Rich
I do agree that golf courses do evolve and many improve with age. It would be ludicrous not to admit that - but on the other hand not all golf courses improve over time and not all changes are good. Every case is slightly different.
For example there are courses that were good from the beginning and that have been allowed to age gracefully. They have evolved with little of no outside interference, courses like Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock Hills, The Addington, Royal Melbourne, The Golf Club, Chicago and Franklin Park. Could it be argued that they may have been better at some early date, perhaps, but they are so good today that it would probably be more accurate to say they are simply older, softer, different?
There are courses that were excellent from the start that have not aged gracefully and have undergone major overhauls, courses like Scioto, Timber Point, Bel Air and ANGC. There are some that might argue they have been improved, but the majority of golf historians would disagree.
There are courses that were mediocre or good at the beginning and were steadily improved over the years into great courses, courses like Dornoch, Pebble Beach, Oakmont and Myopia Hunt. It might argued PBGL’s zenith was 1929, but it can’t be debated that the course today is miles better than when it was when it opened.
There are course that were excellent from the start that were excellent from the start but suffered from financial or maintenance difficulties – Pasatiempo and Banff come to mind. But because of current realities it is doubtful either will be able to recapture their past glory. Pinehurst #2 suffered terribly then was brought back.
There are courses that were excellent from the start that were victim of natural disaster, courses like the Olympic-Ocean and Sharp Park – and reality is they will never be the same or as good. I’m not sure where SFGC falls, a course that has aged gracefully and victim of man-made disaster, that hopefully might restore the lost golf in an evolved form.
And then there the odd balls like Ohio State or Lookout Mountain that for whatever reason were never fully completed and to complete them would greatly improve their over all quality.
And thankfully there are a number of courses that were very good from the start and didn’t age gracefully. Trees were allowed to encroach, interesting features were eliminated, greens shrunk, etc. But thanks to talented architects or in-house care these courses may actually be better today than the date in which was the target of their restoration. Course like NGLA, Skokie, Yeamans Hall, Crystal Downs, Fenway, Charles River, etc.
There are great number of other courses that could also be improved by the removal of trees, expansion of fairways and greens and reintroduction of lost features. Do they need to be completely restored to a mint condition so that every inch is the same, so that every irregular edge is recaptured – no. On the other hand if the course has been severely altered over the years and a skilled individual is able to recapture the original look – go for it. Otherwise a sympathetic restoration should match the evolved style. Admiring the past and trying to improve golf courses through sensitive restorations does not mean you want to freeze the golf course or prevent it from evolving naturally. I don’t know anyone who thinks they are sculpted from marble. But I also know that it is not as simple or cut and dried as you contend.