What good does a poll of all the guys who weren't consulted going to do?
Because in most professions and their professional associations, there are codes of ethics, and while many are codified and written, some are understood among professionals. Many professions have their icons that convey a value or morality system. Some are artistic in nature such as paintings or statutes. Some are geographical. Some are religious and some secular. Most iconic objects or symbolic grounds are protected by the professionals who serve around the underlying values of the icon, or are elite guardians for the people that revere or even worship those icons.
In terms of places, we have sacred grounds or hallowed grounds. There are commissions that are appointed to oversee those sort of revered or hallowed geographical grounds, like Gettysburg or public treasures like the Grand Canyon, etc. Their charge is above all, preservation, so that the historical and traditional values and characteristics of those grounds can remain for all to see the cradle or original geographical significance of what took place that is so revered.
In this case, yes, all practicing golf course architects have a profession that has its seminal origins in TOC. It is the cradle of the game and the home field of play, from which the institution of golf has evolved and upon most GCA theory and concepts originated in some form. Yes, there have been other changes to the original grounds. Much of it was addressing maintenance to preserve the integrity of the original concepts and characteristics of how the field of play is to function, in accordance to the traditions of what is known about the unique conditions of how golf is played on the traditional field. And, there is an ethical and moral imperative to respect the historical ownership concept of the course, that being a public trust!!! Trust means that with the granting of trust comes ethics, including care and preservation of that which is deemed revered and esteemed by the common users and common community owners. When a practicing professional within the scope of the term of that profession, in concert with the trustees loses that ethical perspective of preservation and that universal concept of an obligation to 'first do no harm' to that which is entrusted, with no consensus from those who granted the trust, under a cloak of secrecy; then that professional who entered into that clandestine collaboration ought to be excoriated along with the trustees, by his peers, who do understand the ethics behind the notion that it is an unwarranted and un-entrusted defilement.
JK's contrarian inclination to express his lack of credibility in a professional poll taken by those that call themselves practitioners within the profession, to determine what the concensus is among those practitioners, just seems odd to me.