An interesting question and one that is not that easy to answer.
Unless the course is moved totally from the original site, it is hard to ignore the original designers. Furthermore you have the dilemma that many of the original courses were in fact 9 Holes than the St Andrews standard 18.
Therefore, two problems confront the clubs, historians or golfers interested it the geniality of the course. Should the accreditation be place with the original designer of 9 or shared with the designer who revised and created the 18.
My outlook being interested in the golfing history is straightforward in that all designers should be named and work specified, in that way we have a pure linage of the course. Whether that is important or irrelevant to some, at least the club will have its own history for its Members and posterity.
My reasons for this approach being that all get a credit for their involvement. However, more importantly it creates a living record of the course and its changes, hopefully stating and explaining as to when, why and by whom. The reason this is necessary is due to the amount of existing design, work or features created by the original designer(s) and still in existence, be it the hazards or routing. A classic example and for the purpose of this exercise, I am using Prestwick GC as the model instead of TOC (which still has not just the footprint but in effect the whole design more or less intact from the works between 1850-1900 – exclude a handful of bunkers). Prestwick was a 12 Hole course but, when developed into an 18 Hole course still retained 7 Greens from the original design, not to mention hazards, so it is only fair to name the designers and their involvement.
I fear the accreditation of the routing/design is frowned upon by many design houses today, for the simple fact that they wish it to be known by the Principal’s name rather than naming the unknown individual(s) or their face(s). I fear this is a receipt for confusion and perhaps an indictment of the modern houses showing it’s just a business rather than a vocation. Pity because many a good design has come about IMHO thanks to the dedication and interest of the individuals concerned. Perhaps some are really trying to get back to basics leading with Nature and the natural.
Whatever, I hope the clubs realise that their list of designers and changes are for many far more important than some golfing magazines rankings/listings. I also hope that the big named golfing houses get their own house in order to offer this rather simple and to many important service to their customers – the golfers.
Many would be surprised to find just what is left of the original designs or some of its features from Greens to hazards. Although if we continue with the modern practice of stripping the land back to the bedrock before rebuilding then much will be destroyed. Keyhole surgery works well for the medical consultants, perhaps one day the same may be applies to our old and treasured golf courses, that is, if the golfing authorities approve.
To coin a phrase from a popular TV series ‘The truth is out there’. We just need to open our eyes and look for it.
Melvyn