I've noticed more than an number of alterations, some subtle, that have altered the intended play of a good number of golf holes.
One that seems to be prevalent is where a stream/water parallels a fairway.
In many cases, the closer the golfer comes to the stream/water the more he's rewarded with a more favorable angle of attack. Perhaps that's risk/reward at it's best.
Yet, in many cases, what once was fairway close to the stream/water is now rough. And, on the opposite side, the rough has been mowed to fairway.
Now, the old optimal DZ is not the ideal spot to hit the drive.
Once this has been done, the approach from the softened side remains more challenging, and in many cases, causes the club to make adjustments at the green end, since the hole has been declared to difficult, or unfair from the amended area.
Why don't clubs recognize the architect's original strategic intent ?
Why don't clubs recognize the damage they're doing by altering strategic holes ?
And, why do they compound their original error by further altering the hole thereby continuing to thwart the architect's intent ?
Has good architecture become difficult for the modern golfer to detect ?
If you say "NO", then how do you explain situations like the above ?