"Tom MacWood,
I've always liked your concept of restoring to the architectural high water mark.
That process is impossible unless you delve into the architectural history of the golf course, hence history or historical research is critical
The only difficulty I have with your concept of the "architectural high water mark" is defining it, and defining it in such a way that there's little or no dispute about it. That's the hard part.
But, without historical research, ascertaining where the "architectural high water mark" is, is impossible."
Pat:
I agree with you about the so-called "architectural high water mark." First of all that concept and goal is most certainly not Tom MacWood's. A number of clubs have had restoration projects that tried to identify an "architectural high water mark" long before GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or anyone knew of Tom MacWood or any of the rest of us researchers. Probably the most visible example was Merion that decided to go back to 1930 as their "high water mark" (architectural and otherwise) for various reasons.
But given all that, you are right, picking what constitutes a "architectural high water mark" for any club or course is something that is and can be pretty subjective and it is probably something that should be done in conjunction with a really good restoration architect who is willing to do a lot of architectural analysis with the club. To do that the details of the course's architectural evolution is obviously extremely important because it can and often does answer the WHENS, WHYS and WHERES of what was originally done and changed over time.