Lou,
I'm going to do a separate thread on the restoration/renovation question, but suffice it to say that I've done a little research and major changes were made to the course throughout the 1920s and thereafter, leaving the question, what to restore?
I agree with Shelly that there is a lot of golf course there. In fact, even in its present state it is not an easy course, with a course rating of 72.4 and slope of 136 from 6600 yards. It is 5800 yards from the forward tees (there are only 2 sets), which is a lot of course for many women. Therefore, I think the course needs is a set of forward tees to bring design elements on a number of holes into play for them. IT is also popular. All but the lowest handicaps usually play whichever course is least crowded.
Technology appears to have made the course too short in many places for the best players. Thus, I also think a set of back tees would also be a good idea. I'm told that an appropriate set could bring the course to a little over 7000 yards.
As to fundamental changes, I know you didn't like it much, but IMHO it has 4 outstanding holes - 6, the 360 yd par 4 with the volcano/fortress green with huge falloffs (and where you hit it in "the kitchen" 30 feet below the green); 7, the roller-coaster par 5 with the hugely sloping greensite (I don't think you liked the blind second shot); 9, 435 par 4 which was originally the 18th hole of our old course 2, and resembles the old 18 at Oak Hill with the green set back from the hill; and 12, the 210 par-3 with the green perched on top of a hill and the possibility of putting off the front of the green and watching the ball roll 25 feet down to the bottom of the hill.
The course also has several very good holes, being, IMHO, 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 17 and 18 (the last marred mostly by the fact that it resembles 9 too much). At most, new tees and redone bunkers for some of these.
Given that I think 11 holes are very good or great, it is hard to justify any kind of complete redo. I hope that any changes to these holes beyond necessary maintenance efforts (including rebuilding very old bunkers) and some tees to these holes would be very carefully considered.
There are also several pretty unique holes people love or hate, like 5, 8, 15, 16. Most of these holes have unusual greens or odd slopes, and certain changes might be considered. For instance, 5 used to be a par-4 and now is 215 yd par 3 with a very unusual, sloping green (to the left front) that can't really be seen and isn't really on the right angle to the tee. Moving the tee to the left would increase visibility, bring a bunker into play and give players options. A forward tee could also be built on the same line.
Finally, there are holes that could use help, mostly set in the flatter part of the course. 3 is a par-3 that doesn't do much. It was originally completely blind, with the green hidden behind a hill, but was redone 1925 because the members then hated it. Now, it is too far from a creek to bring that in play, and has one of the flatter greens on the course. 4 is a slightly uphill, straight 500 yard par 5, where you can't see what your aiming at on the 2nd shot. It has a good fairway extension green with a big slope to the right. When the greens are fast (you should have seen it this sunday), you must be on the correct side of the fairway to stay on the green. However, until you get to the green not much happens. 13, a shorter par 4, is similar, being a flat hole with a sloping fairway extension green.
Given the bones to the course I see, I would fight any sort of complete redo. Killing 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17 and others would be a shame. One other note. The greens here are generally significantly firmer and faster than those on the North, possibly because they've been there so long, and the North ones were planted with L93 in 2001 or so. Tons of fun to play.
Obviously, I welcome thoughts from anyone who'se played the place (Shel, when are you coming out again??). THIS MEANS YOU TOO LOU!
Jeff Goldman