"Since when does "style" need to evolve ?
One's artistic/architectural "style" is what makes their courses unique. Why should there be a need to change it ?"
Artists evolve, engineers repeat. What artist limited himself to the same narrowly constrained output all the time? That isa more in the mode of a craftsman, not an artist. I will grant you that Raynor and Banks were craftsmen. Here's where Tom MacWood's argument might have some merit 
"A deviation from that style might result in a devolution of the product."
It might devolve if the talent wasn't up to speed. It also might just evolve into something better if given a chance. They didn't give it a chance. I don't infer that they didn't have talent to do something different. I simply recognize that they did not evolve. That's open to interpretation."Wayne, that's sheer nonsense.
The aesthetics at Westhampton, The Knoll, The Creek, Piping Rock, Yale, NGLA and others are terrific, if not spectacular.
How can you posture that any of those courses are lacking in aesthetics ? It's simply NOT TRUE."
I never said that there was a lack of aesthetics. That was the conclusion you jumped to. I merely said that it was an aesthetic that I do not appreciate as much as other architects. There is a lack of variety and naturalism. The majority of the examples you cite are where Macdonald was in complete control or worked with Raynor (Creek, Piping Rock, Yale and NGLA). I've stated in the past that Macdonald's talent exceeded that of Raynor and Banks."The holes and more importantly, the subject of this thread, the routings, work marvelously, with NO internal flaws, such as crossovers.
You may or may not remember all of the criticism that Atlantic took with respect to the crossovers. Poster after poster was commenting that crossovers were an indication of a flawed routing. If crossovers are deemed by the cognoscenti to be a routing flaw, especially multiple crossovers, then the object of that criticism, as it related to Atlantic, must be applied to Flynn's work at Lehigh and others.
His crossovers must be considered a routing flaw.
The Cognoscenti have spoken and we must listen."
If the Cognoscenti have spoken then they are an ass and are not to be listened to (forgive my literary license). First of all, the crossovers you mention of Flynn and Wilson that are FLAWS are not crossovers in the line of play. You walk past one tee to get to another. In two cases downhill and in one case slightly uphill. The members know how to deal with these crossovers and there is such little imposition that it is not worth considering unless you are grasping at straws.
What you fail to reflect is the improvement one gets in creating these tee crossovers. Without the 13 green to 14 tee crossover on such a narrow site as Merion East, you couldn't have a course. Would you scrap the course as is and move elsewhere? Heck, even your illustrious pair of Macdonald and Whigham liked the site. Some would argue that they were instrumental in the design or routing. They are wrong, but let them have their flights of fancy. Without the 2 green to 3 tee crossover, you wouldn't have the three act play and you'd have an even more awkward crossover with its steep climb from 3 green to 8 tee and the possible impact on tee shots on the 4th hole.
Without the crossover from 2 green behind 18 tee and 17 green at Lehigh you wouldn't have that wonderful outside-inside routing with the interesting way the wind effects play, something I know you appreciate. If you really thought about it, instead of being critical, you'd see the merits of the crossovers. They are brilliant solutions achieving outstanding improvements on the routing progression at Lehigh and enabled a great course to be built at Merion. Perhaps Raynor would have looked at the land and passed since he was so narrowly defined by the convention of another and lacked the artistic ability to see out-of-the-box solutions. "Would you identify the highly engineered "look" at Westhampton? I'd like to know where to find it."
Cheese and Crackers, Pat. All you have to do is start with the second hole with the uniformly level circular berm all around the green. Or did a meteor land on that spot and naturally created the feature? If so, I give Raynor credit for realizing that natural feature merited a green inside the crater rim.
How about the Biarritz? Is that linear swale au naturel as well?"You've described SR's work as having a highly engineered "look", yet, the look you allude to doesn't exist in the golfer's eye.
It's your way of predisposing an opinion."
So you won't answer my question about how Raynor (who was initially awarded the commission) would have differed in his approach to Cypress Point? I'm not surprised. Do you think his linear bunkers with their flat bottoms, geometric green shapes and perched features would have looked as good as MacKenzie's natural style? I certainly don't think so and I believe you don't either, which is why you objected to answer my leading question.
What would Fisher's Island look like if it was completed? It looks more natural because he wasn't finished with it, all but one fairway bunker was never implemented. "I'd also like you to tell me how Flynn would have designed and routed Lido, Yale and NGLA. To state that he'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC would be a foolish response."
I'd be happy to, especially if it helps you to understand why my question about Cypress Point wasn't foolish. He'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC 
Lido-consider Indian Creek, just as much an engineering feet. Indian Creek was built with fill from the Bay to a perfectly level height of 3'. Every contour and elevation above that, up to 35' in height was directed by Flynn. Almost no one can tell that it was man-made.
Yale-consider Cascades, a more difficult golf course to build--by far. Streams had to be moved, including one that emptied a 25 square mile area of mountains. 300 yard ridges were removed, fairway areas were raised and drainage considered on the low valley area between large mountains. Yet it looks like the golf course was laid on the ground and not the ground laid around the golf course, even as great as Yale is.
NGLA-consider Shinnecock Hills. Much more in harmony with the surrounds even if the 7th green pops out above ground. Suppose the membership loved a Redan feature and implored Flynn to design one. He certainly would not have kept the original Redan, it would've stuck out like a sore thumb. The relatively primitive bunker style would have been a dead giveaway. Flynn designed other Redan-like greens at Huntingdon Valley and Philadelphia Country. These, like the one at SHGC had abrupt rises to the green with narrow openings. These were aerial approach holes and not ground/aerial option designs. I never said everything Flynn did was natural and I never said everything Raynor did was unnatural. Just because we are not dealing in absolutes doesn't mean there isn't a point to be made."What's so spectacular about the sites above the Hudson?"
Are you serious, Pat. Take a glance at the overlook and one can only come to the conclusion that it is among the prettiest views in America. If this is the sort of counterargument you have, you aren't well armed for this fight. "Wayne, the next time you're at Shinnecock, don't skip # 7.
If you think that hole is more in harmony with the surrounds than Raynor's and Bank's work you're deluding yourself.
The same can be said of # 17 and many other holes.
You're blind to Flynn's artificial work but have 20-20 vision when it comes to the same work by SR and CB."
I already addressed your point about #7. As for the 17th, how was/is that so artificial looking? The bunkering? Yeah, they could have been straight lines with perfectly flat bottoms. That would have tied in better to the surrounds.
"How does Morris County have a "severe" style ?
Essex County ?
The Knoll ?
Westhampton ?
Piping Rock ?
The Creek ?
Fisher's Island ?
CC of Fairfield ?"
Sorry, Pat. If you don't know by now, I cannot help you."Most appreciate Flynn's work, but, don't try to differentiate it from CBM-SR-CB by demeaning their style and work."
It is differentiated whether you accept the fact or not. I am being critical of the style of Raynor and Banks, much less so of Macdonald. Their style is different and radically so. It is the most identifiable style of any architect and is site independent for the most part. If that is demeaning, so be it. I don't think so. Despite other protests, I think it is a fascinating subject and worthy of discussion. They built terrific golf courses. To most it is all encompassing. To me, it is limited to playability and shot interest.