John,
I am not worried if a little fun is had at my expense
.
I feel confident in my knowledge of many things in golf but I know when that knowledge is lacking and it's certainly re: Donald Ross.
I have enjoyed Michel J. Fay's "Golf, as it was meant to be played" and look forward to learning more and appreciate any suggestions.
It does seem that evrywhere one turns, a club proudly proclaims itself a "Ross" masterpiece. A little investigation sometimes shows that multiple architects have since worked on the course and in some cases, "Ross courses" were never visited by Mr. Ross.
If an architect only routes the course and then someone else builds and maintains it, is that "his" course. I think so but I'd like to hear other opinions.
Having just gone through a renovation, I know we had plans to work from, but almost every day there was fine tuning, tweaking and some flat out big changes at times that were never reflected in the plans. If 50 years from now, someone wanted to restore my course and relied on the "original plans" they would have not accurately reflected the architects wishes that changed during the job.
I just wonder if that same thing can happen when someone goes to restore a Ross course and if it could happen, how serious a problem is it to those trying to remain faithful to Mr. Ross' work.
A big advantage that I see in restoring a Ross course is that his body of work is so large that it is easier to understand his philosophy of golf and make a more educated guess when need be as to what he would have done.