Rich:
You said:
"By this criterion, virtually all the changes to classic courses over the past 100 years have been "successful," as the fact that changes were made assumes de facto acceptance by the membership, even at clubs run as benevolent dictatorships."
I can't imagine why you'd say that!
Why would the fact that changes were made assume de facto acceptance by the membership? I can't imagine how many hundreds and thousands of changes made to golf courses over the years were not well accepted by memberships, and therefore were never successful, even if, they may have agreed to have them done!
My only point is that golf holes, golf architecture, has an interesting way of proving its worth, or not being able to prove its worth, and certainly over time, and lots of time! How can that fact not be generally obvious?
The fact is there were numerous changes made to GMGC over the decades (and obviously agreed to by the membership, in one way or another to have been able to get done) but they were definitely not successful with the membership over time! Many of them were never well liked and far from respected! That's what I would call "unsuccessful"!
Many changes to many holes never worked very well for them and were therefore not successful--they were never well liked or well respected as holes or architecture!
It just so happens that the changes made by Perry Maxwell did not fall into that category. Most all his changes have been extremely well respected and therefore have to be considered successful!! And isn't it just completely ironic and intersting that before 1999 when the design evolution booklet was written very few members knew who did what?
And that's one of the primary reasons the unsuccessful changes were selected by this committee to be restored back by Hanse as close to what they originally were as possible. The holes redesigned by Maxwell are being restored to the way Maxwell built them, not Ross! Hole #7 (the green-end) was the one exception to Maxwell's changes! It has not worked particularly well over the last 65 years!
How else can anyone reasonably look at anything to do with architecture? Time almost always tells the necessary tale.
Is Pat Mucci by the statement he made saying or implying that just because an original architect did something, anything, that it should remain and be accepted by the membership even if it's not working well for them, if they don't enjoy it, if it's not successful for them over time?
That's not realistic--it's not right! Any architecture will need to prove itself, it's worth, any architecture, and it will have to become successful as architecture with those who play it day in and day out no matter who originally designed and built it!
Of course, it's surely possible that architecture that memberships may have otherwise enjoyed has been changed when it shouldn't have been. That has also happened inumerable times, of course!
To prevent this from happening, necessary research needs to be done, education needs to be offered to memberhips concerning architecture, architectural prinicples, heritage etc, reasonableness needs to be created within clubs and memberships.
But often decisions are made, need to be made, and the idea is to make good ones, ones that will create or preserve architecture that is and will be successful among memberships.
Pat Mucci appears to be implying that good decisions, successful decisions, can never be made regarding changes to architecture by memberships!
I don't agree with that or believe it! As to whether a decision or change was good or bad, will always be known eventually--time and play will always supply the answer!