VK,
I understand what you're saying here, but this is basically the same justification the USGA has used for decades to create insanely difficult US Open setups as well.
I don't think you have this correct... AGNC and the USGA (and everywhere) may share length-steroids and green speeds as a means of offering "scoring defense," but they couldn't be more different in other techniques to establish challenge... of Frankenstein rough and 22 yd wide fairways, while at ANGC the fairways are 40 at their narrowest and the debate is about half inch second cut... artificial pars of 70 that seem to exact more rigor...while ANGC has thankfully seen no need to call #s 2 and 13 "par 4s" so the winning score won't be so far under par. .. The USGA courses have obliterated trees, not planted them...Augusta has never lost their course as I believe the USGA did twice at Shinnecock and ANGC has never presented their course in capricious condition, as I believe the USGA did at Chambers. AGNC hasn't resorted to tee gimmicks of "making" drivable 4s out of something, or flipping the card pars of holes from their traditional previous appearances.
But what I genuinely avert from in your short post is the idea that the USGA makes a bad spectacle (imo they don't) and that now the debate isn't about what's there and its particulars, but that they are using the same rationale to create an insanely difficult course...and that in so doing, one's spectacle may be ruined. I don't care (and I can't see how most of you thoughtful posters do) what rationale, means, support, wealth or fantastical technology ANGC uses to produce the Masters...they've got my blessing, as they've been doing it right for nearly 90 years....producing a continually updated course that's a marvel for a usually thrilling tournament.
*ADDENDUM - for all objectors* - I think the "Masters/TV effect" is something that is legitimate as a poor model, arguably responsible for influencing unsustainable maintenance practices at our local clubs and select American courses 60-30 years back, but these modern debates of stewardship are WAY overstated as a matter of original design destruction, or illegitimate design practices...too-aspirational in plush maintenance? Yes. Lack of fidelity to Mackenzie or Jones' original concept? No way...Why? because there's a "designed recovery grove of trees right of 11...trees between 15 and 17 that weren't there? Please. Sure, probably like you, I haven't played the course; but if its disqualifying in this case... well... it's a hole in the mission of the board.
As interest and time permits, I'd go measure for measure with any voice here who furthers that allegation, that this isn't the essential golf experience located by Mackenzie as inputted with, and curated by, Jones...and an apt, calibrated (great word, Peter) hi-fidelity, necessarily modern iteration of this fantastic design on bold property. Thank god it's not still 6750, Thank god, 7, 10, 11 and 16 are different and not 4 more sand wedges; thank god the trees have grown up and new ones birthed; thank God the banks are shaved, and the greens maintained to cm tolerance...it'd be a joke to watch elites on TV play a miniature golf course; the Masters would be closer to the Par 3 contest, or it might be a fond, nostalgic senior event with carts...yukking it up, vamping for the crowds. I can sooner imagine Mackenzie being thrilled that the elites of the game are still grappling with it, that it receives so much positive attention and oftentimes curated (first by Jones himself) with special emphasis placed on the genius of its bones and organs, if not the skin of his design. If there's objection from any poster, come, explain to us how I'm wrong; as this is the only place from where I hear-- thankfully scant -- complaint.