Mike,
Having been involved with this confusing issue on many levels, I share your wonderment, but suggest that you would be better served be having Pecan Waffles at Waffle House this morning
But, I have given this some thought over the last few days. In general, I recall an ASGCA membership application I authored saying the gca was "the one most responsible for the final form of the golf course." I am not sure they still use this, but it was intended to allow field centric gca's to get credit towards membership, if that's how they worked rather than plans and occaisional visits.
Thus, if ASGCA actually requires something to be built, it makes sense that something like a green or tee should be actually built for a gca to claim any credit at a course, and then, for history sake, it ought to be a fairly specific claim. I know my resume says things like "Rebuilt 2 greens, 1985. Perhaps it should say, "Rebuilt 12th and 18th green in 1985."
Not sure about what happens when a course/feature is rebuiit one year later, because of new owner or committee, poor agronomics or just plain poor design, which sometimes happens. I know I wouldn't put it on my resume. And, 100 years later, Ross descendants and fans probably still wants Oakland Hills on his resume, depspite changes. Everything in between is a judgement call.
Sales presentations should never be listed. Master Plans, if paid for, should be listed as such, or perhaps as "consulting." If master plan work takes place later without any supervision of the gca, it should be left off resume lists, with the club or shaper probably credited for things built only generally to plan.
I actually wouldn't want any credit for a plan built without my final plan or supervision. Not only is it not likely to be below my standards and liking, but there have been rare cases where gca's have later been sued by a club when such a plan was built, and retaining walls (never engineered by the gca) fell down, people drove off cart paths, or greens failed. So, most of my master plans and contracts have huge disclaimers about using them, and put the liability on the Owner for such use without my further involvement.
I sense that your concern with this issue isn't so much credit per se, but the number of good jobs that seem to go to new guys in the business who are, like we once were, full of bluster and good salesmanship, maybe some good ideas, and precious little experience.
So yes, this business is built on BS....and you are not wrong. Its just hard enough to take it when the big guys say the same thing as you do and it sells much better. Like you, it hurts me when the "little guys" say much the same thing and it sells better because of a new twist or label - I have "lost" or truthfully, failed to make an effective presentation to other gca's selling "traditionalism," "minimalism, "historian," "photorealisitic renderings," and even "civil engineering, "full time on site," "design-build", "save money on plans" "don't need no stinking gca", "youthful enthusiasm" and even for some courses I did years ago when the guy didn't like one hole.
Truth is, I need to remind myself that I failed to make a sale, rather than someone else got it with "better BS." I think establishing a personal connection to the person (usually well in advance, if possible) making the decision gets more job than a padded or even accurate resume.......that, and clearly explaining the benefits of our services, which quite frankly, in a crowded field, don't always stand out as much as some of the more targeted experiences above might.
Short version: This is one tough biz! You must do okay, having been in it over 20 years.....we will see how many of the young whiz kids who got in it during the recent boom last.....although I think that Tiger guy probably will do okay.