I know this is a very old thread, but I played here today and I'm a little confused by everyone disparaging the oceanfront 3rd hole. I'm not trying to argue as much as trying to understand this GCA mindset.
To me, it's a hole that presents all sorts of options, and I thought that's typically lauded around here. The short distance definitely tempts players to go for the green, which as the crow flies is only about 275 yards or so from the tips. If you choose this option, you could: 1) Hit a good shot and be rewarded with a putt or chip for eagle; 2) Pull it left into the trees, leaving a difficult approach or requiring a punch out to the fairway; or 3) Push it right onto the beach (lateral or OB, I'm not sure what it plays). Those scenarios already seem like the makings of a good hole. However, even if you choose the safer route (175-200 yard lay-up while avoiding fairway bunkers), the green is severely undulated with a crazy shelf on the back left corner that requires extreme precision on one's approach. So even if the lay-up off the tee isn't that exciting, the second shot is (or can be) pressure packed. One of my playing partners today went straight at the pin and paid the price when his ball went long into a severe grass bunker/swale directly behind the green. From there, he wasn't even able to keep his chip on the green, so he made a big number due to barely misjudging his approach distance. I came away feeling that it's a great par 4, in that it's clearly the signature hole of the course and its yardage seduces you into thinking it's going to be easy, when in reality it's very complex and requires good strategy and execution from tee shot to holing your putt.
Also, for those who said the hole is a bad usage of the waterfront, what should RTJ2 have done with that 150 or so yards of oceanfront terrain? How could such a small slice of oceanfront be put to better use?
I sincerely look forward to any responses.