In the 50s and 60s courses were "modernized." Clubs like Oakland Hills and Baltusrol brought in RTJ to toughen up their courses for an Open. Lesser-known smaller clubs did similar things. Now clubs are restoring their courses to reflect the designer’s “original intent.” I’ll be playing Baltusrol and Oakland Hills next month. They have removed much of Jones and “restored” Tillinghast’s and Ross’ intent as well as they could. I am eager to see what has changed and what has remained of Jones’ work.
Clubs are touting their lineage. I came up worth a list of Golden Agers. Alison, Bell, Bendelow, Braid, Colt, Crump, Dunn, Emmet, Flynn, Fowler, Fownes, Hunter, Macan, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Maxwell, Old Tom, Park jr., Raynor, Wilfred Reid, Ross, Strong, Tillinghast, Thomas jr., Thompson, Travis, Tull, Tweedie, and Hugh Wilson. Many of their courses are classics, but some are only adequate and don’t need to be restored but altered.
At the moment, many clubs are restoring their Golden Age courses. They are extolling the virtues of these courses. I wonder if we are not giving too much credit to some of these designs. Maybe some of the courses don't call for restoration but redesign. How does a club decide what to do? Do we give the ODGs too much credit?