Jud,
When I set foot onto the property my impression of ANGC changed dramatically from the perception I had derived from watching TV for decades.
I think most would agree with me.
Therefore, your premise might be flawed at it's core because you're putting forth your view based on what may be a misleading representation, that derived from camera views/angles.
Gib Papazian, whose intellect and architectural perceptions I respect, gained a flawed sense of the course and the bunkering from watching the telecast.
I think that sometimes we forget that when Billy Payne announces Arnie, Jack and Gary on the first tee, that it's SHOW TIME.
Yes, a major is being conducted, on the same course as last year, but, the networks are also hard at work presenting views not common to the golfer. So you have to be careful as to judging what you see on TV as it's not always the same thing that the golfer sees as he trods the fairways.
Despite what many think, the folks at ANGC "get it".
Some of the best golfers on the planet are members there.
Those folks are steeped in golf.
ANGC's dilemma, like the USGA's has been the impact of high tech I&B on the play of the golf course.
Remember, they serve two masters, their membership and an annual major, and that's a very difficult and delicate balance.
They are by no means perfect, but, they do adapt to keep the course relevant in terms of challenging the best golfers in the world.
How did that work out for Prestwick, a course that I love, a course that I have a special attachment to.
If you haven't changed in the last 80, 90 or 100 years, it's almost impossible to remain relevant in terms of tournament golf at the highest level and in terms of presenting an enjoyable challenge for your members and guests.
Too often ANGC is an unjustifiable target for those who don't consider all of the factors, influences and circumstances.
Hope that helps