RMD,
For those of us unfamiliar with the course and the architect (I've only played two Emmett courses) pictures immediately before the work, early photographs a year or so after construction showing the intended design in addition to the club's mandate are necessary to answer your original question.
It is quite possible that the restoration improved a deteriorated golf course and gave the members what they wanted. Maybe they didn't study the big picture to make an informed decision as to what they wanted. Who knows? I am just speculating. If the members got what they asked for, who can argue? They are probably pleased that the bunkers drain and the sand is consistent.
I am not familiar enough with original Emmet to know what his characteristics are. I found the posted photos interesting and not unappealing. But without perspective, who's to say if anything looks wrong? Without being informed nor familiar with the site, I don't think the photographs indicate the course is at all bad.
Bob,
I'll go look up that word and try to use it in at least one sentence sometime today. Just looked it up, Bob. GREAT word! You, my friend, are a wordsmith.
I think the kind of bunkers you refer to are done purely to let everyone know that an architect was at work there, a kind of "look at me" statement so that the club justifies cost and has a new identity; whether it wanted one or not.