Call me a heretic, but I was less impressed with #2 than apparently most of GCA. I was fortunate to play #2 a number of years prior to the restoration - I found it to be a very good course, eminently playable for virtually all levels of play. It was fun, but less than memorable. The holes were fairly homogenous - few elevation changes of significance - when we were finished, it was hard to remember any one particular hole as a stand-out star.
As for the Open, watching on television could not have been more boring - from the lack of any real drama in the competition, to the lack of differentiation from one hole to the next, to the lack of real risk-reward strategy that was supposed to be the hallmark of the width and difficult green complexes. As far as I could tell the only risk-reward was bogey vs birdie. From the driveable par 4s to the new short par 5 - virtually everyone went for the greens on the driveable 4s and short par 5s. Whatever the risk was, it did not deter going for the reward. Even the commentators remarked that the course had many bogeys, but few doubles or others.
I think the course will play much more as envisioned by Ross this week when the ladies tee it up. I suspect it will be more entertaining, as well.