I don't see any similarity between Strong's designs and Macdonald/Raynor or Emmet. I wouldn't put Strong in any 'school' - he was one of kind. If anything he was probably a product of Sandwich & Deal with some early heathland thrown in. His features are certainly not engineered in appearance....just the opposite.
I do think you hit on a good description of his style when you said it was bold. His courses feature bold greens, bold fairways and bold hazards. Another word I'd use is unconventional - unusual, interesting and unique holes and golf courses.
In a previous post Jason commented that it was his opinion that Strong's bunkers were nothing out of the oridinary - I would strongly disagree, no pun intended.
His bunkers were unique. His standard bunkers - Old Saucon Valley (pre-reoncstruction) and Manior Richelieu (pre-construction) as examples - very naturalistic and irregular. He also created dunesy or beach bunkers that feature clumps grass growing within - Inwood, Engineers and Manoir Rich had good examples. Some of these bunkers are expansive, more like waste bunkers.
And then there are few ohter types of bunkers that defy description like his string of pearls at Engineers and the odd bunkers at Inwood that resemble a series of clam-shells stacked up in succession. At Ponte Vedra he moved tons of earth to create large man-made dunes. in addition some of his courses were very heavily bunkered (Inwood & Saucon Valley) and others fairly sparce (Engineers & Manoir Richelieu)....likely based on their topography.
As far as describing his work instead of engineered I describe it as sensuous. The contours of his greens and fairways have a sculptured quality that is really quite beautiful. Another interesting aspect of his architect, a number his courses were realtively short, especially for championship courses, which is ironic because Strong the golfer was extremely long.
If I were forced to use one word to describe his work I'd go with sporty.
Furthermore, when it comes to a course like Engineers and a guy like Tom MacWood and restoring it more exactly, I feel that is a complex question which takes a whole lot of understanding on both sides of the issue.
In my opinion, I can't see how there is any way at all that Tom MacWood could be able to understand the nitty gritty architectural and restoration decisions that inherently come up with how it all relates to actual play. In a phrase he just isn't familiar enough with the golf course to fully understand those things. That just takes a lot of familiarity with the course and the project. He may continue to say it shouldn't matter but in the end that only shows his naivety regarding a whole slew of actual restoration issues.
But if such things like bunker placement make sense in play I can't see why they couldn't or shouldn't be restored, but they must make sense in play and Tom MacWood, I very much doubt, is in a postion to know that. The look of the bunkering, wherever it's placed, however, I can't see couldn't be done in a way that looked almost exactly like Strong's, but I'm not in a postion to comment on that with much authority because I haven't been there before or after.
As far as my understanding - or lack of it - the nitty gritty of architecture and restoration...I'll take your word for it....obviously you consider yourself exceptionally qualified in this area, who knows, but I would think a knowledge of the subject being restored would be an important requirement.
As far as making decisions regarding bunker placement...that is not restoration, that is redesign. I don't have a problem with most courses being redesigned, but lets call it what it is. But I do believe there are a small number of landmark courses that should be preserved and protected from your redesign efforts.