"If the 18th green at GCGC was substituted for the 13th green at NGLA it would be a better hole."
Patrick:
Maybe so. I don't know the 18th at GCGC well enough to compare them intelligently. But they aren't going to be substituted so what's your point other than to somehow rationalize softening #13?
"If you agree with that premise then you should support the softening of the rear shoulder, excluding for a minute, the domino theory"
Again, that statement is a real attempt to rationalize altering #13 and there's no purpose whatsoever to exclude your domino theory for a minute, a month, a year or ever.
I'm pretty certain Macdonald knew GCGC pretty well and if he wanted to make a hole at NGLA like the 18th at GCGC then he probably would've done so, but he didn't. Therefore none of us should try to do it today, even a little bit.
My suggestion for #13 if they think the rear section is too severe is to slow down the green speed a bit. I never found it too severe and I've been playing it at green speeds that're probably as fast as they get there.
Furthermore, having thought about the green expansion for a while, my take is if Macdonald did not have green space there or he removed it and put that bunker in there then the club should have left the hole the way Macdonald left it. Changing that hole from the way he left it is an example of your domino theory. Where is it going to stop? As you sometimes say---you can't have it both ways. I'm for the restoration of the way Macdonald left that golf course, nothing more. It was his legacy and that legacy should be restored and then preserved, permanently.
If one really does believe in true restoration and then true preservation, one can hardly find a better example in America to do it than Macdonald's NGLA. Is there a more significant course and architecture in the entire evolution of golf architecture in America? Probably not.