We see a lot of restorations highlighted and glorified on this site. Most of the time there is reference to an architect's original intent.
Often every tree not there when the course was originally designed is targeted for extinction to go back to the original intent of the architect (as if it never occurred to the architect that existing trees might grow and new ones sprout - for all we know the architect may have been looking forward to the day some trees grew in
)
I'm not referring to some horrible fir trees planted by a clueless greens chairman in the 1960's.
Yet if greens were designed when the day to to day speed was 5-8 on the stimp, why are these same courses maintaining their greens at 11-12?
Wouldn't a true restoration restore original green speeds?
And if the greens have been flattened to accomodate high speeds (usually not the case), let's restore the slopes.
Seems to me most restorations are interpretive and selective, making them in fact renovations.