Great stuff Jason.
Yes, the distance part of Mackenzie's quote no longer applies. But I'd argue that at least for the tee shot, the accuracy part also no longer applies, and I question if it ever did. Come on, no greater test? Heck I can think of many greater tests on that course alone....
But you are of course very correct that it remains an interesting test, for sure. With that green, it's never going to be easy. Patrick's Dad notwithstanding however, I don't see much of an advantage anyway to getting it to where we all did... it's still a tough shot in.. and how much harder is it (if any) from on top of the hill? If you'll recall, you and I got it to the "A" spot off the tee... damn near the shortest shot one could leave in... Pieracci was back a little, on top of the hill... now of course it's easy to base this on results as he stuffed it and neither you or I came close to doing such, but even beyond that, I have to wonder if his more "level" shot from 20 yards back wasn't even a better way in than ours going uphill from closer? And given it's pretty simple to get to that spot, well howe great of a test is this for anyone?
Obviously if one bails too far right, that's gonna leave a very tough shot. I just don't think it's all that tough - for any golfer - as the hole is presented today and how it must have been when Mackenzie made the quote - to get to the top of the hill, have 150-160 in, with a level shot to what actually is a very large green. The test is then going to be distance control on the iron shot, to get it to the proper level - oh my yes, fail to do that and any score can happen - but again, is controlling the distance of a 150 yard shot really the ultimate test of anything?
I'm gonna stick with the good doctor going overboard here. But do note that I have never been the great fan of 16 that many are... oh I think it's a damn fine hole, for sure... but I've always though each of 11, 10 and 14 are superior....
TH