For me, this and similar threads end up flat... for who and why, for what purpose? I mean none of us are playing the course, right? Or having our ear bent by ANGC members about how its no fun anymore? It's entirely for spectacle and watching elite play upon, correct?
What isn't one receiving in spectacle value currently? For every eagle on #15 that is being thwarted...an interesting, fretful hold of par is being tested... for every sideways pitch someone doesn't like... there is a compelling pursuit to hold position in the tournament... and the bunkers, what does it matter to anyone individual on the board?... many/most of the bunkers have been in their general location and only tweaked in their monumental appearance for more than 70-75 years.
It is a remarkable course, maybe the most remarkable course, as is, as stewarded over the years by the Masters Tourn Com and the club. I would pay attention to arguments that tell me WHY it ought to, needs to, should try and be beyond remarkable... who would that serve?
If it's just to whack around the keyboard on a GCA board, ok (but what good information debate does it exchange beyond the same well held opinion in the other myriad threads related to this topic)... specifics, yes...it's fun and worthy to consider for our spectacle and our interest whether or not #7 could fly in the Masters as the Home hole style it was in Mackenzie's design...is there a way is a fun and worthy puzzle... but to just belt out some dissent on trees and bunkers that have been for many years amidst many enjoyable spectacles is ... flat. It's a great course and most often a spectacular tournament to watch.