I was reading the thread on the best seventeen hole course and the speculation of what MacKenzie (and Hollins) intended on #18 CPC! It seems evident they wanted a very demanding finishing hole! Maybe one a little devoid of what some of us might consider strategy!
It's occured to me for sometime that some of us might not be looking at what a strategic hole really is in some cases, at least compared to the way some of the "Golden Age" architects considered what a strategic hole is!
I believe a lot of us look at a strategic hole as one where a good player (a long player or whatever) takes a risk for a commensurate reward to make securing a par or a birdie a bit more likely and another player (shorter or not quite so good) forgoes that risk (for whatever reason) to work a little harder on his next shot(s) for his par (or birdie). And furthermore I beleive that we look at the strategy of the second player as one where he's likely to achieve a GIR with his strategy of a bit more work.
I'm recognizing that many of these older architects, particularly MacKenzie, Tillinghast and Flynn intended to make some holes and courses far more difficult than they had previously been to really test the good player! In other words the good player had to work really hard just to secure GIR or par! So where did that leave the second player, the shorter or less risk oriented player in their minds? It left him with an expected bogie, plain and simple!
I think the reason we're misreading their strategic intentions and the ramifications of their planned strategies far too much today is because of the far more prevalent perception and expectation of GIR by far too many players today compared to their day!
I see this in some of the articles by Tillinghast when he reacts to someone like J.H. Taylor's criticisms of some of the new (teens and 1920s) courses in America and the alarming difficulty of some of their holes! I definitely see it in Flynn's writings about strategy and demands--and I can even see it in some of Crump's architectural planning!
Today the less good player (the handicapper) seems to expect to make par (and GIR) far more than yesteryear to put pressure on the good player to offset him with a birdie! Back then it's clear the expectation was for the handicapper to make bogie to offset the good player's par on these types of holes!
This is also how the actual concept of par fits in with the entire concept of handicapping anyway. Par was the architect's expectation for the expert player and the handicapping was that the less good player could offset that to even things out--and that would be with a bogie!!
Or to put it another way the "Golden Age" architect would likely not agree with the handicapper's prevalent expectation today that on these types of holes a strategy must be offered where the handicapper could manage GIR with a few good shots strung together! The "Golden Ager" looked at the strategies of some difficult holes that way but only for the expert player!!