Very nice and informative discussion! Two sides of this issue covered well by many.
I can tell there is still some disagreement in philosophy on this subject as both sides of the question (if you can call it that) seem to want to stick to their guns while conceding that the other side has some merit.
With that kind of outcome the best that can result, in my opinion, for any club or course (of a man like Ross who does have substantial myth attached to him) is to basically look at their course and what to do about it (or not) from the perspective of what both sides are advocating! In other words analyze a Ross course, for instance, from the perspective of both Mike Young and Lester George and also from the perspective of Mike Cirba and Tom MacWood!
If any golf course did that and did it rationally and comprehensively they can hardly fail to come away with a sensible answer to this quesiton.
The very first thing to do even before settling on a plan is to somehow get all the research done (either through the club or with the architect) that's possible. I've never known a club that has been negatively affected in any way by doing TOO much research. If the club can't do it internally (before an architect is chosen) reach out anywhere you can for help!
At that point things should generally start to become a bit more realistic and sensible. With this kind of effort a membership generally builds up pride in an original architect like Ross and also becomes more realistic with his myth and the fact that even he might have done some things that did not work well for the club or it's membership. We can't forget either that memberships and their general abilities and desires towards architecture change too over time.
My course, Gulph Mills, is a very good example of this evolution and the reality of Donald Ross and the course he built for us. Many architects have had their hands on Gulph Mills (but interestingly essentially only in the mid-section of the course). Some of those architects made changes that corrupted Ross and others made changes that vastly improved what Ross originally did.
I doubt there's much of anything that's not known about the architectural evolution of Gulph Mills at this point and that allows us the opportunity to look sensibly at what to do in our restoration and in the future. The entire evolution from beginning to present is there recorded in exact detail for anyone to see! That's a huge help for the committees, the memberhip and the architect! Any so-called classic era course that remotely has architectural merit should do this as a first step if they're really serious about their heritage and what to do about it in the future. Unfortunately, it's easy to do in some cases and near impossible in others--all depending on what material is available and of course what's happened to the course over time!
There's no question whatsoever that Ross built about three to four holes that spanned from the poor to the questionable. One to two holes were poor by any standard and another two were clearly questionable and/or too difficult (in a section of them) generally for our membership.
Should they have been changed as they were in the 1930s? Absolutely! Were they changed correctly and for the better? Three certainly were and the fourth probably but not definitely.
How can I put a value judgement on something like that? Quite easily actually because those four holes have now had many decades of evaluation by all kinds of golfers, members, guests, tournament players etc, so they have been tested by time, plain and simple and they are working well.
To even contemplate returning or restoring any of those three to four holes to the way Ross designed and built them just because it was Ross that designed and built them would be insanity at this point, particularly since their redesign by Maxell made most of them as good as anything on our course!
And I think this is exactly what Mike Young and Lester George are trying to say! It's pretty clear Donald Ross was an excellent architect because the remainder of his holes and many of his courses have worked darn well and have also withstood the all important tests of time for decades on a daily basis.
But it's clear from some of our original examples (those 3-4 holes) looked at objectively that he was certainly not infallible and occasionally even he made mistakes--even egregiously so in a case or two! So that sort of takes care of the myth being larger than the man--it shouldn't be!
But does this mean we should never touch the holes that have stood the test of time well if they can be improved even more in the light of the changes in today's game?
Not as far as I'm concerned! They can be made even better but to do so takes some real thought, probably some restraint and most certainly a real understanding of Ross and what he was trying to do both generally and specifically.
For that kind of thing you really do need to know where exactly you might have some latitude and where you don't. Certainly for that a good restoration architect (not just a blatant redesigner) is essential.
And how that can happen benefically and positively is interesting but should always be looked at on a case by case, hole by hole basis. I don't think a better overall example could be found than Gulph Mills's hole #13! It's one of the most curious evolutions I'm aware of--subtle but fascinating. By a series of removals, replacements, a true understanding of Ross's general philosophy and a minor but all important bunker tweak the hole will really shine again and if done just right will be a shining example of what the basic Ross philosophy was on a hole like this one--although it has been altered and cannot be restored to what it once was.
So Lester George and Mike Young are no doubt correct in much of what they say but Tom MacWood is too--without doubt!
Do the research--it can never be too much and then you're in a postion to make some intelligent assumptions, intelligent decisions and conclusions and the project will be the better for that!