Mike & Jeff,
Improving a hole or an entire golf course presents a dilema.
It may be possible to improve a hole or a golf course.
But, once started, where does the process end ?
Why does the golf course have to be a lab rat to the membership ?
The underlying foundation of my beliefs is rooted in statistical analysis, vis a vis personal observations.
I've seen far more disfigurations then improvements.
That ratio makes me overly cautious.
When I first came on this site I had a long debate with that cretin of armchair architecture, TEPaul. That debate centered on the vision or lack of vision of the man or men in charge of the alterations, in conjunction with an architect.
While I sided with the visionary member, TEPaul sided with the architect. But, the truth is, it's the combination that produces great results. I"ve seen clubs dictate changes, terrible changes, and I've seen architects make terrible changes. With a visionary chairman and a talented architect I think positive results can occur, and in some cases, the result is to leave the golf course as it is, or with minor adjustments.
Remember, if the process doesn't come out perfect the first time, you can bet the golf course will suffer further alterations in the future, until years later it bears no resemblance to the originators vision and design integrity.
Since Shivas asked the question of me, I would ask him, and those of you who support the process of improvement,
how would you improve on NGLA, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, ANGC and Friar's Head ?
I'm sure you can improve certain holes, so I'd be anxious to hear how you'd do it.