Geoff Shackelford,
I would say that we probably have an equal love and respect for the architecture at NGLA. But, that doesn't mean that changes which don't interupt or destroy the design integrity of the golf course can't be introduced, or are automatically bad.
I would cite changes to the 2nd tee, the 8th tee, 12th tee and the new 16th tee.
Not one of those changes disrupted or harmed the golf course,
its strategy or the original design integrity.
I feel that the added length on holes # 2, and # 8 preserved or restored the original strategy in the face of modern day drives carrying the intended hazards, and find those changes acceptable.
The DANGER you allude to is always present, and one must always be concerned about them and the domino effect, and the justification for changes that may detract from, or even destroy the design integrity of a golf hole.
But, I don't know if the answer is to never touch a classic golf course, especially if a hole or feature has already been modified.
Many classic golf courses have already been altered.
Would you not favor modifications that bring the original strategies back into play ? Changes that restore the original design integrity ?
There are no blanket answers to these questions.
Each issue, each hole, each feature must be examined in its present day context, and its original context, and an intelligent decision should be made as to what to do with the hole or particular feature.
Art is static and the appreciation of art is as a spectator.
Golf courses are interactive fields of play constructed through the science of architecture blended with artistic expression.
One of the problems with golf courses is that the play and players for whom they were originally designed have gone the way of the dinosaurs, with a new breed of super athlete armed with high tech equipment which renders the original design principles outdated or obsolete.
I would certainly like to turn the clock back to 1950, but that's beyond my powers. Changes occuring subsequent to that date have been both good and bad, and I don't think one can make the case that ANY change is bad, especially when a hole or feature has already been altered, and the attempt is to try to restore the design integrity or original strategy.
Certainly every proposed change should be scrutinized and questioned, despite your mandate that I give Tom Doak an automatic free pass
I don't think we're that far apart on our views on the preservation and restoration of golf courses, I just think that prudent, intelligent changes can have positive results.
I too hope reason prevails, everywhere.