Of all the comments here, I understand Neal Meagher's least of all. He seemed to be saying that most golf coursse will be tweaked over time and get better and you shouldn't expect too much right out of the blocks. We aim higher than that. If you've got to go back and rebuild bunkers and rebuild greens, then the original architect didn't do that great of a job.
Quite to the contrary regarding what I was trying to say about Erin Hills and its ilk. I agree that if, in the very short term, you have to go back in and rebuild greens then the architect didn't do that great of a job. What the case seems to be to me regarding Erin Hills is that it appears to be a course that will create a solid framework for the long term. Very long term, like 60 years.
Say what you want about the changes to ANGC, but the basic framework established in the 1930's has held up nicely and allowed it to remain a viable test for the very best players of today as well as the members. That is all I was getting at, that the basic imprint of a golf course that can be modified either by removing a small mound or by more major building projects is a hallmark of a great golf course.
Any course can be completely re-routed, blown-up and made into anything anybody wants it to be, but to create something from day 1 that still works well far into the future with the major strategies and look intact is rare. And I maintain that it is necessary to make tweaks both large and small to keep ahead of the curve. I am NOT granting any architect carte blanche to not do everything within his power to absolutely get all the details right from the start. That is and always should be the goal. As should creating a worthy framework that future generations can still enjoy.