Peter, thanks for pulling my beard.
I don't want to believe in an objective good when it comes to golf course architecture, even though people who know a lot more about the subject than I do might just be able to identify some. I tend to believe that each individual person, regardless of era, has in mind an idea of improving and perfecting what a golf course should be (or sometimes just what THEIR golf course should be), and they create courses or make changes to courses based on those personal criteria. Eras in architecture can be identified just because there are certain periods when it just seems like lots of individuals held similar opinions, or used similar construction methods.
And so opinion could change. Let's face it, even today a lot of people really LIKE those dark ages courses. They believe that the hole should all be right there in front of you, they like penal architecture, etc. It could be in a possible future that the weight of public opinion will turn against rough-edged bunkers, naturalistic tie-ins between a course and the surrounding landscape, etc. Perhaps a highly-manufactured, clearly artificial aesthetic will take over (this could be prompted by a need to create course that ARE artificial, with fake grass, etc.)
If we look back to a particular era and make a value judgement that they completely missed the boat, etc., we're just indulging in the same (very nomal, very human) kind of hubris that led them to look at the "Golden Age" courses of an earlier era and decide that they knew better.
Whew! Pontification over.