I think you simplify the situation beyond a reasonable point.  

The classic era architects were making changes to courses that were less than thirty years old; in most cases much more recent.  A majority of the work was in response to enormous advances in technology and agronomy.  There was an absence of historical perspective at that time as the entire field was in a nascent stage.  Why should they have been respectful of their predecessors when most were obsoleted and of rather poor quality?

Some of the outstanding architects of that day began to recognize what was taking place.  They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road.  The result being that they began to think for the future.  There is enough writing that supports this that I doubt it is arguable.  These forward thinking architects designed better courses, for the most part more natural courses that weather the test of time better and cheaper.  The best designed in elasticity.

What would you do to improve Merion, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills, Maidstone, NGLA, Kittansett, Indian Creek, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley that is better than going back to the original or the final iteration of the original architect?  What about Cherry Hills?  What would you do to improve Flynn's design there?  I'm sure the intervening architects since Flynn meant well in their improvements.  They missed the mark by quite a large magnitude.

Are there some cases where improvements can be implemented?  Sure there are.  Not even the most forward thinkers could have imagined the extent of technology in turf grasses and maintenance equipment and practices.  Are there some courses that were not designed so very well and can be improved?  Of course.  Bobby Weed did such work at White Manor in suburban Philadelphia.  But not all work is improved and there are enough examples where it is not the case that generalizations aren't really called for.

Therefore, I take exception to your use of the term "Restoration Lemmings."  The architectural archeology of the courses I mentioned above and elsewhere are outstanding and have led to some outstanding restorations.  I don't see how you or others would improve upon that.  

It might just be a good thing that you are not interested in restoring much of anything to exactness since you feel the way you do.

Forrest:

All I can say in response is that there were certain courses (St. Andrews, Pine Valley) which many of the Golden Age designers believed should not be altered over time, although I must admit I am taking that on inference, since I can't recall any of them even contemplating the possibility.

Dr. MacKenzie is the only one I am aware of who wrote about "permanent" architecture.

"Can someone provide examples of those we consider great (among the dead architects) in golf architecture being all that interested in restoration to an exactness of what came before? How prevalent was this? Was it prevalent at all?"

Forrest:

Essentially you can look long and hard throughout the history of golf and architecture and courses in almost all the decades of architecture's existence up until perhaps 1985 or so and I don't think you will find a single incident of a restoration mentality or even a restoration example for anything other than something that was destroyed by Nature.

Some of the older architects seemed to be fanatics about not having their work changed (particularly by club committees) but I don't think we can find a single example from those old dead guys whose courses and whose era we admire so much who would be opposed, at a moment's notice, to redesigning the work of any of their contempories if asked to by any club.

In a sense, this is this website's dirty little secret and frankly I view it as a concerted attempt at historic revisionism. It's not that I condone what those old dead guys did with the work of other architects back then but I sure as hell don't want to act like it never happened.

Frankly, the word and thought of dedicated "restoration" never even existed in architecture until about the last twenty years.

Not that it's not a good thing for architecture but one does need to be realistic about it.

If one can document why something involved in architecture totally failed to pass the test of time because it didn't work well and they still decide to precisely restore it anyway  makes absolutely no sense to me.

History can tell us a ton of logical and intelligent stuff if only we strive to be completely accurate about what really did happen historically.

Wayne, you stated, "Some of the outstanding architects of that day began to recognize what was taking place.  They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road..."

And yet that is what happened to almost every one of the greats. For example, significant changes were made to the Philadelphia Cricket Club's Flourtown course designed by Tilly just a handful of years later by Flynn.

Tilly reworked courses by a number of greats from his era in immediate years following the original creations. Most of the greats did and had it done to some of their works. In many cases they themselves did the "adjustments."

There were even some occasions where one great would recommend another (e.g. - Tilly recommending Flynn to a club whose name escapes me in the mid-30's) for renovation work.

So where I completely agree in principal where you state, "They weren't of a mind to see their work changed so quickly after completion by architects down the road.  The result being that they began to think for the future.  There is enough writing that supports this that I doubt it is arguable.  These forward thinking architects designed better courses, for the most part more natural courses that weather the test of time better and cheaper.  The best designed in elasticity..." The reality is that they all had their work redone, in some cases drastically. And on more occasions than they would admit this work was superior to the original or more applicable to how the game had evovled to that time.

So again, I also agree with Forrest when he states, "Rather, I am interested in improving on original work, and hopefully improving on whatever ebb and flow has occurred on the course since it was "original.""

