Nearby, is a club that has recently revamped their course, and has truly done a very nice job of introducing attractive architecture and strategy to a course that had very little of either in it's past.
A practically new, and interesting, course was undeniably necessary in order to effectively re-market the club in a very local and regionally competitive private golf club market.
The outside person responsible for this work deserves kudos for doing such a good job. His work was a giant net positive.
My question is what most of you think about the club that pursues a strategy of aggressively promoting a club history and relationship with a well-admired deceased architect, uses another similarly-positioned person to try to validate this effort and then goes out and markets the course as a restoration/renovation attributable to the famous architect??
I am not interested in naming this club, have no axe to grind with them, their ownership, nor the folks involved in genuinely upgrading the course, but really just wonder if it isn't a disturbing sign-of-the-times that such a strongly promoted, yet questionable relationship might be passed off as fact...despite zero factual evidence ascribing the course to the famous architect.
What say you?