Just to be devil's advocate, then....
Looking at play in US Opens for instance, I think that the Woods/Mediate duel in 2008 was an example of stirring play during a national championship -- if not THE most stirring. Certainly a memorable Open for the play itself, no question.
Yet, you certainly can't say that Torrey Pines is anywhere near to being a architecturally pleasing Open venue. We would all agree that it absolutely is not on the same planet as Oakmont, Shinnecock, Merion, Winged Foot, Pebble, etc. You could also make the statement that the architecture of TP did nothing to affect/enhance/detract from play during that 2008 Open -- in other words that it was an architectural non-entity.
So if emphasis on play is the thing, why do we even need great holes or great golf architecture? I submit that for many -- and certainly many on this site -- "experience", meaning interaction with the architecture, is at least as important as the play itself.