Mark,
I don't think I ever said Tom Doak restored ACCC (formerly known as CCAC). I remarked about his changes and improvements, hardly terms used in restorations.
From flat fairways and approaches to contours was a significant improvement. The fact that fill taken from the hollowed out areas were used elsewhere makes the form that followed function an enhancement.
I've been most everywhere in the clubhouse. There are numerous portrait photographs, I didn't see anything like the number of photographs of the course and design you referred to. I guess they were moved or removed. Of what I saw, there was nothing to help guide a restoration/renovation process.
It seems clear from talking to people that should know that there were some definite things the owners wanted done. I was not privy to much information so how can I comment in a worthwhile manner? On their own merits, do I like the changes made to holes 10 (no), the removal of the old 11th (not sure), changes to the old 12th-current 11th (yes), current 12th (I think so), lengthening of the 13th (yes), new 14th (I think not) and changes to 18 (yes)?
Tom MacWood, what do you think of these changes? Would you have kept things intact? The need to raise the fairways on the back nine was a primary factor in a lot that was done. What of the environmental issues and tradeoffs that were necessary?
Tom Doak's decisions were, from my perspective, excellent. I think it impossible to restore to the point Tom MacWood would consider Flynn. Frankly, it was wise not to, even if he could. The golf course plays better than it did. It is more interesting and works better agronomically.
The fact also remains that Tom Doak can do more than Flynn could regarding grading and engineering in 1922. A man like Flynn would, in my opinion, make use of everything available to him to make the best course he could. Tom Doak's work fits in very well with this method of operation.