Patrick,
When I first head that Fazio/Marzolf were fiddling with Oakmont I had the exact same apprehension that I did other times at Merion, et.al.
Further, when I heard that they were messing with bunker location, size, proximity to fairway, and depth, I must admit to seeing visions of the really fugly new rightside bunker on the 18th hole we both saw at another US Open course by a different "Open doctor" a few years back.
From a philosophical perspective, I still don't like what I've heard at Oakmont, frankly. I don't like the idea that bunkers need to be moved out to somewhere around 280-350 yards to be effective. I don't like it one bit, Sam I am.
However, I now have to admit that I have a new open mind about depth, something which I argued against when the bunkers at Merion were deepened. I just figured that they would be a horror show for the members while remaining a scant inconvenience for the pro, who would just use their 64 degree wedge to place their next shot from a perfect lie in the bunker to within 4 feet of the hole.
What I saw this past weekend made me reevaluate all of that party-line and I think it should make other fair-minded individuals who enjoy a certain amount of preservationist purity reconsider their own personal prejudices.
The simply fact is that the deeper fairway bunkers ended up functioning much like the deep pot bunkers on the great links courses, in that they were definitely needed to be avoided lest the player give up somewhere between 1/2 and 1 shot. More importantly, greenside bunkers were no longer a place of refuge but instead a very iffy proposition for a lot of reasons, but not the least of which was depth.
It seems to me that at some level of depth, spin becomes less effective because of the more oblique angle at which the ball lands on the green.
It seems to me that this causes a first bounce, "skidding effect", where the ball is coming in at such a low angle as to be much more uncontrollable than is normally the case.
So, although I still have some serious philosophical objections to the continued tinkering with great classic courses, especially by those architects who profess no real admiration or respect for those who came before them, I also think it's important for all of us to understand that at the very highest championship levels of the game, we need to consider very open-mindedly what might be the factors that can actually challenge the most talented players in the world in today's modern technological world and at least be willing to concede that we may need to adapt our thinking to think of creative ways to deal with modern realities and variables beyond what we might agree with or wlllingly accept, yet can no longer deny.