Dan - has there ever been any thought of going back to the original green on 9? It confuses me why the new one is considered an improvement.
Jason --
I don't think so.
And I don't see how either of us could know which was the better green, since that practice green that remains is *not* the original green, but just part of the original green (and lacking the original's bunkers). All we know is that it is located where the original green was.
I also don't know why they decided, way back when, that they needed a new green. I'll try to find out. I can only speculate, at this point, that they thought players on the 1st tee would be safer with the green farther away. (Did someone on the original 6, the Short, get beaned? And was he on the Green Committee?)
The "new" 9 green was, I've been told, designed to emulate the original. See the 1937 aerial at
http://www.mhccturf.com/?p=398 (our superintendent Mike Manthey's blog), and you will see that the original green (which was then hole 5) had bunkers at more or less the same spots as the current bunkers, and the green has a similar shape -- though, perhaps significantly, the deeper back of the old green was on the right side (downhill), and the deeper back of the current green is on the left (uphill). I'm guessing, just from the shape and the topography, that that original green had a bit of a reverse Redan quality, feeding balls to the right.
Of course, the current green does exactly the same thing. It feeds *everything* to the right.
Personally, I think the current green complex is a really good one, rewarding aggressive shots well-played and leaving *really* difficult putts for both cautious plays (big sweeping uphill putts) and over-aggressive approaches (screaming sweeping downhill putts and chips).
Plus, I love the reverse-cant optical illusion. Even those of us who have played the course many, many times tend to miss our putts on the low side.
What don't you like about it?
Dan