Craig:
There seems to be several "expert" opinions on how much the greens have changed since Mr. Ross's death, and they don't all agree. I am inclined to trust Richard Mandell's report because it seems to be the best researched. I know this much. Ross died in 1948, not 1936. In order to know how much he would, or would not, recognize today's greens, it would be helpful to see photos or descriptions of the greens in 1948, not 1936. In any case, even if they have changed a lot and even if he would not recognize them, that does not prove that they were better then or that they would be better if restored. It is a good question for the historians (I used to be one myself). However, I am tireing of the history questions. All I know is that the current greens are very special and probably unique today. I see no need to change them, and I really wonder if Ross would. Obviously, there is no way to know, and I, for one. don't care. Of course, it will be an improvement to widen the fairways in order to resore some of the strategy off the tee. Like ANGC, in order to score well on #2, you must hit a well struck iron from the property spot on the fairway. Unfortunately some of those spots are now in the rough.
BTW, I never but much credence in comments made about #2 by people who played poorly on their first visit. If #2 is eating your lunch, as it often does to a first-timer, most players loose their composure, their brains are fried after the sixth hole, and they are convinced the course is unfair. If you can keep your wits about you through the front nine, the back nine actually plays easier. It almost always requires multiple plays to figure out and appreciate the course. I like to say that #2 usually beats me up, but their is no better feeling than on the rare day that I score well there.