At my home course I have noticed some changes that have voilated the architect's intent. The secound hole is 320 yards similiar to 10 at Riviera. The best line is from the left with a shorter drive but a long drive to the right can get you closer but with a 2nd shot over a deep bunker to a narrow green. Last year they planted trees on the right. Wrong interpretation.
That sounds like a green committee error.
I have aerial photos of my home course from 1948 and 1971 to compare to Google Earth from today, and it's interesting how poorly the green committees understood what Donald Ross had in mind.
One shortish par four w/ OB left offered a wide fairway with a straight left edge and a bowed right edge. But if you played away from the OB, you had a second over a wide but shallow bunker. The slope, obviously, isn't visible on the aerial, but given the terrain I wouldn't be surprised if the green sloped to the left, toward OB.
If you challenged the OB, you had an opening into the green, and likely a better angle at the slope.
By 1971, the right front bunker was gone, replaced by one on the other side, and the green had been enlarged, with the back right (apparently) built up for the enlargement. With that left-fron bunker, the opening was now on the right, and there was no reason to challenge the OB.
Since then, a left-side fairway bunker has been added, further eliminating the left-side tee shot.
In recent years, growth of trees planted over the years has reduced the tee shot to a single ideal position.
I have actually been involved in two discussions my green committees on where to plant trees, and in both cases if the guys in charge had gotten their wish the two holes in question would have become almost unplayable for the average golfer.
I talked them out of it in one case, and the superintendent planted the tree in a different spot in the other one.
Ken