TBJ,
I'll be happy to answer you questions with my opinions.
You mentioned maintenance practices over the years and it's true that ANGC has now become perhaps the world's largest arboretum and stunning display of man's control of organic plant material. The dollars involved to do so are impressive, I'm sure.
With less sophisticated irrigation in the past, I would only assume that the course played very firm and fast. We know that ANGC always had very little rough and wide fairways to accommodate all players (consistent with Mackenzie's philosophy), yet the green orientation always made the course strategic.
The current practice of growing rough, planting trees, and narrowing fairways is diametrically opposed to the original philosophy, even if the course can be given a better haircut along the fairways and greens than in years past. I've even heard rumors of over-watering landing areas in an effort to control distance.
So yes, maintenance is more controlled, but is it better?
The focus on Fazio is simply because he is the man on the job at the moment. I've read tons of criticisms here concerning previous changes by Jones, Nicklaus, and others, so please don't feel that Mr. Fazio is being singled-out for changes to Mackenzie's design. That cat's been out of the bag for many years now.
There may be additional focus on Tom Fazio simply because he seems to be the guy that a lot of classic courses are going to for recreations/revisions/restorations/modernizations or whatever euphemism you prefer. I'm sure he's honored to take work from these clubs.
However, his own personal philosophy, expressed in writing in his own book, seems to feature a curious disdain for classic courses and architecture in general. His work at classic courses could hardly be called a sympathetic restoration, by any measure.
And you're correct...the membership DOES drive the process, but don't let the architect off that easy! I know other architects who've flat out refused to work on or significantly revise certain courses because they didn't want to tamper with something really good or classic.
That doesn't seem to happen in this case, however. Mr. Fazio doesn't seem to see any courses out there that couldn't be improved with his creative hand.
As far as grass types, I'm not sure why we're arguing about that. Personally, I prefer Bermuda in hot climates, and I would think the original green contours aren't meant for the silly speeds that are used to "defend par" in the Masters. 13 or 14 on the stimp is goofy golf, and the bent grass greens need to live on intensive care to survive the weather. Once again, it's a case of the Augusta Syndrome creating a tough image for other courses in the south whose members now also want bent grass.
As far as growth of trees and vegetation, is not part of the maintenance of any course the job of controlling that growth to acceptable levels consistent with the architectural intent of the golf course?
Is planting more trees in playing areas consistent with that approach?
I can't argue against "flood control" and still be considered a reasonably sane individual, but I'll ask once again...do you think that the damming of Rae's Creek has anything to do with the water control problem??
Is 270 so awful as a winning score? If technology continues unabated, perhaps we'll be talking about 260 in ten years.
My friend, the problem isn't the golf course. The problem is that the distances have increased dramatically in recent years and no one has taken the lead in providing an answer.
So yes...we can make the course 8,000 yards, but it won't be a better course or more exciting tournament.
Tom Fazio seems to be under the impression that he is providing the antidote to a sick patient. The problem is, the wrong problem is being addressed, and all the stopgap distance measures in the world added to all the courses in the world will not make for a better game, more interesting or exciting golf, or anything remotely beneficial.
It will only add $$$ and time to a game that is already to expensive and takes too long.