It's interesting how one discipline (playing good golf) can shed light on another discipline (building good golf courses) -- but only if we have our eyes open and are willing to see it.
I liked HT long before I knew anything about golf course architecture, and even before I started playing golf myself. Why? Because watching on tv as far back as 35 years ago, I'd hear the commentators say that HT was a 'shot-makers course', one that rewarded those who 'could work the ball both ways', a course where 'accuracy was more important than distance' and where you 'had to have a good short game' given the small targets; 'a grinder's course'.
And even for someone like me who knew almost nothing about gca and next to nothing about playing the game, that information was telling: the course seemed to be 'defining' what golf itself was all about, ie working the ball, making shots, getting up and down etc.
In other words -- though I didn't have the words for it back then -- the golf architecture at HT admirably fulfilled its No. 1 function: to serve as an engaging field of play for a game called golf.
And I would've been perfectly happy to leave it there -- and trust my own assessment of it -- for the rest of time, if it hadn't been for one well travelled architecture nerd throwing a monkey wrench into the equation by telling me that HT was actually built during 'the dark ages' of golf course architecture -- and then a bunch of other nerds saying its fairways were too narrow and it had too many trees!
Who were these guys? Did they never even watch golf on tv?!
PS
Tommy: great story and great photo. You fit right in -- if I didn't know, I'd guess you were the pro (is that Dr Cary Middlecoff, or Mike Reid?) and Arnold the amateur!