Mike,
I highlighted the key word, "principle" to help you get a better grasp on the subject.
Think "theme" or "general concept" if the word "principle" doesn't jump out at you.
Patrick,
Does the 4th hole at NGLA borrow from the principle, general concept, and theme of the 15th at North Berwick, or is it an exact replica?
If every nuance, including near total blindness, copied down to the minute detail, or are certain fundamental concepts applied in a rendition where liberties have been taken by CB Macdonald to distinguish it from the original??
It seems to me that your whole argument boils down to having a raised front portion that does not permit the golfer to see much of the green. However, the 11th at LACC and the 17th at MidOcean have a raised front as well, but not raised enough to blind the golfer completely from the higher tee angle. Since the 4th at NGLA is likely downhill, as well, it seems to me we're talking matters of minute degrees of difference.
You don't think those differences are within the scope of what CB Macdonald meant when he said that there are an "infinite number of variations" possible while still retaining the concept and playability of a redan???
Once again, by your own narrow definition, I would argue that there is only ONE redan, and that one's already taken. Everything else, including CB's versions, are simply utiizing the design "principle" of that original with the infinite number of variations that CB spoke about.
Ultimately, if it looks like a fish and plays like a fish, it's a fish.
Hook, line, and sinker.
