I'm intrigued by the comments in this thread. Many of the responses are geared toward themes. Some of it is maintenance related, sometimes it's theory. Many of the topics discussed in this thread are themes which have been mentioned in countless other threads on this site, which I think is ultimately a great testament to how much this site allows us to explore architecture.
In April I reached the 1 year anniversary of working for my current golf course contractor, so the comments of Don Mahaffney stuck out to me:
I've learned that the old saying, form follows function, is no longer the way it is. In modern golf design and const it is, only once the function is 100% guaranteed do we start to think about form.
What makes the great courses great is that form works seamlessly with function. They don't have wet spots. They're designed to exemplify the abilities of the maintenance crew while stimulating the mind. This presents itself in different ways. Sometimes its on the great tracks where they're able to shave fairway edges directly to the start of the bunker. On others it's through the emphasis of ground contours as opposed to artificial hazards (be it a bunker/lake etc.) Before I only saw form, now I see more so than I ever have how form and function work together.
But if I had to pin down a few things, and these views may change as I continue working in this industry:
1. More attention is paid to details (like how a bunker is shaped and edged) than you could possibly imagine
2. Our ability to measure grades is both a blessing and a curse, as the architect who is able to appreciate that more significantly contoured greens can do so while being assured that playable areas are still indeed playable, so that greens don't have to be rebuilt in the future. Others are more sucept to building flat greens. Particularly true with greens committees concerned with creating enough pin positions.
3. Proper tree management is becoming far more mainstream than many on this site would lead you to believe, at least in the view of architects.
4. You cannot underestimate the number of things that can come up which are not expected prior to the project.
5. It is more important that an architect understands what can be done in the dirt with a piece of equipment than what he is able to do with it himself, and that he is able to describe what he is looking for to the people doing the work.
To reiterate the 5th and final point here, many of the guys I work with are remarkably good at their jobs and have years of experience on the pieces of equipment they are running. I could spend the next 10 years working on Bulldozers and shaping, and I don't know if I could create finish work as good as what the guys I work with are able to do. It's because they've spent their lives working on them. For example, one of our bunker finishing guys is incredible on an excavator. He has a remarkably well trained eye and his work is some of the best I have ever seen. I would trust another one of our guys on a sandpro far more than I would trust myself. On a dozer, both of them have decades of experience and would be able to execute my vision far better than I would myself. I firmly believed entering this industry that being able to shape everything on a dozer is critical, when in reality, it's more important to conceptually understand what it takes to get what you're looking for and having someone (whether it is yourself or another shaper) who can execute that vision.