Hi Jim, yes I would much prefer that area as it naturally was. For me the pond could not be more artless. The creek would look much, much better. The playability would be pretty similar as well. When 99% of the pros hit it in the water they do so right beside the green - not on the back part of the pond. It was a U shaped creek (which must have particularly intrigued MacKenzie) so if someone elected to try to lay up really close - and they would be tempted into such foolishness - it would catch many shots that were pulled or pushed. The pros would still have to make the risk/reward shot - just over the creek rather than the pond. And I would shave it down a bit so that overly aggressive lay up shots would roll dramatically into that creek. Picture a shot in the heat of competition on Sunday sloooowly rolling its way down to a watery grave!
The original 16th played similarly. It is amazing to see that tee to the right of the 15th green. The older I get the less I like big boring ponds. An artfully crafted hole which employees water (like the 13th) is fine from time to time - but those ponds or lakes like Houston last week or one of my least favorite courses - TPC Sawgrass - I do not like. That is forced, ham handed, simple minded strategy and not what I would call fun.
The 13th is great - even with post-MacKenzie modifications. Would anybody prefer that hole to have a fake pond in front of it? It might play well with a pond in front of it but it would look almost as boring as the 15th. Playability is key - but aesthetics and natural atmospherics are very important to my golfing experience.