Tom,
When a course gets renovated or restored, it should be a credit to both the original and renovating architect, and it usually is portrayed that way. If changes are minor, like a few tees, the remodel architect may never get mentioned. However, if the changes were good - good enough to become part of golf history, like Bethpage, I do believe Rees should view it as a triumph.
These things work themselve out. For example, some clubs prefer to keep their Golden Age heritage intact, like Seminole, even if it is partially illusion, so they hide even an architects larger involvement for their own reasons. Others like the glory of being associated with a modern top architect, and perhaps overtout, based on actual changes, what their role was.
Of course, architects uses their projects, including the famous name clubs, to build credibility for similar future work. The architect does get credit/blame - which is great incentive to it "right " to establish our reputations and livelihoods. In the case of Rees, his unofficial title of "Open Doctor" pretty well describes what he would likely does to a potential US Open course. Where is the dishonesty there?
Again, the goals of a project may mean some old features get lost. But, even viewed through the narrow preservationist lense, in the cases of Brookline and Pinehurst , I haven't heard talk that he wasn't sensitive to the original design, and really very little regarding Bethpage. In those three cases, the course retained the existing character, quite well.
I am not familiar with most of Rees' renovation work, so I can't comment on others. Since he is doing Medinah No. 3 this year, and that was the first course I played, I will get a feeling of being "emotionally involved" in the outcome, as many here are elsewhere, and may change my tune a bit!
As often as not, Rees' US Open changes don't diminish the glory of an old course, they enhance it in the eyes of most. By using the best of what the original designer put there, and keeping the basic style, but fixing the few bad holes, and moving similar bunkers to new postions, he makes courses US Open ready (if thats his charge) so it can be seen by millions that wouldn't have otherwise been able to.
So, while the course is changed from its original form (it probably already was anyway) there are lots of benefits to lovers of classic architecture. Who do you think spurred love of classic courses more - the USGA by updating classic venues, or the PGA by playing at all sorts of courses? And, if the old courses were ripped apart, how would that affect the prevailing public view of the classics?
I think Rees' work has been good for classics. He did it at Brookline in 1988, well before we had heard of C and C, or Doak, who made it a specialty before they could get much new course work on their own. Rees did it the other way around, and given the relative fees involved, it had to be for love of the game and old courses.
Of course, cynics will debate both that statement, as well as the results versus those of others doing similar restorations, but thats okay. I think that's what this web site was developed for!
