Oh yes they do. If a guy with a badge saying "system architect" looks blank on low-level issues then he is not an architect, he is a business-analyst who went on a course. He will probably wax lyrical on all things high-level and "important". He will produce lovely object hierarchies without a clue to implementation. He will have a moustache and play golf. Okay that last bit might not be true ;).
Richard, you have a true statement. The only way an architect can realize a benefit of a given design is by doing some coding. However, I would not use the term "architect" so generically. There are many kinds of architects in the technology industry. For example, I have come across security architects, program architects (responsible for overall very large projects), network architects. I think the best term to use is NonCodingApplicationArchitectsSuck?.
Name too long IMO.
This is just ArchitectsDontCode. Delete or refactor?
Delete. This is ranting, not a meaningful contribution to any useful discussion.MythicalManMonth has what is still probably the best treatment of the proper role of an architect on a software project. (And it doesn't advocate ArchitectsDontCode or ArchitectsPlayGolf).
CategoryRant, and useless to boot