Doug,
The problem is that high tech has made every classic course a "Prestwick"
Patrick:
I'm not sure that's the case. Note some of the early courses that have held Opens in the U.K., vs. the U.S.:
U.K.St. Andrews (first held the Open Champ. in 1873)
Muirfield (1892)
Sandwich (1894)
Hoylake (1897)
All of those courses, still part of the Open rota, pre-date the Haskell ball (which led to tremendous changes in distance and ability to control the ball).
U.S.Chicago (first held Open 1897) -- multiple Opens
Myopia (1898) -- multiple Opens
Garden City (1902)
Onwentsia (1906)
Philadelphia Cricket (1907) -- multiple Opens
Englewood (1909)
CC of Buffalo (1912)
Midlothian (1914)
Minikahda (1916)
None of those courses, presumably, are in line to host the U.S. Open, and I'm guessing one (primary?) reason is the inability to lengthen the course to meet the demands of today's technology. Only Shinnecok Hills (1896) and Baltusrol (1903) are courses that held the US Open more than a century and would be capable of holding one today, and both of those courses first held the Open on courses radically different than the current configurations (much more radically redesigned, I'd argue, than any of the U.K. Open courses still in use -- perhaps Colt's Muirfield is an exception here).
So, yes, "high tech" would appear to have made many of the early U.S. Open courses obsolete. Only Prestwick and Mussleburgh (which is only nine holes) have been rendered obsolete in the U.K. due to technology. (Maybe throw in Deal in the discussion.)
Were the U.K. courses built with more elasticity? Were they built on land more suitable for expansion? Or have they simply held up better over the years as championship tests of golf? (the latter being how their hosting organizations -- the R&A, and the USGA -- interpret that.)