So what are people's thoughts on knowledge of course architecture being a useful tool in this game? Does it help you to create a more authentic course? Are you influenced by real life designers and how they did things? Or do you think it's irrelevant and it's better to just go with your imagination and disregard all theory?
Great question here, I think it's important to consider.
As a sort-of half-decent, still learning designer (if I might be so bold), I've been thinking a lot about this. Since I have a small platform here, I'll talk a little about my 'journey so far' as a designer.
First though, short answers to your questions in order: 1) It's useful, 2) Yes but depends on how we define "authentic", 3) both yes and no...I don't have a strong knowledge of designers but I'm absolutely influenced by real courses/holes, 4) theory is more important in this game than i ever could have imagined - for reasons i'll have to elaborate on further below.
When I first started designing, I thought - I've played a zillion (digital) courses, I appreciate good design, I'm going to take a shot at this. I had no specific education in design. I learned both the designer tools and how to design a course at the same time. It was hard. I knew I wanted a wide open, links course - but I didn't know why the courses were that way. I didn't take advantage of the links style to make my holes better - they're just wide. The angles of approach don't often matter. And I didn't understand any of that until later, after I started learning more about design. The best designed hole on that course (Edgemoor Castle, if anyone want's to play along, and I'm talking about the 14th) is a split fairway where the shorter route has a tougher path to the green over a bunker, the longer route has a good safe runup to the green. It's a well designed hole. It's the hole I was most proud of at the time, and I didn't even know why until later - but it's because it's the first hole where I actually designed both playablility into the hole, and the hole as a whole (hah) - all the pieces deliberately fit together. I firmly believe it's the best hole on the course.
Realizing now this may be better suited as a separate thread, but here we are.
My second course (Driftless Hills, if you're following along), I definitely had learned - on my own - some lessons about playability, about offering the player some choice. Sometimes off the tee, sometimes the second shot. I had started to internalize things like "how much of the dogleg do you want to bite off" and a "left side of the fairway offers a better shot than the right". However, I also made a big mistake (I now understand). I wanted the course to play a little tough....so it's got narrow fairways bounded by trees. The greens are (mostly) single sloped, and often not with any particular reason for that slope direction. The holes aren't coherently designed within themselves. It's not a bad course, and I'm proud of the look and feel - but it's definitely not a step forward in playability design for me. My favorite holes on that course are largely aesthetic favorites. I tore up 18 over and over, not really understanding how to improve it - just trying to make it 'fair' by throwing things at the wall until it stuck. It's the hardest hole on the course (by index) and I knew that it would be. It's too penal for missing on the drive - and that's after 4 revisions. The first version was absolutely unplayable. I later learned that the whole course is of the 'penal' design school, as well as the 'target golf' design philosophy. (hint, education matters right?) This is absolutely a factor of influence too - there are so many 'classic' american courses that are simply target courses. Most of the courses I've ever played on IRL are target courses, simply because they're municipal courses squeezed onto tiny lots. Accuracy, not playability, had sunk into my bones over time. But after this, I started to see the other options available...
The 14th on Edgemoor is better designed than any hole on Driftless, except maybe the 2nd.
Third course, just released (Roadrunner Mesa) - this is a gorgeous course, and I think I really nailed some aesthetic value here. But there are holes that I was absolutely flummoxed by how boring they were - I was finally recognizing the problems in my designs. The WCOD courses helped me understand the deficiencies too - there are some design masterpieces in there. I think there's some really well designed holes for playability - the 3rd, the 17th come to mind, the 13th too. But many of the others are merely, still, target holes. I ended the course frustrated with the playability of the course, especially after having played courses like Buck Club, Ramparts, Shelter Island, and Bandit Ridge. I haven't played all the courses, so there may be more gems, but holy cow those courses have some unbelievable hole designs. I thought to myself - can I make a course with a hole half as good as the median holes on those courses? How? How do I elevate my design?
Chatting with folks who watched me stream my design - thanks everyone who has! - I picked up, on multiple recommendations, Tom Doak's "Anatomy of a Golf Course". I'm about 75% through and it has really made me *THINK* about things. No joke, if you want to design better holes - that book is a great place to start. My next course is going to be 100% better for it.
Are we getting to the end of this screed? I dunno, let's find out.
So regarding your last question - Imagination vs. theory is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. I'll die on that hill if I have to. I strongly believe that designers in this game should feel free to be incredibly imaginative - fantasy courses should not be derided out of hand. And I think Tom Doak would agree! In many places in "Anatomy" he talks about designs that would be interesting, but don't really exist because of impracticality. For example, he talks about 2 separate greens for a hole as being a really interesting way to get a hole to play very differently at different times, but they don't exist because of maintenance and space concerns. In the digital world, we shouldn't feel as pressured - if we accept fantasy elements in our courses as OK - by these limitations. He talks about too much elevation being prohibitive to walking the course - we don't have to worry about that! Play with crazy things! Go nuts with elevations, try donut greens, try 2 greens for one hole, multiple fairways, crazy bunker shapes and sizes - do it all. Go nuts. Doak shows holes in the book as examples that I want to learn from - I don't know their specific designers (he cites them but I don't pay much attention), but I'm absolutely influenced by these holes, and understanding why they are what they are.
But here's the thing - understand what these features offer your course. To understand that, you have to learn some theory, either by book or by experience. To push the limits, to think outside the box, we have to understand where the limits are and what the box looks like.
I guess you can say I think a lot about this. I do. And I hope that comes across in my course designs now and in the future, as I learn more about theory and how to marry it to my imagination. I'll get off my soapbox now.