Until this one, I've liked all the changes. But I don't get this change at all. Looks like a much less interesting hole, For all sorts of reasons.

Does anyone know what they were thinking? Or - on the Tom Simpson theory - is this designed to be the one bad hole on an otherwise very good course?

Geoff,

How long was the original? How long is the new? Did they shorten it because there was another hole approximately the length of the original?

In the new hole it looks as if:

1) water stretches about 130 degrees rather about 50 degrees of arc. More dangerous, especially in cross winds.

2) there's more contour

3) late afternoon shade may complicate reading the green

4) background trees may help frame (or assist depth perception) a little, though this could be a result of the camera angle and light

It's hard to guess the result of these changes. I'd love to know whether it PLAYS more interesting to various levels of players.

The old hole looks like one of The Faz's at WW Pine Barrens (#3)

The new hole looks like it will likely get into the players head, much more and appears more unique than the original.

Count me in the group that thinks the re-do of this hole looks great. It's got visual appeal and looks to present a nice mental challenge.

Pete the Luddite says, "nice hole".

The only change I haven't liked. What's with the wall and the big (?) round green?

I am not overly keen on this change either. Once again, I like the rough and the colour contrast it creates (perhaps also due to a better photo and better time of year?). However, the artificialness of the wall and roundness of the green in this setting is inappropriate. Both versions of the hole look interesting strategically.

When I look at the original hole the problem which jumps out is the cart path and the area behind (perhaps the next tee?). A good job was done to hide this path, but I can't help thinking that creating a high sloped back section of the green would have accomplished two things. 1. Blocking out what is behind AND 2. Keep the flexibility (distance wise) of the hole. The orientation of the old green left a lot of great options for hole placement and also left a bailout area for the shorter hitter to essentially treat the hole as a par 4 by hitting out to the right then chipping on. The slope could have been sort of like a Redan hole where the player can access the far left pin by hitting to the middle and letting the slope of the green do the rest. The big advantage here is that the players can see a well struck ball feeding toward that back pin. Is there anything more exciting than watching this sort of thing happen?

I think the key is how does the new yardage fit into the rest of the par3 on the course. Most were around the same distance and I believe 1 of the objectives was to try and make the course feel more like a classic course. What is classic feature of the par 3s? You got it... a short challenging one-shotter. The green is actually fairly small 5000 sq ft with a higher plateau on the right.