Every single course listed so far deserves some study to determine how it has evolved over the years, but my guess is very few are worthy of true restoration. Many courses have improved with age despite what us purest think
I was asked this week during a trip to New Hampshire about restoring an old Ross course. Ross was not known to have ever even been on site! I would study it, but restore it??? Unlikely. You don’t restore golf courses just because it would be a cool thing to do. It’s done because the original design is deemed better than what is there now. At least that is how I look at it. Obviously determining what is better is a very subjective thing. Look at what is happening at Holston Hills? Someone (in addition to the architect) has decided they can make the course better. Maybe they are correct but who is to say they are right or wrong?
I guess “restoring” Holston Hills will be another one added to this list once they are done with the current work