I completely agree that the shot values in 2013 will be much different than in 1930, but the problems to be solved on each hole will be, for the most part, much the same.
Really? I'd say the problems faced by Jones were much different on the vast majority of the holes. And I consider them to be generally more interesting. Seven is a good example. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
There isn't MUCH room to expand the great old courses, but it can be done. Merion and Shinnecock are the two with which I am most familiar, but Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Bethpage and Olympic seem to have also found the necessary real estate. It can get in the way of gallery flow, so it isn't ideal, but it seems to work.
I guess that depends upon what you mean "seems to work." One could argue that all of those setups were far from ideal, and that major compromises were made that weren't necessarily consistent with the architectural integrity of the golf holes. And Merion seems to present much larger challenges than any of those holes. There are a number of holes were it seems the course had already been stretched to the numbers of the land such as Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16. Those holes won't play too much longer than in 1930 simply because there is nowhere to go. As you know I think that some of the other changes, especially the narrow fairways and the incredibly long par 3's, are a bit of a stop-gap attempt to keep scores up despite the lack of length. And what does the USGA do when they cannot stretch? They squeeze.
The great old courses can only play the way they were originally intended if:
1) fairway watering systems are removed;
2) the 1.62" ball comes back;
3) any wedges with "bounce" are declared non-conforming;
4) green speeds are limited to whatever was possible "in the day" (6?, 7??, 8 max???).
We may not be able to exactly replicate the old conditions and we may not want to, but we can do better at respecting the old architecture than we are currently. As an aside, fairway irrigation goes way back on these courses, in some cases pre-1910. Jones was playing on irrigated fairways in 1930. And they may not have been called "sand wedges" but there were clubs with plenty of bounce that were effective out of the sand. Jones carried a sand specialty club in 1930.
I happen to believe that the routings, green complexes and pure golf architecture of the Golden Era courses are too memorable to be discarded without every conceivable effort to keep them do-able for national championships. In my opinion, it hasn't always been perfectly executed the first time (e.g. Bethpage), but the results do seem to be markedly better after the maiden voyage (e.g. Bethpage).
I don't want to "discard" these courses. I want the USGA to come to their senses, and take action to make these courses relevant again.
Since I think I understand that you disagree with the above, do you have any suggestions for courses where U.S. Opens, etc. SHOULD be played? Or haven't those courses been built, as yet? That is not a snide remark, but a truly serious question. If not Merion, Olympic, Shinnecock, Oakmont, etc. - then, where??
As I said, I want the USGA to step up and do the right thing, at least for the top players. Golf is a game with rules, and when things get out of balance it is time to change the rules.
But absent that, I'd rather they stay away from these old great courses for the US Open altogether. The overriding goal seems to be to protect precious par, so just about any long course where they can grow rough and harden greens ought to do just fine. I always joke they should alternate back and forth between Torrey Pines and Bethpage Black. Torrey is not much good anyway, and at least if they have a rota of only a few courses the others might be spared. Maybe pick a Chicago slog course to represent the middle of the country.