Tom MacWood, TEPaul, et. al.,
There's an acceptable or ideal balance between being a purist and being pragmatic.
Donald Ross didn't leave Pinehurst # 2 in it's original form.
He altered it for 26 years. Of modern courses, Friar's Head has already been altered from its original form.
If parties other then those involved with the above two courses had made the identical changes, would that have somehow diminished the "value added" to the original golf course ?
Is the quality of the revised golf course diminished in those examples ?
However, in general, I side with Tom MacWood.
I'm opposed to altering a golf course that hasn't been previously altered because I don't have the confidence that the parties doing the altering know what they're doing, and secondly, it initiates the domino snydrome with respect to future alterations that will eventually lead to the disfiguration of the golf course and the loss of the original, distinctive, design integrity, which I feel must be preserved.
With respect to lengthening or invoking the principles of elasticity, in general, I don't have a problem with that, although there are specific lengthenings that I don't agree with.
The problem is that in most cases a single individual is helpless to stem the tide of change when a club decides to alter their golf course.
If a club is bent on altering their golf course, unless you're within the power base, it's difficult to exert any influence on the project. And, even when you're within the power base, if you're out voted, there's little you can do.
It's akin to a huge tanker ship going in the wrong direction, momentum alone overcomes attempts to change it's course, and so it is with golf course projects that are going in the wrong direction.
Can hole be improved ? Sure, but who decides ?
And who decides on HOW to improve the hole ?
All too often it's member driven.
Changes to golf courses are often performed by memberships that are transient in nature, and, in most cases, it's a select element within the transient membership that decides to alter the golf course. And, it's that process that causes me to oppose change in general.
Where a hole has been altered, serious thought should be given to restoring it. The original and current hole should be evaluated, as should alternatives, with a bias toward a restoration.
The problem with all of these projects is the process.
The genesis of the concept to alter the golf course,
the composition of the committee, the politics and the funding. And that's where being pragmatic may trump being a purist. It may be that the purist is right, but outvoted.
If that's the case, then the purist should try to divert that tanker as best he can, attempting to get the alteration as close to his purist views as possible. It's not the ideal solution, but it is the practical solution.
In most cases, the purist is viewed as an extemist, along with his views. The purist will be in direct conflict with the "modernizers" and will almost always be outvoted, if not ostracized.
If one looks at the alterations that golf courses have undergone over the last 60 years, I think many could be classified as disfigurations, with very few being viewed as major improvements, and with the odds so high that a course will lose its distinctive architectural integrity, why would you risk endorsing any changes ?
I prefer the purist view, with fine tuning, and always preserving the distinctive design integrity of the original architect.
That doesn't mean a hole or a course can't be improved,
but, why play Russian Roulette on a continuing basis, with the golf course ?