John;I also played Hollywood for the first time this past Wednesday morning. Small world, huh?I'd like to echo your comments, and add a few of my own.- As you mentioned, the greens were as creatively designed and interesting as they come. Plenty of false fronts, wrinkles, steep slopes, multiple levels, fall-off edges, knobs, and some good integration with fairway contours. However, perhaps it's just my balky putting stroke, but I thought they were kept a bit too fast for reason. I think the contour was plenty enough to provide adequate challenge at slower green speeds. Maintained in their present state, some positions became impossible two-putts and more problematic is the fact that certain greens will not accept shots to certain positions at all.Case in point; the beautiful 4th hole which you mention. My 8-iron landed fully 40 feet onto the green (I paced it off) and 20 feet right of the hole which was in the center. I was pleased until my caddie said, "watch this", and a full 15 seconds later my ball ended it's descent into a hollow fronting the green.But, the best part of the greens is truly the pressure they put on approach shots. Tom Doak has said that the best way to challenge modern players is through challenging greens and surrounds, and you can't look at an approach at Hollywood without seeing the obvious challenge and letting it get into your head.- The bunkering is indeed wild and prolific and Travis created some unnatural looking mounds and volcanos to house them. Yet, jutting out of the gently rolling New Jersey terrain, they somehow look fantastic! This brings to mind Tom Paul's comment that perhaps what we tend to mind is not unnatural features...but simply unnatural features that are illogically attempted to blend into the existing terrain and obviously fail to do so. They are of virtually every imaginable shape and pattern, and I would have loved to have seen the place prior to the removal of another hundred of them. Unfortunately, most of the bunkering that was lost over time was cross-bunkering, and only the 12th...a wonderful "National-like" hole that I can't believe I haven't heard more of before...features some brilliant cross bunkers that dictate strategy. Most of the remaining bunkering is all lateral, and virtually every green has an opening in front accommodating a running approach. - Next time I'm going back there with a chainsaw. Trees inhibit strategy on too many holes and are actually kind of self-defeating. Because of the challenge at the greens, the course works best when the player attempts to play a full approach to them after a wayward drive. Instead, too often we found ourselves chipping 100 yards further up the fairway after being behind or under trees, and were left with much simpler short-iron approaches.- I'm not sure the extent of Rees' bunker renovations, and although they still played as difficult hazards, I would have preferred to see them looking scragglier. They had very clean edges with turfed faces, and actually looked much less intimidating than they actually played.- Some fantastic holes of note; 3,4,7,9,10,11,12!!!,13!!!,14!!!! (my new inclusion for favorite back to back to bck par 4s),&18. - I sense that something wonderful was lost in the club's decision (I can't imagine the reason) to discard the old 240 yard par three 17th to a huge, wildly-undulating green. The new 17th is about 180 yards over a depression to a punchbowl-type green with an elephant buried left center. Not a bad hole, but somehow uncharacteristic, and not visually stimulating from the tee.All in all, it's the kind of course that would be fun to play on a routine basis. A bit less of tree impingement, and my rating of 7 might climb to an 8.