Sean,
I agree with the idea that if a gca wants to change a hole he ought to be able to describe and justify the why in 3 or less concise sentences. Most good ideas are almost self apparent, and most bad ideas can be talked about for a week and never get any better due to a long explanation. The three sentences can be:
- 1) say why the existing hole is a problem now (and in the future),
- 2) say what the goal of the change is, and
- 3) tell us the proposed solution, starting with the most thorough, down to a middle ground scope of work, and finally, the least expensive option, which, more often than not, doesn't entirely solve the problem but is cheap!
The "do nothing" option is always implied, but if the problem in sentence no. 1 isn't clear on its own, that may be the best option. The cost of doing nothing is often substantial, and that should be pointed out.
The problem can be many of the ones mentioned: bad drainage, poor circulation (air or traffic), more play, which means greens and tees should be larger, there should be a greater variety of playing lengths, and holes that are similar to others (i.e., bunker left, bunker right), and so on. Maybe the course has changed from private to public or something else, which changes the design brief.
No golf course can afford a design that causes continued problems and maintenance expenses. Any proposed design should address the long term effects on the business and fun aspects of the course.
If it is just a "I don't like the design" issue, I suppose either green chair or gca (whoever has that opinion) should tread lightly, but then most are just opinions anyway. Of course, there are tweeners. CBM put OB left because he sliced. Should that selfish design to his own game be considered for partial change to balance OB? How about Jack's greens angled hard right?
We really don't know what the gca was thinking, do we? I always bring up that scene from Woody Allen where they are standing in line discussing what the director thought as he made that scene, and then he comes up and tells him he was drunk that day and an assistant did it. If you think that didn't happen back in the old days of gca, you haven't been reading your history!
I don't know the exact answer to this, but is it possible that every course from the Golden Age that was worth restoring to original intent has already done so?