I would say more about the TOC changes, but I am still not sure what they are from the brief descriptions. I know I would be wary of some from the way I read it.
On the other hand, some "tweaks" don't seem like much at all, and probably not more than has been done unannounced by supers over the years anyway. As the old super told me years ago, he filled in many bunkers in the middle of the night out there, with little fanfare. There have been more changes than most here give credit for.
I would be interested to see the "recontouing" around several greens. I hope they aren't relatively symetrical mounds and hollows you could see anywhere else. I guess they (as I envision them) would make some chips tougher off sloped lies and tight turf, but what is the point of that, particularly?
The change that riles me the most is the lowering of the spurs (as they call it) to promote vision of the 4th green from the left/safe side of the fw. That one seems to go not only against history, but against the very gca principles established by the Old Course over eons of time.
I would be more accepting if a hollow was filled for drainage or some other simple reason that made the course not work as well as it should for everyday play or maintenance. I mean, things do wear out over time, and the Old Course has put in more time than any of them!
I understand the outrage against changing just for the pros. As it stands right now, when they go to TOC, they accept very low scores if the wind doesn't blow, and reasonably low scores when the wind does blow, as originally intended there. How many strokes would they add to the winning total on a calm 4 days when all the changes go through? 1, 2, or more? What is the difference between 17 under and 20 under?
Does that really positively affect the reputation of this course in particular or the Open in general? Its the Old Course, so I doubt it in either case. Part of what makes the Open the Open is the ability to connect with history so far back, unlike any other championship in golf. Whatever might be gained in perception of a slightly higher winning score (not that it would ever be possible to compare what the winning score "would have been") is offset equally by the idea that you are not playing close to the same course of Jones, Palmer, Seve, etc.
So, I am not against all changes, but would be careful, which is what most are saying here. Of course, the question is who really gets to make those decisions, and are a bunch of us, from a world away, better qualified to make them than those in charge? I know we think we are!