Pat:
You're absolutely right I've stated that NGLA should not be touched architecturally!
And I've also stated on here a number of times that I consider ONLY one area of NGLA to be weak architecturally--the second shot on #9!
Does that sound inconsistent? You're darn right it does!
So let me explain why I have said both (which appears inconsistent).
I'll preface my entire explanation by saying that, in my opinion, if any course in America deserves not to be touched at all ever, even if it has an area or two that is weak (to some players), it would probably be NGLA! So if NGLA recognized that the second shot to #9 is weak and still decided never to do anything about it, never to touch the golf course in any way, that would be OK with me!!
The particular reason I said recently that NGLA does not need to be touched is because my response on that was to a recommendation to alter other things--particularly the tee length on #18 (which, as you said would probably require moving the Gate and the drive to make architectural sense)!
I simply think, as I've stated many times, that if the club believes that particular hole really is too reachable by good and strong players and that's a concern to them for some reason, a far better solution to me (than moving the gate, drive and tees) would be to make the hole a par 4 (assuming that they're correct and the hole really is too reachable in two).
All this takes into consideration that NGLA is a very lucky golf course in that they have some available par NUMBERS to play with here! Three par NUMBERS to be exact (since NGLA is a par 73!) on holes #5, #7, #18! And I'm only talking about par numbers now, not holes. But NGLA is doubly lucky, in my opinion because those three par NUMBERS just happen to fall on three par 5s that could easily and effectively be turned into long par 4s without doing a thing to any of them architecturally--not a thing!! In other words all three of those holes could transition perfectly into great long par 4s (by tee marker placement only) which is definitely NOT true of all par 5s or even all the par 5s on NGLA!
#9, it don't really think would transition at all well into a good long par 4 for a whole host of reasons! So that hole alone would be the best candidate to remain only a par 5 if some really strong players came to the course!
But with the other three par 5s (#5, #7, #18 ) NGLA has the flexibility (and even the luxury) of calling their course a par 72, 71 or even 70!) by simply calling any or all of those holes par 4s and doing nothing to them architecturally (except adjusting tee markers)! All they'd need to do is set the tee markers correctly and reasonably and have score cards printed for the course of 72, 71 or 70 depending on what the occasion was!
So that's the primary reason I've said that NGLA shouldn't or doesn't need to be touched architecturally! The course's architecture doesn't need it at all, in my opinion, and any concern I can see with the shortness of #5, #7, & #18 can be dealt with simply by dropping their pars individually or collecively! Again, there's no architectural change necessary in that case!!
But the second shot on #9 is entirely different! Again, in my opinion, in the opinions of a few people on this thread, and numerous others I've spoken with over the last few years, that's probably the ONLY real weak shot on the golf course, and always has been!!
So if the club recognizes that and chose to do something about it that would be OK to me too, provided what they did made good strategic and architectural sense!
There was plenty of discussion of what to do architecturally on the second shot on #9 on a thread some months ago on NGLA (It's probably back on page 75 by now).
My feeling was not just to enhance the bunkering on the left near the green (or the right fairway bunker) but to CONNECT in a diagonal bunker scheme the fairway bunker right and the bunkers left near the green!
This would create a line of bunkering across the fairway somewhat like the inline bunker scheme in the middle of #8 (the Bottle Hole). This DAIGONAL bunker scheme could be rather narrow and ideally probably relatively shallow but it would connect the right bunker (maybe 100yds from the green) to the left bunkers (about 10-30 yards from the green) with a diagonal bunker scheme across the fairway.
Of course anyone can easily imagine the interesting strategic problems and solutions this would create for both distance AND direction in choosing to play the second shot over them or short of them in any way, setting up distance and angle options for the third shot.
A recommendation like this I look at as something that alters a classic golf course but only in such a way that if it was not successful or became something that needed to be restored back to the original look of #9 could be done easily without really altering a significant architectural area of the course like an original green or something!
This process is basically the process used to alter historic buildings and such! If alteration is done at all it should be done in such a way that it could be easily removed to restore back to original!!
What I've said about NGLA may sound at first inconsistent but I believe this explanation defines why it may not be as much as imagined!
And like many others I really do believe that the second shot on #9 is the ONLY weak area of the golf course and always has been!