Terrific thread, particularly posts #11, 12, 13. Those posts and others should clearly point out to us numerous ironies involving some of the Old Guys; what they were willing to do to other courses and why, and also point out clearly that we should all be very careful in tending to glorify everything about them and also in attempting to attribute to them ideas and actions that may not be accurate.
Some today who really are interested in "restoring" or "preserving" the older classic courses who also glorify everything the old guys thought and did in this sense are attempting too often to fit a square peg into a round hole.
So if we can get away from glorifying every single thing they said and did it can then give us a better perspective to make our own intelligent decisions on what some of those old architects of the "Golden Age" did leave us with in the way of design intent and architectural priniciple.
As Tom Doak has said often a great deal of what was built in the so-called "Golden Age" of architeture really wasn't great architecture--even some of what was built by otherwise famous and respected architects both then and now.
As hard as we may continue to try to create "dos and don't" of how to treat and handle what we consider classic architecture or even interesting architecture of an era we will always have to face squarely and objectively one undeniable fact--which is does that architecture work well for the purpose it was designed to serve. If it does it will endure and be preserved, if it doesn't it won't.
That to me was what happened to a lot of the old Golden Age architects and their architecture in their era and also to their architectural era after them.
In a way I sort of hate to say it but good architecture has an interesting way of becoming respected and consequently being preserved because it simply inures itself against change through respect.
Certainly there may be some notable exceptions to this due to subjectivity and its inherent disagreement and lack of consensus. Such would probably be ANGC and others of that ilk.
But on the other hand for every course like ANGC there are others such as the Road Hole that most everyone seems to admit might never be able to be built today anywhere and anyhow but its inherent respect puts it in a category of its own never to be touched!
That's a reality I guess we will never be able to avoid or deny. Again, really good architecture generally endures on its own with or without a famous architect's name attached to it although the famous name generally can't help but increase its liklihood of preservation.
I think my own course is an excellent example of this reality. The course was designed by Donald Ross--a famous architect. But a few of his holes didn't work well for the members, weren't respected--just basically weren't good golf holes. And Perry Maxwell came in and changed them, and did his own thing--his own look--his own style--his own everything.
The holes that Maxwell did, except one, did work well and became respected and they endured without change and will continue to. And the real irony and proof of their quality is until a few years ago probably not 1% of the membership remembered which architect did which holes.
Golf holes and courses will become respected on their own ultimately but of course if some architect does enough of them he too will become respected and famous.
Of course the supreme irony of architecture is that isn't the ONLY way an architect can become famous and even respected.
It just shows how complex and subjective golf architecture really is but it particularly shows that again,
"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone."
But intelligent cues and intelligent directions of how to handle some of the "Golden Age's" architecture should not necessarily be sought by analyzing everything those "Golden Age" architects said and did.
Unfortunately, we will all just have to continue to make our own best decisions about any architecture. There will always be a time and a place to apply the idea of--"just leave it alone" and there can also be the time and the place to apply the idea that it can be made better. But in the end no matter which idea is applied that architecture will have to stand on its own and hopefully become respected. If for whatever reason it doesn't, no matter who did it, it will probably be changed again someday.