it) are reflective of two traits that Tom D doesn't get enough credit for - i.e. his modesty and his moxie. Modesty in placing himself not as the creator/birther of a new approach but instead within a long 'tradition', as a follower of others before him and not a leader; and moxie in playing a role in actually shaping/creating that 'tradition' so that there'd be a framework and a label for others to understand and embrace the kind of work he wanted to do and build his career upon.
Peter