I was thinking about alterations the other day in the context of reacting to increased distances produced by the I&B.
The simplest, reactive alteration seems to have been to move the tees back.
But, that seems to only affect the lower handicaps and it seems that the motivation for adding distance is to primarily protect par.
Rarely do I see clubs alter the "body" of a hole.
And that applies even more to landlocked holes.
A good example might be the 16th at GCGC, where there's no more room to lengthen the hole at the tee end.
100 years ago there were two fairway bunkers that required an heroic tee shot, or a tee shot to the left of those bunkers, leaving the golfer with a very difficult approach, and more often than not, a redirected second shot away from the green that would position the golfer's ball in the ideal spot for their third shot.
I've often wondered, when carry bunkers become akin to the Maginot Line, why aren't they:
1. Moved to an intended/sympathetic location OR
2. Remain, with similar bunkers added at the intended/sympathetic location.
I understand that it's cheaper to move or create a new tee versus craft new or move existing bunkers,
but why abandon alterations in the body of the hole that will restore the intended architectural effect, solely for money ? And, especially on land locked holes.
It seems that many, if not most courses take the easiest path, adding distance at the back tee.
Why not realign/repostion/add bunkers/features that will replicate the original intent ?
What courses have made significant alterations to the body of the hole/s ?