Jonathan - Don't be so patronizing, my boy.
Your stopwatch "test" in no way justifies the comments you made above. The Virginia courses may have long stretches between some of the holes, so what. Do you know why? Have you talked with Mike about the reason for the distances between holes? Have you, at least, read the interview with Mike on this web site? Evidently not. Here is an excerpt from the interview:
Question: Were the long walks between holes at Royal New Kent and Stonehouse unavoidable?
Answer: In short, yes. It must be remembered that both Royal New Kent and Stonehouse are real estate development golf courses and that when combined with the existing contours at both sites, it was pretty much a given that we would not have short distances between all the golf holes.
I can only think of ONE hole that requires substantial travel distance at True Blue and that is the trip from the 15th green to the 16th tee... but, there is a reason the distance is necessary... there is a condo complex in the way! And the trip to the 16th tee does not make True Blue any less of a golf course. If you think that trip to the 16th tee justifies your comments you need to find a different avocation and stop evaluating golf courses, post-haste.
The only "test" I need when I play a new golf course is whether or not I find the creation to be interesting, attractive, challenging, creative and fun. If there is some unusual feature to it, like long distances between some of the holes, I try to consider why the designer made this choice... and I give him the benefit of the doubt since he was there from the beginning and had to deal with the constraints with which he was presented.
I state again, your comments about Mike's courses are erroneous and I challenge you to back up any of your criticisms with factual examples. Let's use True Blue as our test case. Where on True Blue did you find infinite acreage, expansive vistas, overcooked and improbable green complexes, and hopeless lines of attack?