Sometimes courses actually can be improved regardless of who designed it.

Lloyd — I envy your job. I was in television for 5 years and after that worked in advertising. It took me to several studios and I always loved that work. (I was also a DJ briefly.   )

Michael — You presume that the "original intent" is always right? Or, that it is right for today's golfer? There may be a good reason to know the original intent, but to trash it completely for it may no longer be fun, exciting or appropriate. Maybe there is a better intent?

Lloyd -

Is cutting Desolation Row in half is something BD would like? That's a massive change. Does BD now think the original length was a mistake? Who decided what should be cut?

Desolation Row is a great, great song - every stanza of it. Indeed, it's length is part of its message.

I'm not sure that "it sounds better to me" is the right measuring stick here. Ditto for out of tune guitars. Highway 61 is/was edgy if it was anything. One of its goals was the grate.

Bob  

My opinion is that we are breeding a crop of designers who sometimes fail to put improvement above this pursuit of exactness. And with that exactness being inherently debatable, we have people simply following each other down a path that isn't always producing greatness.

Forrest,
Do you actually see evidence of this? I'm aware that pure restoration is a cottage industry in your business, but the cottage is pretty small (and pure restoration has been a useful tool in getting just enough work for those that live in it). But I speak to quite a lot of architects doing quite a lot of renovations, and most are improving and changing courses. In virtually all cases the drainage, irrigation and turf is modernized and improved, and usually there are design changes as well. At least from the evidence I've seen, pure restoration in "exact" form as you envision it is very rare and not heavily pursued. Are you noticing something different?

Bob,
I think Lloyd's tongue was planted in his cheek. I hope so anyway.

Bob,
I think Lloyd's tongue was planted in his cheek. I hope so anyway.

Duncan - Rereading his post, I think you are right. I've been had.

Bob

Derek — Yes, I think there is a growing "industry". While it is still small, it is growing and "breeding" more and more of this doctrine to "restore".

Forrest
I just got the job of supervising the remastering of Highway 61 Revisited (Bob Dylan 1965). It's a fantastic album but upon close inspection I have found quite a few elements that could be better.

LMAO

Assuming that you have the original masters, using Pro Tools or some such software could you maybe get Al Kooper's B3 more on the beat on Like A Rolling Stone - it lags quite a bit here and there...

The great thing about the Highway 61 Revisited LP is that all of the original elements exist, unlike many courses designed and built in the golden age that have been tinkered with and altered over the course of time.

I thought the Super Audio CD remaster was the end all for a digital Hwy 61 Rev, but I can hardly wait for your remaster to hit the market.

I would draw your attention to Come Una Pietra Scalciata by Articolo 31 on the Masked and Anonymous Soundtrack if you would like to hear what a remodeled Like A Rolling Stone sounds like.

And, it can be great marketing. And, like I said, I am not saying there is no benefit. Just that the time and place should be "right".

Mike — You and I will be unpopular for our stance. Thankfully this is all being done by remote control!  

Whether 'restoration' or not in a matter of substantial interpretation with many facets of styling, character, improvements, by those doing the work etc., and of where and when one chooses (date in time/history) to return to.

Forrest:  I think you make a good point from a hard line view, but who is to say that much of what is being done by those 'who do really care' (I'll get grieve from Mike Young on that one) isn't in fact an improvement?  It seems to me that it would be difficult to be everywhere to check up on all such work in order to make a determination if it is 'better' than the original.  Heck, I highly doubt the DRS know about all the Ross work going on.

Pure restoration has been hammered on this site and I have no desire to dig up those old bones, but nevertheless, would you rather see it left in its current state, continue to watch it get bastardized and torn apart by green committes and architects/designers who don't care about the original work or about actually making it better other than putting their own personal mark on it?

I get your point and it is valid, but this happens in many industries, so how can you, me and others who apparently seem to care in one way or another make it better?

I think Mike Young's approach has some merit, at least take the approach with a group of knowledgeable and experienced people--who also happen to care about the old stuff and who know how to improve conditions at the same time.  IMO, I would hope that by doing good work with your heart, mind and with skilled intentions all in the right place, one would capture more work.  If that is marketing, well then welcome to capitalism.  Isn't that what you, Mike, Jeff, Tom and so many others do when working on new builds?

"Just that the time and place should 'right'"  Could you explain or clarify further...not entirely sure what you mean?