Tom MacWood:
You don't have to explain your point to any of us again. We do understand what you're saying, at least I do. It's not that I don't understand your point it's simply that I (and probably a number of others) don't really agree with it. In general and in theory of course we agree with much of what you're driving at but the fact is when a club is undergoing even a restoration project they do have to get into some areas of design and architecture that are more actual than your theoretical take on things.
To be specific, I think we all agree with you that adding tee length to a hole where it can be done easily is generally a non-invasive thing to do architecturally. In some cases that's simply not possible, though, so what's to be done to bring a hole like that up to the expected standard of strategic concept and/or shot value it once was and was designed to be? You tell us! That kind of thing is probably the specifics of where some of us disagree with you, even if this is on courses you consider in that category of great and untouchable. This is where we talk about the idea of improvement which you appear to reject even in prinicple. None of us really like to get into touching the mid-body of a great holes architecture but if the hole has zero elasiticity what's to be done--you tell us. If you reply just leave it alone completely in some state of strategic, concept and shot value obsolesence, I'm afraid that's not just unrealistic, it's actually unacceptable. That's sort of taking your eye off the ball on what's at the base of truly great architecture in the first place. Every golf hole has to constantly pass some kind of "play test" that some refer to as "passing the test of time". That means, in play, if you're not aware of that.
The fact is, in my opinion, you're simply too oblivious to what club memberships want to do to maintain the playability of their golf course which logically can include all their holes. You say why should they care about what some local pro does there or about some qualifier or tournament or such.
That's not the way it is in most all clubs, Tom, and one of these days you'll probably have to come to realize that or just continue to be considered by some of us to be the unrealistic purist dreamer we believe you are in some cases.
The point here is that almost all these clubs that are classics and considered to be great or once were do have a contingent of players in their memberships who are good players and like any other member they want to be considered in how the course plays for them! On could probably make the point that this is even truer with those courses that were and are considered great! This group in most every club is not insignificant and cannot be disregarded as you seem to think they should be in the name of your perscription for preserving great architecture.
In my opinion, as long as you continue to set your self apart as a type of academic or purist architectural analyst who refuses to take seriously these realities we will always probably have these differences of opinions. It's too bad you haven't been or can't be involved in some of these projects from the perspective of a club membership as some of us have been.
At the very least it does give anyone a dose of the realities of this stuff---something I don't think you have. The sad thing to me is you don't seem to even want to acknowledge it, and to me that's not living or thinking in the real world. It's dreaming, the very thing many of us have always accused you of doing and probably will continue to.
Perhaps you actually think your purpose would be served better if you do stay above the fray of the inevitable realities of these things that go on in every club and course that goes through even a restoration project. But one can never avoid that fray if you actually get involved which you don't seem to ever want to do. That's fine by me, but you should learn to acknowledge reality if you want to be an effective golf architecture analyst, in my opinion.
So, I think we understand your postion on all this just fine, at least I think I do, and you should understand ours. As far as agreeing, that's not so important, in my book.