Mike:
Sorry you didn't like the new finishing holes.
The client did not like the old finishing holes, and I had to agree. The old 14th through 16th holes all played downwind in the prevailing wind, and all measured 380-400 yards, so none of them was particularly enthralling. (Plus they were underwater at high tide.) And, though I would agree that the current 17th is not my favorite of the short holes, the one it replaced was nothing special, either.
As for 18, we pretty much had to shorten it to a par-4 because of the proximity of the new 14th green (and, as you allude, so you weren't playing over the back of the expanded practice facility with your second shot). It's still the same green and bunkers as before. Personally, I felt that a strong par-4 finish was more appealing than the old par-5 which was a lay-up second shot for most players, but if you had ever reached the green in two, you'd have grounds to argue with me about that.
Tom,
I think it would be a wide stretch for me to say that I didn't like the new finishing holes. Taken individually, I thought 14 was terrific, 15 was a solid par three that takes advantage of the prevailing headwind, 16 was fine, but I preferred the original greensite closer to the water (which I can easily understand would be subject to flooding), 17 was overdone from a shaping standpoint and not a very intriguing hole, and 18 was fine as a challenging hole, but still a bit awkward in the turning angles.
So, when looking at each hole in isolation, there is very little to harp about. It just seemed to me that you were hampered by the fact that once the decision was made to convert the old 10th and 11th holes into a single new par five, you then had to try to fit the 5 closing holes into a really cramped space, and didn't have many choices on how to route them. Given those limitations, you have unfortunate scenarios such as where you play 14 and then have to walk/ride about 100+ yards, only to then turn around and backtrack to squeeze in the next par three in the opposite direction.
I'm certain that the tidal considerations and subsequent drainage/flooding issues also had a lot to do with your decisions there. It's just that viewed within the context of the rest of the course, and how nicely and logically the routing flows with ample width considerations throughout, it seemed that you were unfortunately boxed into a corner, literally and figuratively, on what was possible on those finishing holes.
For the record, when I last played there about 15 years ago, the old 14th, 15th and 16th did all go in the same direction, although they were a 493 yard par 5, a 393 yard par four, and a 407 yard par four respectively. I would agree that the old 17th wasn't particularly stout or inspirational as a 174 yard par three, but I did really enjoy some of the gambling aspects of 18 as a 515 yard par five with the drive usually playing into the prevailing wind.