It might be a more interesting hole if the fairway was shaped like a "P", with a new slash of fairway turf slashing between the bunkers angled toward the green. Or, if the fairway was"G" shaped. (I know the Supers out there won't like that second notion. Really, the hole is too short for that option, methinks.) Or it could be "F" shaped.
That said, I think as it is, it would be a nice hole to discover and study. Also, to examine it without the Carry Numbers and all that stuff that makes us overknow the hole before we've even stepped onto the green. I like yardage books but sometimes they can distract while you're playing. All those numbers take something away from the reliance on the eyes and architectural sightplay.
I want to reply on the second part of this comment as well, because it's a key element of this course. Without the yardage guide, I would have said the course would have been TWICE as hard as I found it to be. Why? Because there is really NOTHING out there to give you any sense of scale. Nothing on the horizon, no trees, no houses, no buildings. There are several "alternate landing areas" on a couple par 5s, but it's extremely difficult to know how far the carry to them is without looking at the guide. But hitting them makes the green much more reachable in two.
We made this mistake on the 1st hole, a par 5 with a fairway that shoots straight out off the tee, then ducks down over the hill. We all hit our drives right down the middle of that fairway, and come to find the hole makes a sharp dogleg right and half our group have driven their "perfect shots" through the fairway. Some would argue bad design, due to the blind nature of an opening tee shot, as I did when it was happening. However, I could see now that for competitions, familiarity with the course and the leg work your caddy would have to do (if you had one) would be key on this kind of layout.
Here's a picture of the opening hole, and the second shot from the corner of the dogleg.
