Tom:
It seems to me what you are, or are swiftly becoming is a major golf architecture "bowdlerizer" (if you don't know what that is--it is in the dictionary). I admit, you may only be that in the singular area of what you consider to be really classic golf architecture and courses, but nevertheless.....
That attitude fits in very nicely on this website with some of the purist and preservationist sensibilities of many of Golfclubatlas's contributors. I more than support those sensibilities, as I'm sure you must be aware.
However, I'd never want to take it as far as you seem to be doing or wish to do. And that's why I see you as a serious classic golf architecture bowdlerizer.
And what I mean by that is your attitude seems to be that since some, or perhaps even so many cannot be trusted to do the right thing with some classic golf architecture that something should be done to prevent ANYONE from ever trying! To me that denys and restricts one of the most interesting aspects of all golf architecture---eg free and imaginative thought to look at it, play it and continue to make it as good as it can be!
Some of the things you and others say and imply on here seem somewhat akin to me to what happened in Salem Mass during their notorious "witch hunts". I'm tiring of endlessly hearing on here that almost everyone in these clubs are large out of control egos with personal agendas who must be stopped at all costs. Some on here have even accused some of those responsible at some classic courses as being something like the "Devil", or some other truly evil person!
While that certainly happens, wouldn't it be better, more prudent and more benefical in the long run to identify those who aren't that way, who don't do that and how and why the processes they use can make golf courses, and even classic golf courses and their architecture and maintenance and management practices even better while at the same time preserving them to look and be played as they were originally intended to be at their best? That doubtless takes a good deal of competent research, thought and execution with the goal in mind to preserve much of what an original architect may have been trying to ultimately accomplish. Many of us on here seem to know what that was on many classic courses with many of their original architects, although, again, it's safe to assume not all those, or even the majority of those who control clubs understand those things.
That's precisely what collaboration, education and advice and advocacy can accomplish!
Furthermore, on the subject of something like the second half of NGLA's 9th hole "through the green", it really does disturb me sometimes (as it does Pat Mucci sometimes) when you gratuitously say these things and promote this kind of "bowderizing" attitude about the particulars of certain holes on certain courses when you've never even been to these courses much less played those holes the numerous times it takes to begin to understand some of the things I'm talking about here.
(I really doubt that Pat Mucci, who does know NGLA would disagree with the fact that the second shot on NGLA's #9 is pretty mundane and something as simple as a narrow diagonal bunker scheme could make it so much more interesting. It appears to me from some original drawings I saw recently in Southampton that Macdonald may have been planning something like that on that portion of that hole. If he had would you still say this should never be considered?)
If you're so interesting in classic architecture, are you aware of the architectural process and principle of how historic structures can be altered or improved? That involves making whatever changes are made in such a way that if it's necessary or prudent to undo those changes the chances be made in such a way as to be able to UNDO them with ease and return them to what they were before! The reason I mention this process or prinicple is if the 9th hole was improved by such a bunker scheme and it turned out not to be an improvement putting that area of that hole back to the fairway it now is would be a snap! The improvement therefore fits in well with the accepted method of altering a classic building, for instance!
Your architectural sensibilities of preservation for certain architecture and courses are good--I support them. I just don't support the way you appear to be suggesting it should be gone about (your extreme approach to preservation)!
You seem to be forgetting that any golf course is a playing field to interact with a game now and in the future. In this way all golf architecture differs from some ulta historic building either on the outside or inside or some work of art such as the present preservation context of something like the Mona Lisa.
This would seem to be a major distinction between some of the analogies both generally and specifically you come up with. I don’t think, no matter how famous and respected some of this classic architecture becomes that any prudent mind would consider it could not be improved in various sensitive and sensible ways (if it's fairly clear it may not be functioning particularly effectively as is) and still keep it’s historic and classic value. Not unless you’re also proposing that some of these courses be shut down to play and the challenges, interest and enjoyments thereof--so they can henceforth just be viewed like some other un-interactive works of art. That’s where you’re going if you take this preservationist idea of yours to too much of an extreme, which seems to be near where you already are.
Just because some idiots somewhere else ruin architecture does not mean everyone will , and how to prevent that with the thought to everlasting improvement are the processes we’d be better served discussing on here!