Gib and Pat,
I think we all agree that many normally sane people have checked their intelligence at the front door of the club, and don't seem to bring the same business sense they have in the outside world to club management affairs.
Believe me, I have seen it as an architect, in that most of my calls come from clubs that have done it at least once on their own, and on the cheap. Every golden age architecture book begins with a chapter on greens chairmen problems, so I think the problem - or as I like to think of it, this particular quirk of the human condition
- is and has been universal. Perhaps my take is that there are "some" examples and yours that "all but two" fall into undesireable categories are really not two far apart in actual numbers, just attitude.
My post was really aimed at extending Tom Paul's point, that how we are now as sure we are right in our approach, as our golfing forefathers! In the same vein, people who are "sure" the stock market was different this time, and would keep going up are getting burned right now. I believe there were many good decidions made, given economics and trends at the times.
Here's a related question to that line of thinking....Is pure restoration a fad, a trend, or a counter trend? We won't know the answer for about 20 years. Will some future greens committee laugh at any consultant or committee that called for restoration of bunkers 120 yards from the tee in the name of "original intent" when they no longer come into play and cost the club much denaro in some future economically stressed time? I think we can bet on it! (Based on past history)
IMHO, it should be a trend for about 2% of the clubs out there, and most should adopt a "sympathetic restoration" which keeps the traditional look of the club, but solves the here and now problems.
Another problem is documenting what was really there at the start. I was at an old midwest club this week, and when we pulled out the old plans, we found that their traditional, small round greens weren't that way to start! Multi lobe shapes, tiers and decks - which we associate with modern design were the rule, but they had slowly disappeared, perhaps not under the hand of an architect or committee, but just slowly over the years! As the greens shrunk, bunkers slowly went out of play and apparently were rebuilt, as they no longer came into play. However, the club committees who built them changed some angles, failed to build with support, etc. - the type of problems you describe in that most of the additions are both our of character with the original, and in many cases, just plain bad architecture.
Who's to blame? Did they dissappear for budget reasons, inattentive superintendents, or by committee mandate? No one knew, and in many cases, they can't ever know to pin blame, even on a recent committee.
And what are the right answers? I am surprised you are shocked at my post, because in essence, I am simply saying its harder to know the answer to that question than we think, and the more I do in architecture, the less sure I am that I know the right answers!