Thank you, Ran and Mr. Ross
Mr Ross - I found it interesting that so much of your thinking revolved around the testing of good play in general, and was not framed specifically in terms of the enjoyment of/challenge for the scratch vs the average golfer. I find this refreshing, and a bracing corrective to our modern day tendency to level the playing field (literally) lest a beginning/unskilled golfer start blaming the architect for his failings instead of himself.
You mention the need for accuracy and sound thinking and fine ball striking (for example, with long irons); and you note that the penalities for poor play should be clear and definite (i.e. exact a toll), while not precluding the chance for recovery via an exceptionally good shot; and it is clear that the contours with which you enliven your greens are also meant was challenges that simply must be met.
Again, in all this you seem to make no distinction between the wants/needs/abilities of the scratch vs the average golfer, given that everything that you ask of the golfer applies equally to all golfers. The game of golf, you seem to suggest, has always been and should always continue to be first and foremost a test -- a varied and sometimes cerebral and often enjoyable test, no doubt, but a test nonetheless.
Indeed, your only nod to our modern-day mantra about a golf course having to be playable and enjoyable by all/all skill levels is your attempt to provide for alternate routes to the green -- i.e. one route for the skilled golfer (or to use your words, 'long hitter') and a different route for the less skilled one (or, in your words, the 'short hitter'). But even then, you give the less skilled golfer no easy pass, and no notion that somehow the field of play should act for him as an equalizer -- for as you note: the alternate route will require three shots to reach the green, while the standard route only two.
Again, this is quite refreshing, and perhaps not in keeping with what many of us moderns believe you intended to do/create with your courses. After reading this interview, I now believe that as an architect you were as stern, direct and no nonsense as your Scottish heritage, buttoned-down attire and professorial mien would suggest!
Sadly to say, runaway technology has perhaps dulled the knife-edge of the many such tests you created, and left some of us with the impression of you as the kindly old grandfather of professional golf course architecture, happy to somehow have the casual hack enjoy that test as much as his more skilled and dedicated opponent, and even have a chance to beat him head to head.
Thank you again
Peter