Tom Paul;
You are probably correct and I hope you're right that this is likely much ado about nothing. The fact that the original worldwide reports seemed pretty precise, authoritive, and "final" had a lot to do with my reaction, I must admit. The rationale given in those reports...to avoid making professionals look "foolish", seemed consistent with the type of work that was done, as well.
I do believe the work that was described differs quite a bit from the maintenance routine of rebuilding revetted bunkers every couple of years, or so. This sounded more like an intentional redesign from quoted accounts.
Which gets to why I was so strident and possibly overreactive in my earlier arguments here. I believe that there are any number of historic courses that should be "preserved" as best as possible because of their value to the game. TOC certainly would head this list, in my opinion.
Yes, someone could come in and make an argument that the modern professional game is passing the old lady by, and that it needs to be changed accordingly. There are some "weak" holes around the turn, and each would probably play tougher with a pond dug in front of each green, or some other new created defense, and possibly someone might suggest that new pot bunkers be dug in the 300-400 yard range from the tee on each hole.
Yes, each of these changes would likely make the Old Course tougher and more demanding on the modern game. The addition of new tees on many holes hasn't really slowed down the scoring onslaught and I'm just concerned that our most historic course is going to fall prey to revisionist thinking.
When claims are made that the course played backwards until recently, that bunkers there have historically had modern capes and bays, that the Road Hole bunker historically played much easier, etc., what we are really doing is opening the door to any "reasonable" interpretation which can be used to justify actual design changes to the course.
What I keep coming back to is the REASON for doing the work, and I think it's pervasive and potentially harmful. The whole thinking goes to medal round scoring, particularly for professionals, and reminds me of the USGA dictate that rough should provide a "half shot" penalty. Why are we trying to regulate and stratify scoring? What's wrong with a hazard that might be a "no shot" penalty for some who pull off a daring, risky recovery and a "three shot" penalty for some who do not??
In any case, I've said all I can on the issue and hope you are correct as to the positive outcome.
Rich/ForkaB;
Me, "reasonable"?
Seriously, I think we represent two ends of the philosophical spectrum, "historic preservation" versus "ongoing modifications", or at least I think that's what I understand you to believe.
For instance, what would your reaction be if design changes to holes at TOC, such as new bunkering, or the addition of water hazards, or the growing of deep rough be? Would you be philosophically opposed to any of these changes on the face of them, or would you simply withhold judgement until you saw if they made a better, more challenging golf hole in your opinion?
Surely holes like 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15 can be vastly "improved" for the modern game...don't you think?? Isn't such "progress" inevitable?
Would you argue that we should just get on with it, then?