Tom MacWood,
You prefer to demonize a few architects, and solely blame them, in conjunction with the USGA for disfiguring golf courses. I see it differently. I see the memberships and the power bases at these clubs as the parties responsible for the alterations to their golf courses, good and bad.
I didn't notice Scioto in the list of USOPEN courses from 1940 to current date, so I don't know how you can include them in the list of US OPEN courses that Wilson or RTJ altered in preparation for a US OPEN, at the behest of the USGA.
I don't consider adding tee length, even if the angle of attack off the tee is slightly altered, to be a substantive change, and in many cases, that's all that was done to many holes.
If you can document substantive changes that Wilson and RTJ made to specific holes, prior to the USOPEN, that adversely affected those holes, it would be most informative. I'm not saying that damaging work wasn't done, but, in the interest of accuracy, you should be able to distinguish lengthening from material alteration.
Some say that the 4th hole at Baltusrol Lower was a substantial improvement in the hole, not a disfigurement, so I think each hole must be looked at individually as well as in the context of the entire golf course.
You indicate that Scioto was completely redesigned by Wilson,
But, It was the membership that asked him to put forward a plan, the membership who voted to approve the plan he presented, and the membership who funded the work that was done. They approached him with a preconceived idea of altering their golf course. Who's fault is that ?
Tom, it's never ceased to amaze me how copycat disease spreads and infects memberships. A member visits another club, sees something he likes, and brings it back to his club.
One only has to look at colored balls in the fairway that indicate yardage, those little broken tee collectors on tees, boxes of seed mix on the tees, colored flags on the green to indicate pin location, fountains in ponds/lakes, etc., etc..
One club hears that another is doing something to their course, be it renovation, modernization, planting trees, removing trees, adding bluegrass around the collar of their greens, removing the bluegrass from around the collar of their greens, and now, restoration, and the keeping up with the Jones's syndrome takes hold. That's just the way it is.
And, it's not an architect's fault, the fault lies clearly with the membership, the custodian's, the keepers of their golf course.
With respect to the 12th at GCGC, It was the members who wanted to change that hole back in the 60's. It was the members who went out and solicited RTJ. The members approved what they wanted done to the hole. A signature hole that they somehow were dissatisfied with.
I don't blame Doak for the club's failure to restore the hole.
I blame the members of the committee and the membership.
I also think that there was a window of opportunity that was allowed to open and close and I think Tom could have been more pro-active in support of his true restoration rendering, which he presented to the committee, but, in the ultimate, there were members who thought:
1 It would disrupt play during construction
2 It would be expensive
3 They liked the hole the way it was
4 They didn't think the green would putt the same
5 They didn't want change.
Hopefully, restoration will come back on to the agenda once the course is returned to firm, fast and acceptable conditions, which is the present, if not sole focus of the club at this moment. The weather isn't helping in this pursuit.
Tom, I'm putting forth my opinion based on my experiences at a number of golf clubs, experiences gained from serving on various Green Committee's for almost 40 years, from serving on boards for almost 30 years, from being a Green Chairman, Tournament Chairman, and from witnessing membership meetings for 40 years.
In recent years, I believed, that two architects, wanted to alter my home course, taking it further away from its architectural roots, I fought hard to prevent any design departures or disfiguring of the golf course. In one case the committee rejected a radical master plan, and in another, the architect resigned the project due to something I posted on this site. I posted, without naming names, or identifying the golf course or anything that could lead one to identify the golf course or the individuals involved, my disatisfaction with the direction he was headed, and I questioned his ability to be totally objective in light of previous work he did, which was a departure from the prior design integrity of the golf course. He may have been embarrassed by what he proposed, and objected to my dissatisfaction with his prior work. My reward for due diligence and trying to protect the architectural integrity of the original design was removal from the committee. Now, the architectural future of the club lies in the current power bases's hands, which will affect the architect chosen and the architectural future of the golf course.
Do I think that the two architects were headed down the wrong architectural path, absolutely, but they could only do so with the club's approval.
For years, I have been recommending either Ron Forse, Ron Prichard or Gil Hanse, but to date, the powers that be are much more knowledgeable then me in these matters and, in their choices.
The blind are not necessarily led by the blind, just sometimes.
Since Wilson and RTJ are no longer with us, focus your dismay on the present membership's of these clubs, unless of course, you're concerned about repercussions.