The set of one shotters are solid though I wouldn't say any particular one is 'great'.
The # of right to left holes (the 2nd, 5th, 7th) outnumber the one left to right hole (the 12th) but that is hardly the end of the world. Straightening out the 13th might make sense in the context that it removed another right to left hole but it is hard to believe the new 13th tee ball is as interesting as the old diagonal one
What are some other weaknesses? I'm blind as I'm such a huge fan but is there anything that keeps it from being viewed in the same class as the Royal Melbourne's and Oakmont's of the world?
The fact that RSG doesn't have a primary "name" architect behind it prevents a Colt or Fowler or Park groupie professing its greatness. Though plenty of people have had a hand in its evolution, the holes still seem to be cut from the same cloth. For instance, even though the 3rd green is 43 yards deep, I don't recall it looking out of place with the rest of the course.
The strengths of RSG are many: setting, topography, routing/changes of directions, set of two shotters, the humpy bumpy fairways, variety of green complexes seem world class to me. And the modified 14th appears to be a truly great hole - and I'm sure Tom Simpson would LOVE the OB aspect at such a crucial point in the round. The converted 4th might be a great hole too and these two 'new' holes are nice compliments to each other, in part because these three shotters play in opposite directions.
If pressed to name three, I guess the 2nd, 7th and 11th are my least favorite holes but they are more engaging to play than the lesser holes on such beloved links as Royal Dornoch (7, 15, 16), Turnberry (1,2, 12) and several holes on the back at Royal Portrush.
What - if anything - is RSG lacking? I really don't know - on a hole for hole match play basis against the bullet-proof Shinnecock, the match ends halved in my book.
Cheers,