I watched the tournament on Sunday quite carefully, noting each of the hole descriptions, plus multiple angle views. Here are my few thoughts.
1. I had the sense that the course was designed mathematically, where bunkers, lakes and fairway widths were compared to a statistical analysis of the top golfer's ability. "Let's make the carry here 285 yards, but encourage a 275 yard drive with a 10 yard fade", and so on.
2. The leaderboard, more than anything, was populated by players with powerful, good golf swings. Tiger's ballstriking has deteriorated; not good enough to will himself past the cut. Dufner, Bradley, Hansen, Karlsson...those guys were swinging it real nice, and Keegan Bradley has a modern swing of enormous power. He might be the real deal.
3. I'm with George Pazin. I think the competition is ten times greater than one generation ago. In every big money sport, except perhaps baseball with its unbalanced revenue system, the parity and competition is unprecedented.
4. Importing new sand in the same year was a big mistake. Don't they know it takes a year or so for new sand to settle into place? It probably didn't change the outcome, but it diminished the ability of great players to execute already difficult shots.
5. I sensed less famous players populated the leaderboard because nobody, except for David Toms, knew the course well. A new venue may eliminate the veteran's course knowledge that allows him to compete better.
6. Overall, I thought the bunkers were more functional than aesthetic. Hazards are best served aesthetically.
Visually undistinguished at best, difficult with minimal charm, huge swaths of fluffy, unavoidable sand. Too hard. In the long run, who cares whether the course made for a good TV show for four days? Just like Charl Schwartzel, I hope Keegan Bradley wins again.