You're right, Niall, I did rather hedge on that part. I don't know if that's the program of work completed or if what I saw on Wednesday is part two of three, four, or five. I can't imagine that they'd build any new tees given that there's already several walk-backs. Had 17 remained untouched I'd probably say I liked it (unless someone told me that they'd spent some obscene amount of money to do it.) I hope the folks whose membership subscriptions enjoy it. I'd happily play this tournament each year if the club continues to host.
I'd describe the course's character as "do you dare to take a particular line, given that you can't always see what's there?" That's my take of 1-12. 13-18 is flatter, I think. After that it becomes a case of "is that railway line in your way?" (Narrator: It was. Twice.) If that's the case then greenside bunker removal doesn't bother me too much. But I'll leave that to someone with more than two visits to say.
I'm looking at google maps to give an example of a greenside bunker that they've removed. One example is short-left of the 11th green. I can imagine that was a tough recovery shot, given that it's 50 feet (significantly uphill) to the green on the map I see. The elite player probably won't end up there too often. The less accomplished player might. In my first round there in 2020 I want to say that I was either in it or too close for comfort. A chip from there isn't exactly easy, but I'd expect to make 6 or better.
Short right on 5 is another removal, I think.
I recall someone in a restoration thread saying something like "don't remove bunkers that challenge the lesser player, because they deserve the chance for to pull off the heroic shot." I think this related to fairway bunkers. You can only play out of so many bunkers in two rounds, so I'm working with a small sample size. If pushed, I'd say that the greenside bunkers removals make the course less penal. This may even make for more interesting recovery options. I wouldn't know as most of that turf was marked GUR, so I wouldn't have played from such spots anyway. I'll go out on a limb here and say these removals do not detract from the architecture. The general contours still demand you take a particular line for approach shots; you just play from turf (at ground level) if you take an aggressive line but miss. You might even have a chip from a worse position (and worse lie) than a bunker. For all I know, the club had added these bunkers in recent decades to "toughen it up"; the removal may be entirely appropriate. I simply don't know.
The 16th green will take time to settle. Given that it flows along a semi-circle path around the green (originally 25 yards short of the green) and is dead straight either side, I might assume that the club rerouted it at some point in the past. It's not as dramatic as, say, Turnberry-Ailsa 16, but jarring given the sleepers installed and their fresh coat of creosote. From where I played (left semi rough, 150 yards out) it looked like the hole was right by the hazard. It wasn't. That might be my eyesight though. As I say the fairway bunkers had a similar effect.
I've seen or played other examples of recent M&E work. It looks new because it is new and in one case it's just flat out different to what was there before. The one example I have in my mind looks out of place. The work at WG seems more appropriate.