Fellas:
Thanks for the lesson in design evaluation...gosh I'm blushing
"Flynn tee is on a higher level that allows some of the strategic designs to come into play while the other tee was quite awkward with the 20 foot climb in front of the tee."
Strategic yes, but likely still blind so any more natural--not IMO.
"Flynn's bunkers are more sophisticated in the outlines in harmony with the movement of the topography rather than narrow unnatural geometric forms. The centerline bunker in front of the green was a primitive design with a narrow rectangular pit with a berm constructed behind it using the fill from the pit. The other three bunkers are not placed in a natural fashion but at three corners of the green. Flynn retained a single bunker from the right rear corner of the original green and used that to mark the outside of the turn towards the new green."
Sure, I agree about the different bunker shapes and I like the Flynn bunker shapes much better and I noted the strategic approach taken...I guess I am 'looking' at natural from a another point of view as opposed to the simple change in shape of the bunkers. The bunkers in the original design are no more unnatural than the sharp circular revetted pot bunkers in Scotland, but everyone agrees for the most part that they are placed in natural locations with respect to grade and strategy intended.
As far as the shape of the green goes...really doesn't matter if he or anyone for that matter uses a square, round or organic shaped putting surface as long as it is in a "natural" location with respect to surrounding grade and the intended shot asked of the player...and so on. Elevation wise, it looks as though the original green location offered a better view for more players (if natural or not I don't care) to the green site based on positioning in the landing area and the rise at contour 220. The Flynn design if anything did create more strategy, that's a plus, but also more possibility for a blind second shot unless you play FAR right or FAR left along the edges or bust it past the 220 plus rise in the fairway.
"Flynn's left fairway bunker is placed naturally into the hillside with a small mound behind to raise the topline a bit more"
While true, I really wouldn't use this as a means of comparison since the original design didn't have a fairway bunker. Curious, what is the length of this hole? It seems shortish?
"Flynn's design uses an outstanding feature that was on the periphery of the old ole, namely the mound that hides the green for all but well-placed shots to the left of the fairway." What mound are you referring to? Do you mean the rise in the landing area at contour 220? This is why I asked about the hole length.
There is no question IMO that the Flynn design is better for many reasons, but natural isn't what stands out to me, (I am not being critical of you Wayne, just my observations) the strategic and tactical approach he took with feature placement in association with the movement in the landscape to accentuate his design thinking and the players challenge are what is best about the hole.