Craig, Could you provide a link to Joe's review? thanks.
My opinion is that the 10th, is a very convoluted hole thanks to the insistence by the developer, who managed to obtain a copy of the RANDA/Ree Jones Principles of Golf Course Architecture manifesto--which is probably a perfect example of HOW NOT to build a GREAT golf course.
It's to my understanding that the developer insisted that green to tees be at least 150 yards apart in some circumstances. A huge mistake on such a nice piece of land that even affected the clumsy nature of the clubhouse. But this to me doesn't distract from the great architecture and finish work that is going on at Inniscrone. It's still a magnificient golf course with many great golf holes.
I've long felt that the critques of the 5th were for the most part wrong. It's a neat little par 3, and I find that anyone that would complain about a 99 yard downhill/uphill walk to be a little too critical to the point of putting too much air into their own opinions. I've seen a lot worse offenses. The walk, an enjoyable one mind you is without carrying your bag, as you just leave it up near the 6th tee which is right next to the 5th. It's quirky. It's neat. It's fun. But most, it's different. Golf courses need difference.
The 5th's only real problem is that with the fast & firm conditioning, which was the prescribed mantra of the design, the green probably could have used a bit more pitch, but just a blink of an eye more at most. In fact, I think it would have been an excellent opportunity for a true punch bowl and some hazardous back-bunkering which would have made it a proto-typical "Little Monster" from ages gone by. that's the way holes like it work--by reputation. But the hole works similarly to that now with it's putting surface's pushed-up nature.
But to the topic of your post--the 10th.
The ridiculous notion of the back tee is not only a dangerous one, but simply a horrible try at a quick fix--not by Gil either. I still think that a par 3 or one-shot hole to be the right move either. My feelings have always been the problem is the downward hill and the hazard itself. the green is a really good one, but the right thing to do here is either purchase the land directly in back of the green and create one hell of a par 4 1/2, which would require giving creating a better, bigger wetlands short right of the new green which would be moved further back. It would be longer, bigger, better. The overall area of wetlands would essentially be larger, only moved further back towards the new green, maybe even right of the new green itself.\
There is another reason why this would make a lot of sense--there is room for it on the scorecard. (if that should matter, which it shouldn't.)
The 16th, well it's just needs a bit of movement of tees. The back tee should be in the position where the middle tee is and vice versus. that's it. The hole is perfect after that.
I think Geoff Shackelford came-up with the best scenario for the 17th. You make it a short par 5, by just moving the tee back. It would be perfect. I think the green is outstanding. Redanman will tell you how long we sat there putting on it, we enjoyed it that much.
The 18th, just needs to have the back tee at the cart path, not behind it.
And I do think the vibe about Inniscrone was well worth it. It's a great golf course. Maybe even a better one as a public number, under the less-discerning eyes of it's private Philadelphia competition.
I think the course needed some adjustments here and there and it would be great if gil were able to do them. He wasn't really given that chance with the old owner. The course needed that kind of TLC.