I would be shocked if Scott isn't on to this, since he says he knows which course and what hole. Assuming he is correct, and assuming it is a C&C design effort as Doak elludes to, I think it is not good design for all those reasons of opening hole-water carry, excessive length, and not much difference in back and middle tees. Let's face it, that isn't good design principles, or certainly not the widely accepted conventional wisdom.
So, I'm not going to sit here and rationalise that it is good design, and must be some sort of genius deviation from the conventional, just because it is C&C.
I must say, it certainly has the "look" of a Strantz hole without the water, the way the hole is presented and bunkering and waste areas are arrayed.
I'd have to believe that the water was completely non-avoidable in the design for any archie to purposely choose to site a first hole in this manner.