If one ignores the personal attacks contained in this exchange of ideas (which I am inclined to do as they add heat but no light to the discussion) the dispute is really a common one. Put simply, it is the classic conflict between the principal actor and the critic. The actor, in this case Tom Paul, believes that the critic, unfettered by practical concerns, presents an unrealistic view of the creative process and by holding the actor up to overly idealistic standards makes it more difficult to achieve excellent work.
The critic, here personified by Tom MacWood, believes that it is his duty to hold the actor's work up to objective standards of excellence. Practical considerations are secondary to the critic's obligation to defend art for art's sake.
Who is right? Both to a degree. Absent a real concern for long term excellence, the actor may give in to pragmatic concerns and unduly compromise the integrity of the design.
On the other hand, too strong a committment to the artistic vision may make it impossible to achieve anything. In that case "the best" may become "the enemy of the good."
In this case I submit that it is very rare that a course can or should be restored to its original specifications. Many courses do not have the historical records to make that possible. In my own experience involving the work on Briarwood CC, a 1921 Allison design, there were no architectural plans and very few photos. Thus an exact replication, even if desired, was impossible.
But the question remains, how often should a pure restoration be undertaken? Given the changes in equipment, grass types, maintenance standards and the like, how many courses should be "frozen." Here we come up against the slippery slope, for too much change to keep up with modern convention can lead to the loss of character. I suggest that of much of the remodelling which occurred over the last 40 or so years suffered from this flaw; a lack of appreciation of the existing architecture and an uncritical desire to modernize. This is where the critic can be valuable by comparing the characteristics of the old work with the proposed changes. But in order to be effective the critic cannot be so rigid so as to become irrelevant.
Finally, unless you have been involved in a project such as this, you cannot appreciate the significance of the "member" problem that Tom has identified. Members become attached to features, trees etc that almost any critic would deem to be without merit. They may have little understanding of architectural issues or, even worse, they may have ideas that are not in keeping with the proposed plan or which are deemed to be in bad taste. But they are members and have the same vote as any other member. Hence the importance of patient education, negotiation and (gasp!) even compromise in order to complete a project. It involves a lot of difficult and thankless work which can easily be underestimated by an outsider. The key is to know when and where to draw the line in deciding what changes are insignificant and which would alter the integrity of the project. It is in making these decisions that the architect and the committee succeed or fail The satisfaction comes when the project is completed and the course is greatly improved.