Pat Mucci,
You have me confused with someone else. You commented, "Phil, the number of times a ball fails to clear Rae's Creek, or rolls back into Rae's Creek on # 12, 13, 15 and # 16, isn't as infrequently as you indicate..."
How do you get any of that out of what I wrote? "And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site..."
Pat Craig, I think you need to take another look at the different versions of the 16th as the holes are very different. Actually though, and I understand that your opinion is that the first iteration of the hole is at least equal to today's, my point is a simple one. How did Jones & Mackenzie miss this hole design? It seems so very natural to the spot (despite the changing of Rae's creek to manage it) and it certainly is a hole that has seen numerous defining moments happen on it in the history of major championship golf. In missing it they also missed how the creek could be put to maximum advantage and so Pat M's premise about Rae's creek being one of the greatest architectural features in golf must be questioned. NOT because it isn't today, but rather because it obviously wasn't when originally used in the design for, if it was, why was it changed?
So, for me the question should really be WHICH VERSION of the use of Rae's Creek is the better use as an architectural feature?