Tim,
I feel that there should be some historic courses preserved to their original state, as I love architecture and the history of architecture. It would be a small percentage of each important archtitects work (including Tom Fazios, simply for future reference!) and may have to be implemented by government fiat through the historic register. A few old clubs would suffer some loss of property rights freedom, especially if they did not voluntarily agree to the program.
For most courses, even those done by Ross, et al, I think that it is inevitable that change will occur and that the owners of those courses should be generally in charge of their destiny. This is and always will be subject to "the good of the people" meaning complying with all environmental, civil rights, etc. laws that may be enacted.
It also means that at courses like Pinehurst, Riv, Augusta, etc., that changes will be made, because the primary intent of those courses is to be suitable for tournaments today, and not be museum pieces. For that matter, the changes to Augusta over the years to meet the needs of its limited target audience (ie pros) are similar to changes most courses make to meet their target audiences - which have changed in many cases, to a wider audience and skill level, among other things.
So, your example of Prestwick is a perfect example of a course that stays charmingly in character with its 17th century origins, and happily so. But, it won't hold another British Open! And its members probably derive a certain amuont of pride playing it, but it doesn't truly fit the modern game. Without its history, few would value its design characteristics as highly.
I feel amost golf course changes have had reasonable thought processes, given the facts the best thinkers of the time had at their disposal. Certainly, not every renovation turns out well. There were also trends and predispositions at various times, including a push in all areas to "modernize" which now causes us to regres some losses of classic features.
Nostalgia is inevitable. We look at fifties rock and roll and bemoan (perhaps) that loss of innocence that occurred in the acid rock sixties, or even the sexing up of a Brittany Spears at the expense of real music. Nostalgia increases in good economic times, and granted, when current culture seems to be lacking something. But human nature is something that usually pines for the 'good old days", so we always feel something is lacking in modern life - or golf design, and I don't know that many of the calls for "original design intent" aren't as much out of nostalgia as they are real practicality.
But, change does happen, almost universally, and certainly to golf courses. Until they make me "king of the world" I will respond to the things I can change, accept the things I can't, and try to be smart enough to know the difference!
No one design concept - either modernization or original intent will suffice everywhere, IHMO. We hope those in charge know the difference at their particular club.
TEPaul,
My comments and Rons comments are rationalizations only if we accept the premise that distance is a problem requiring a solution! In my mind, that has been established firmly here on this site, but is not generally accepted in the outside world! I think Ron agrees.
As you imply, it would be nice if the distance wouldn't keep going up for pros, if only so we could play current tournaments on courses Hogan played with some semblance of comparison. In my view, that may take a special new "honors major" (you know, if they add a major there is more money in it for everyone) where everyone agrees for that week to compete in the US "Classic course" open with modified equipment. If it was a major, players would show up. Augusta would in fact be the perfect place to try out the concept. It will be ironic if they do implement ball changes there after the course changes. Then, they will lament :"we didn't have to change it after all".
But, going forward is human history, not going backwards. I doubt you would trade your 'beamer for a 1970 Pinto, would you?
Most golfers would not trade their current course for a 1938 version. As I have said before, I look at the old phots, and see some amazing architecture, but I also see lots of bland architecture, and more importantly poor maintenance. I doubt many of us would go back to 1938 turf conditions, even if there are a few top courses out there that overdo maintenance right now. Those, including ANGC, are few and far between.
If my analogy to the Haskell is a joke, so is your question about how many holes have been lengthened, and/or their greens rebuilt. Look at old scorecards of the "classic" courses then extant, up to and including St. Andrews, and you will find that they nearly all have!
The history of St. Andrews has old Tom Morris changing that course, often to critical comments. We also know of the Morris/Robertson rift. Did they want to keep the Guttie for the good of the game, or to keep the money of old technology flowing to their pocket, and not some new manufacturer with a better idea? I think the latter is true, not the romantic notion of how idealistic the "old guys" may have been.
Any claim of "This time its different" must be met with some reluctance, in golf and in bull markets. History proves only the numbers change (ie drives over 300 vs drives over 200 (gasp!) yards a century ago. I believe a case can be made that change has always been part of golf and golf design. I accept it. Hey, in many cases, we even look forward to the new changes to our local golf courses, as for us it enhances our play! On the other hand, we focus on places that don't really affect us directly (a case can be made for indirectly for ANGC) in these discussions.
I accept that the ODS had some unanticipated problems and that the usga failed to meet its original goal with it. Distance keeps going up, at least at the top levels of play. It goes up for some amateurs, too, and as Mike O'mNeil points out, even if we wanted to, we can't seem to effectively boycott the new balls that go further. I guess, we really don't want to hit it shorter do we?