There is nothing in between.
Not that it matters to me what a man does for a living, but I'd like to see language used properly -- and I think that it the long run it would be better for everyone if we did.
If you were *restoring* a mid 19th centry Victorian row house, you might update the elements that no one would ever see, e.g. the electrical system and heating and plumbing; but in terms of what people *could* see, whether a passerby or an infrequent guest or a close friend who will visit every week, one would want that row house to be the very *epitome* of mid 19th century Victorian architecture, with all the elements and features and colours and materials and proportions that characterized that time period and design era shiningly and proudly present -- either brought back to life with loving care, or, if the plaster is too cracked and the wood trim too rotted, replaced with modern 'duplicates' that match the original specifications/qualities exactly.
*That* is a restoration. That's what it means to 'restore' something. Everything and anything else is a *renovation*. Full stop. Period. Yes, by all means, knock down two walls to 'open up' the living room and re-face all the original exterior brickwork with brushed stucco and stainless steel trim, especially if that's what the home owner wants and what you're especially good at; but please don't call it any form of restoration (even a *sympathetic* restoration), because it is not. It's a renovation.
Again, I'm not criticizing the latter approach, simply asking that it be described properly. I don't think I'm being a purist here: it is really none of my business if a club and/or an architect decides that 6500 yards is not a long enough course anymore, and/or that a contoured green no longer works with today's technology. But there is something vaguely not right/annoying with time and time again reading about work (especially work by our group of favoured architects) being described as some form of *restoration* while at the same time reading how we've denigrated as a near travesty that same kind of work (i.e. renovations) done by less favoured architects. There is also, it seems to me, some implied and subtle criticism in the use of a term like 'sympathetic renovation' -- as if we're admitting that we couldn't accept/praise such work unless we bend the language all out of shape.
The sooner everyone involved accepts that everyone involved is actually involved in *renovations* (sometimes more drastic/dramatic and sometimes less) and we all start *calling* it that, the sooner a more truthful/accurate picture of what clubs across the country are doing and why will emerge.
Peter