It would make sense that equipment is designed and built to be played in the conditions most prevalent at the time of creation. And over time golf course conditioning has become better and better.
So older equipment is more adapt at what would today be considered poorer conditions.
But this can also work in reverse. Hickory irons typically have very little bounce and very narrow soles. This design choice was fitting for the firm and sparse non-irrigated fairways common 100 years ago, but when translated to today softer and more lush fairways can lead to some issues with contact consistency.
I think this is the right way to look at it. The equipment is designed for the conditions, not the other way around. One place I see this is putters. I know some folks who only play hickories when not at their home club. When I've played with them the only club that I raise an eyebrow about is their putters, which, while the shafts look the part, they seem designed for 1950s-era greens at the earliest.
When
researching the MacKenzie story about the 16th at Cypress Point, I became pretty obsessed with the loft on Bobby Jones' putter. The first time I put two-and-two together that high-lofted putters made more sense is when I watched
the film with the No Laying Up guys and Jim Hartsell playing at Iona GC, where, with the old-school greens, modern putters are completely the wrong tool, and you can immediately see that a gently hopping shot would much more effective than trying to roll it through the grass, even if there is a bit of backspin to contend with.
The only other thing I would say is that the question has a normative framing built into it that I would reject. "Course conditioning" is framed as modern course conditioning ideals, when "course conditioning" should be framed as
the actual condition of the course. Ye olde-style putters are more useful on ye olde-style greens, but not on modern expectations of greens, and vice versa.