Gib - thanks for your post.
I've been reading this thread, but have - remarkably for me -- managed to refrain from jumping in and spouting off some theoretical generalities despite not having even a smidgen of specific knowledge/experience (my besetting sin, as per George's mistake thread).
But all along I've been wondering about the Behr angle, and noting that the present day course seems to have so little to do with Behr's design philosophy (at least as expressed in the writings I've read).
And with each passing post, I found myself thinking more and more that perhaps our love/respect for original architectural intent and design pedigree is in direct proportion to what club members actually want/works/is in their best interests today -- and that any genuine embracing of the past or true restoration is actually a rare occurance, and even then is one driven by economics and not architecture and made manifest by a very deft sleight of hand on the architect's part.
What seems to work for/is in the best of Lakeside members today is to position the course as a US Open calibre test, though one with a charming and unique past. Nothing wrong with that, and it's none of my business of course -- but it is striking that so few seem to think a celebration of Behrian design/philosophy worth pursuing.