David writes:
"To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.) Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were."
Your observation is one that goes to an important turning point in the history of golf architecture, I think.
Circa 1900 Vardon, Taylor, Hilton, Garden Smith, Hutchinson and others criticized those holes, mostly on the grounds that they lacked cross bunkers ("... you could play Eden Hole with a putter..."), and on the grounds that there was inadequate room to hold the green after you carried what was, in effect a cross bunker (the Road Hole bunker). That is, even with a well struck approach hit over the Road Hole bunker wouldn't hold the green, ergo the 17th was "unfair". Taylor lost an Open when that happened to him in the final round. He ended by doubling the hole. He never forgot it.
There were lots of critics circa 1900 who marked down not just those holes, but the TOC more broadly for its paucity of good cross hazards. In that regard, Sandwich was thought to be a better model and generally preferred by those same critics.
Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.
At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above. Thank goodness.
Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment.
All of which is just one of many reasons why it is important to retain as much of the historic character of TOC as possible. And why trying to "improve" it now, more than a century on, is so frightening.
Bob