The 8th does not fit into any of the template categories, IMO. There is no Strath bunker, so it is not an Eden. If you look at the right-to-left slope of the terrain, I think they missed the chance to built a great Redan. The green does have two distinct tiers, a Raynor feature, but thats about it.
I think the Banks hole (#12) was the most disappointing. It is a fine par 3 but I'm not sure what template it is suppossed to be. I belong to a Banks course and I am a huge MacRaynor fan. I guess #12 was their attempt at a Redan but there is no kick mound. Nae kickmound, nae Redan!
As to RJ's question, I'd say most CGA posters would really enjoy the round of golf. From a golfing perspective, it is a very demanding course. You are rewarded for thoughtful, accurate play but severly punished for over-aggressive misses. For example, the par 4 10th is a beautiful short par 4 designed to give you 3 choices: play short of the bunker complex and have a full iron to the green, hit driver left of the complex to a narrowing fairway, or fly the bunkers for a flip wedge. I hit 3-wood short and had 9 iron left with a clear view of the green. My opponent tried to fly the bunkers and made a double. My partner hit a very accurate driver left of the traps but had to hit a wedge over a greenside bunker to a front pin. He hit it very well, but it caught the downslope over the trap, kicked over the green, leaving a tricky downhill chip which he failed to get up and down and he made a highly annoying bogey.
There are many other examples where if you simply play the way the hole was designed, the holes are fairly simple to play, and the big numbers come in when you try to overpower the hole. And I would venture to say that the great architects would approve of this.