1 - well regarded and reasonably well financed traditional/old links courses ie. 100 years old, have been having make overs and tweaks on a fairly frequent basis since the year dot - nothing new here
2 - at any point in time starting with Old Tom there has been a pre-eminent architect or two who have hoovered up more than a fair share of the work. Despite that courses don't all look alike.
3 - the homogenization process if you want to call it that, mainly happened in the 1890's and early 1900's when 18 holes became the norm and the likes of HG Hutchinson expounded standard or preferred length holes. Everything since has been updating based on those basic principles or following whatever fad is in vogue ie. hairy lip bunkers from a few years ago.
I've a suggestion, why don't we first off consider whether the proposals are any bloody good or not, rather than shouting them down because the architect isn't one of the chosen ones or because of some misplaced principle that old courses shouldn't be touched. Just a thought.
Niall
We meet again
1. This is the same bollocks that committees spew to try to get their changes through memberships 'the course has evolved over the last XX years. This is just the latest evolution'. Mackenzie's proposal to update the bunker on 17 at North Berwick had something to this effect and it is bollocks.
It is true that courses evolve, but as I've mentioned before, I would argue that most great courses in the UK have not materially improved as a result of work that came post golden-age, when architects were improving courses as a result of new ideas (strategic school of thinking) and technology. We can't say with 100% certainty whether the changes from 60 years ago improved the course or not because we weren't there, but my evidence against the changes are two fold: the courses and more specifically holes that I hold in the highest regard are generally original, or from an architect who updated the course at the time described above. Second, the work that I have seen, which was meant to improve already great courses, while at best isn't bad, doesn't materially make the course better in my eyes. It's superfluous.
2. Because they were good architects who took what the land gave them and designed / redesigned what they felt was appropriate (where needed). I don't see that now - I see people selling a product now, not a solution.
3. There may be other homogenisation periods in GCA, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't kick-up a fuss when great courses in the UK are getting updated in the name of fairness. In my mind there's a difference between updating a course because it has become obsolete based on new ways of thinking about GCA (as was the case when victorian age courses were all renovated) and updating a course because of a certain fad. The changes we're seeing now are a fad, and a dangerous one at that. Where holes are getting straightened, fairness is championed and in general, the UK is worried about championship-fying all the courses. It's not as if someone is touting some new principle of GCA in the way the golden-age architects were that is revolutionising how golf courses can challenge players of all abilities.
I'm not passionate about this because I don't like certain architects. I'm sitting here, scratching my head wondering why we're all sitting here patting each other on the back for every new project that's destroying unique architecture around the UK, when holes like the 8th at The Island are being lost forever to make the course more 'championship' worthy.
I've seen and looked at the changes being made at The Island in depth. A lot of the changes look so insipid, so standard that I honestly feel a tinge of sadness for a course I've only played once. Added bunkers where none are needed; alterations to holes to weed out the so called 'weak links', changes to undulations to increase fair pin placements.
As Sean likes to say - it's the members who have to decide, and it's ultimately their choice as it's their course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't sting the GCA community.
Let's open our eyes for a second though. Do we really think the changes that are happening in the UK right now are any good? Caveat - Mr. Pearce did point out that good work is happening, and that is absolutely correct - but I'd argue that most are restorative in nature, or they are improving the qualities of the course through tree management / heather regrowth etc, and not because someone rerouted a weak hole.