Both 10 & 11 feel like bland after-thoughts on the worst bit of terrain, and a such Rye is a truly wonderful 16-hole course. The convivality of the members, the understated clubhouse, great lunch and its traditions cover for these drops in quality (and not sure Simpson's relief holes argument bears fruit here; as they are neither easy nor respite, just disappointing)
Notably Tom Doak in his Confidential Guide review doesn't even mention these two holes (damning by ommission Tom?).
Surely there is a re-routing where these two holes could be omitted, and by using two existing or re-routed holes from the Jubilee (which has 12 holes in far more interesting land) to create a higher quality layout.
I actually liked the 10th hole and thought it was a nice change of pace from most of the holes on the front nine, which are often quite narrow. Same is true of the green, which has a subtle beauty; slightly convex at the edges and surrounded by short grass, allowing a strong approach to get away from you. Again, a real contrast to the greens on the front, which often have steep edges or are surrounded by nasty bunkers.
Beauty in the eye of the beholder.
I think if you showed that image (and the previous one) to most on here and asked which course it was, very few would guess that it was Rye.
The two holes are so out of character visually with the rest of the layout (as you mentioned) which is my issue with them...it is lack of visual harmony, rather than playing challenge (they both seem/look more modern, not knowing their chronology).
Which I think is what this thread is all about, that dichotomy, which is why it is such a good subject/debate.
But I completely respect and understand your more constructive view on these holes.
I absolutely love Rye (both Club and Course) and have played many times there, but I do feel it could be even better.
Tom thought in his guide it could possibly be a "Top 50" Course, perhaps so with a small change or two?
Or maybe better just to leave as it is?