Jeff Brauer,
I've always maintained, that in the ultimate, it's the club's responsibility for what happens to their golf course.
They are the curators.
Without the club's consent, changes can't be forced upon the golf course, irrespective of who's making the recommendations.
JakaB,
The tree on # 2 in the 1938 photo is not intrusive to play to the green from the right side fairway bunker. Don't confuse shadows with leaves.
I happen to love playing Oakmont, but, have to lament the loss of width and the loss of many bunkers, in number and in size.
JSlonis,
While it's true that # 8 only recently plays to 280, it only plays to that length for those who venture to the back tee.
The overwhelming majority of play is from forward tees.
I think the one glaring error that all of the clubs in the Open and PGA rota make is the 913 to 1 rule.
Essentially they make their members step-children for 3,648 or 3,659 days in favor of catering to a chosen few for 4 days.
In years past, while changes were made in preparation for the 4 day event, they were undone when the show left town.
That's changed.
Now, the changes are permanent in nature.
New rough lines are created, new bluegrass is planted and bunkers are moved to match the new rough lines.
Members must now play a reconfigured golf course that has less width and fewer playing options, a far more penal golf course that has to be less fun to play than the wider course, for the great majority of the membership.
Having 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicappers play a golf course that was specifically reconfigured for the best 200 players in the world is not in the best interest of those golfers.
It's fun initially. But after sufficient time with repeat play reality begins to set in, the challenge is beyond the ability of the membership and play, that once was fun, is now a labor.
This leads to dissatisfaction one's game and creates a disconnect with THE game.
One of the reasons that NGLA retains its lure and the desire for repeat play after 100 years is the fun of the challenge. It does not erode the golfer's will. Instead, it provides a thrilling, fun challenge, primarily through expansive fairways that can accomodate the 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicapper.
Winged Foot appears to have rejected the trend that requires altering the golf course to accomodate Major events.
As a decent golfer, I've never understood why 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicappers would want to play a golf course, day in and day out, that was specifically chosen and altered to present a ferocious challenge to the best golfers in the world.
It's misguided at best.