TD,
So if I'm hearing the bottom line correctly, you are saying that whatever increased value of enjoyment the tournament yielded, it is not worth it if it is a model for other classic older courses wishing to host an Open and have their course "stand-up." The profits aren't worth the price. Is that right?
That aside, I have to ask you-not as challenge, but as a matter of information--what was "blown-up" and how did they "bend?" How was the architectural product compromised by the procedures deemed necessary to host and Open. did it leave any permanent scars? Was the course substantively changed from what had been? Is this version worse? better? or merely no-longer historically accurate? Which were a few of the most telling features that make this clear. i really don't know, except for a few tee lengthenings and work on the 15th hole.
VK:
Part of the reason my perspective is different than others' is that I don't place as much credit on the "increased value of enjoyment the tournament yielded" as others do. I realize that many members get a great ego boost from having their course hold a big tournament and it will impress their friends for years to come. I visit courses to enjoy the course, not to compare myself to Justin Rose [or to Hogan].
For that, the club went through years of revisions. 10-15 years ago they excised all the bushy plants from the bunkers, that were the most unique stylistic feature of the course I knew in the 1980's, and deepened the bunkers with a tournament in mind. They narrowed the fairways to 1/3 their original width. The USGA asked them to rebuild the 12th and 15th greens, which they did, and perhaps others, for all I know. Back tees I have no issue with, if they don't require other changes in concert, though it is a shame if anyone thinks the 3rd at Merion is meant to be played at 270 yards.
Now, Merion has been through all this before, and I hear that this fall they were restoring the course to what it was before [minus the Scotch broom in the bunkers]. If they can do so successfully, then I guess they just spent a bunch of the USGA's money to host a tournament, and there is little long-term damage done.
But they've left everyone with the impression that to host an Open you HAVE TO MAKE THESE SORTS OF CHANGES. That's a terrible precedent which many other courses that won't host the Open will now feel compelled to follow. [As an example, when I was building Cape Kidnappers, we were asked to put in some back tees for the professionals because Mr. Robertson saw what they had to do to Shinnecock Hills, where he is a member.] In my opinion, they could have left the course alone, saved millions, and had a great Open where the winning score was 2-4 shots lower ... but the USGA and the R & A have not left a course alone for more than ten years now. They insist on changes to every venue no matter what its track record, at the same time they insist that the equipment has not changed anything over that time frame.
The other part is that after the Open, most clubs leave the course as it was set up for the Open, thinking that they'll have the tournament again, or that members and guests want to play that set-up. It took Pinehurst several years to restore their course after the horrific fairway lines that were established for the two Opens and the U.S. Amateur ... so, that was 15 years of less enjoyment for visitors in return for having hosted the tournaments. It took Shinnecock Hills 20 years to widen the course back out after they narrowed it for the Open in 1986. That's the cost that I object to.