Dunlop:
Your post as a supplement to Jeff Mingay's description of realistic restoration is excellent. You even go into the way various architects tend to handle restorations (if they can).
Some people ("purists") do feel that simply because a golf course and some of the holes are considered "classic" or that the original architect is considered "famous" that a restoration should be "exact" in every way and every detail.
The more I stay involved in the area of restoration the more I've come to realize that is very often not the best way to go for a variety of reasons and actually is one that is very rare. I'm not certain I've ever seen a restoration that returned a course to the way it once was in every way, in every detail--including length. Certainly agronomically I've never heard of a course being returned to the conditions of yesteryear or even considering it for a second!
Basically, to do that is simply impractical and fails to take into consideration a few of the most important aspects of all--how golfers play today and exactly how different that is from the way they once played or played when the course was "original", and also the extreme advances in agronomics and various maintenance practices that can be used benefically on classic courses today.
Recapturing the "design intent", including many of the "strategies" of an original design is not easy for many reasons, the major one being the factor of length requirements to somehow maintain original design intent and its "strategies" or former "hole requirements" for any level of player.
Obviously the least intrusive to original design and the least corruptive is to be able to simply add tee length to recapture the original essence of a hole but that's a luxury that exists only with luck, it would seem (other than the actual originally preplanned concept of "elasticity" for the future).
Certainly the likes of MacKenzie, Tillinghast and particularly Flynn spoke and wrote about "elasticity" but were clearly not able to preplan or design it in every case for many reasons some of which were valid reasons of "inelastic" design and routing factors!
Getting into rearranging, moving or redesigning the "features" of the "body" of a hole is not the way to go if possible but if "elasticity" is not available, what else is there to do if one is to maintain the original requirements and character of a hole? Even worse than altering the "body" of a hole is moving, altering or redesigning green-ends and greens!
The only other choice is to allow the hole to remain the same as original but to become weakened in strategic requirements or demand and likely quality as a result of the realities of how differently players hit the ball compared to yesteryear or when the course was "original".
It would seem that some believe that nobody should even touch a classic course, that nobody should make alterations or even try to reinterpret or recapture a classic course's requirments and demands simply because the course is "classic" but of course that's truly nonsense if one really thinks about it.
One of the best caveats I ever heard in this vein came from Jim Finegan. Following a long discussion about the interesting characteristics of "classic" architecture and great classic courses and how to maintain and restore them he said one should clearly understand the "old" but not forget that the "new" may offer benefits; interesting and even enhanced benefits to "classic" architecture, that applied correctly could make classic architecture even more interesting and even play better than at its very best in its own era!!
Isn't that an interesting concept? That classic courses can potentially play better than they ever did or could!? That things can be done today (new applications) that can make a really good "classic" course play even better than at it's original best?
A general example of this (and the one Finegan mentioned) is that the classic course was designed more for the ground game (of every type) and that does need to be restored to these old classic courses the way it was meant to be. But the aerial game, that did not exist originally in the same shot-making form as it does today can be cleverly factored into the design of the classic course (generally through maintenance practices--"the maintenance meld") without redesigning, altering or corrupting their original designs or design intents.
So since this is possible today through understanding and clever application one can make these classic courses play to the best of both worlds and eras (the original ground reliant game and the modern aerial reliant game).
Think about that. Originally the aerial game was just not there as it is today so if these classic courses can accomodate that modern aspect cleverly and interestingly these courses might actually offer more than they ever did! Options, in fact, may almost increase to the tune of about 50% if not even double!
What are some of those modern applications that the classic course never really had? Well, one is certainly the sophistication of the aerial game that didn't previously exist.
For that, increased green speeds can actually be used benefically if handled correctly. Increased green speeds handled correctly combined with the "ideal" green surface "firmness" can make the aerial game option something it never was and never could have been originally. Increased green speeds handled correctly has a way of "highlighting" or "turning the lights" up on the characteristics of classic greens and their surrounds more than ever before--certainly more than originally!
It's true that this kind of application may shift the ramifications of a hole's strategy down more to the green and green-end than ever originally intended but this is a fact of evolution that really cant be avoided and can be actually benefical in some ways. It's a small point and maybe not a "pure" one but shifting strategic ramifications to the green and green end is actually more "democratic". Unfortunately, though, strategic weight devolves to chipping and putting more than originally but that actually is more "democratic"! I realize many of the classic architects would probably not appreciate this shift but it is an interesting evolution that's not the end of the world architecturally!
Another modern benefical application is the whole idea of "chipping areas" and such. An architect like Ron Prichard (a "purist") will be the first to tell you that although "chipping areas" may have existed on classic courses "in effect" they were nothing like what they are and can be today primarily for reasons of modern agronomics and modern maintenance practices.
In other words the "chipping area" of today are so much more sophisticated and demanding in their multi-optional playing characterisitic than they ever were, certainly originally!
So restoration of classic architecture is good, obviously, but as Finegan said, we should not forget modern benefits that might even make it better than it ever was at its best in its original era!