What's interesting to me, and I almost universally favor the older versions, is the dynamic between manual labor, machine labor, the cost of labor and the bunker lines.
When manual labor was CHEAP and play sparse, it was easy to maintain the intricate bunker lines by hand.
As the cost of labor increased and labor saving machines were introduced, intricate bunker lines were lost.
As to the white sand, it's difficult to draw comparisons because one photo may reflect sand that's been in the bunker for 10-20 years while another may reflect sand that's been in the bunker for 10 months.
What's also interesting is that when labor was cheap, fairways appear to be much wider, however, with great labor saving machines, I can't understand why today's fairways are so narrow.
Are architectural lines dictated by irrigation systems ?
Shouldn't it be the other way around ?
A question for those familiar with Riviera.
It appears that the old 18th green was much closer to the steep slope than the current green. Is that true ?
If so, how and why was it shifted away from the slope.
My second observation is that trees seem to detract from the vast expanses where features stood out more, in the old photos versus the new ones.
If ever there was an argument to remove or reduce the number of trees on golf courses, these before and after photos should be exhibit # 1.