Mike,
Two of the worst sources you could quote would be TEPaul or Ran Morrissett.
Ran's area of expertise relating to golf is his ability to whine for more shots. Only a misguided football fan like Huckaby would fall for that ploy.
The answer real lies in what the land provides, not in the name of the hole.
If you look at many of CBM's holes with THE names attributed to them, they don't provide a mirror image or close duplicate of the original or what CBM created at NGLA.
Remember, CBM was sought after for his designs.
People wanted the product he created at NGLA.
Hence, he produced template holes.
But, his template holes were templates in general terms, not identical replicas.
Just look at the Alps hole at Piping Rock.
And, some of his other "named" holes.
I think the naming of the holes was more of a marketing technique, a general reference to the TYPE of hole rather than
a certification of the pedigree of the hole.
EXACT duplicate are rarely if ever encountered.
Ask yourself, what's more of a Redan, the 8th at The Creek or the 11th at LACC ? I think the answer is obvious.
The 11th at The Creek is Nader with many of the Redan features, absent a tee at green level or below.
The 1st at The Creek looks alot more like a redan than the 11th at LACC. If the angle of attack was reoriented from 8:00 O'Clock instead of 5-6:00 O'Clock it would be a true redan even though it's a par 4.
When you examine CBM's templates at various golf courses you can see their resemblance to the "concept" of the hole, but, they're a far cry from the original.
When you evaluate a "redan" I think you have to evaluate the hole in the context of having "ALL" of, or the "critical" features that comprise a redan, and, having the front shoulder or ridge of the green obscuring the putting surface is a KEY element in that evaluation.
Any tee that sits above the putting surface, that provides an unrestricted view of the putting surface, can't be deemed to be a "true" redan, irrespective of its name.
You're definitely going to need a bigger boat. !