I will only argue with one point here.
The Rees Jones version of Lake Merced was terrible, so there was zero professional risk that a talented architect could make it way better. The only question was whether any such talented architect wanted to devote that much of their time and effort to the endeavor.
I don’t have a lot of time to go look at anyone else’s golf courses right now, but the photos of Lake Merced look terrific. Even so, it’s probably correct that a 7 was the upper bound for the course, and that doesn’t guarantee it a spot in the top 100. Is it better than Bel Air? It hasn’t made the top 100, either, and it’s a much more interesting piece of ground.
Tom, agreed--I was trying to imply that the risk didn't pertain to improving the Jones version, but whether the ceiling of the project would be high enough for Gil not only in comparison to neighboring SF clubs but other restoration clients he's had. The answer seems to be a resounding yes to me now, though I can imagine some may have had doubts initially.
As for Bel Air, I haven't played it yet. Trying to remedy that seeing as I live in Los Angeles! But for what it's worth (absolutely nothing), in terms of some courses I've seen, LMGC strikes me as being comparable to courses like Philly Cricket, Hollywood, and Ridgewood on the basis of both design quality and the accomplished level of restorative/presentation work.
On another note--just received in the mail your
MacKenzie reprint, along with the surprise St Patrick's Stymie scorecard. Fortuitous timing because I have a 36 hole day at St Pat's in two weeks!