Great point about Donald Ross, Ran. I wholeheartedly agree that he was very, very successful nearly always, regardless of the natrual characteristics of a site.
On great sites, Ross utilized most all of the best natrual golf features. And on poorer sites, he create great holes still.
To comparison, I will say that Stanley Thomspon worked on diverse sites throughout Canada during his career. But, whereas Capilano, Banff, Jasper and Highlands Links are outstanding, Thompson doesn't have an "Essex (Windsor, Ontario, Canada)" on his resume like Ross. In other words, a course that began with nothing: a featureless property, and is today, at more than seventy years old, still functional, enjoyable and exciting for all calibers of players.
I think Ross' talents really stood-out when he was dealing with less than promising ground.
As Dr. Mackenzie put it, "The test of a good golf architect is the power of converting bad inland material into a good course, and not the power of fashioning excellent seaside material into a mediocre one."
Therefore, yes, I do believe that the hallmark of the great architects is measured by their work on "less than ideal" terrain.
*See Donald Ross and Bill Coore, for example.