Adam
You may be right about Nicklaus being the only one that would build a "cut green" in that situation. After all, that is all we no how to design, because Jack designs only to his game and he only knows hot to cut the ball. We are still trying to figure out how to design "hook greens".
No seriously, let me try to give you some of the reasons why we built a green that you see as a "cut green" at the new 5th.
First of all, the natural lay of the land is from high on the left down the low of the cliff on the right down to the beach. Jack's natural inclination is too construct the green into the natural slope allowing the ball to bounce on the green from the high side. This also allows for construction of the bunkers beneath the green to not have to "fight" the natural slope and force a raising of the green on the low side. I am quite sure that if the low was on the left, Jack would have built what you would call a "hook green" in that situation, although,
Secondly, we analyzed the other par threes on the course and determine that based on your criteria, the 12th and 17th would be considered "hook greens" because the green opens up on the right side. The 7th, being so short and surrounded by bunkers didn't 'favor' either shot shape. So, we decided that a left to right opening gave the course a better balance in approach shots. It was also more similar to the shot that was required on the original 5th hole, with the way the trees hung over the approach on the right side of the hole.
Thirdly, the wind, as shown in the picture in the thread, most predominatly comes from the ocean side and since the hole was not going to be particularly long, Jack felt that a draw approach shot would be carried left of the green setting up a challenging pitch to a green going away from the player, whereas a cut shot into the wind would be the proper shot, and hold it's line. Thus, shotmaking would be at a premium even on a middle to short iron shot. This proved to be true during the Open, because, as I understand it, the 5th was the most difficult hole relative to par in the Championship. Some of that must be attributed to the long rough that came in too close on the left side and didn't allow the "bounce in" from the left side that Jack had designed into the hole. Jack was not happy that the USGA had changed the design intent of the hole, and he predicted the difficulty that the hole played.
These are just some of our thoughts into why a "cut green" was designed at the new 5th. I am assuming that we would not be the only designer to design with such criteria.
In regards to whether the hole "fits" with the other holes. All I can say is that that was our intention completely. We built the green exactly the same size and pitch that was on the original 5th green, just in a different shape. We tried very hard to duplicate the bunker style that existed at the time at PB. We had a lot of people critiquing as we went along, and all, at the time, felt like the new green/bunkers etc. did, in fact, fit well with the existing course. Everyone has there own opinion as to how well we did in that respect. I'm sorry that everyone can't be pleased with our work, for whatever reason.
Mr. Mucci
I was only addressing the location of the 5th hole in my hypothetical. You are correct that the 6th tee most likely wouldn't have been located up the hill as it is today. However, based on the distances that players hit the ball when the original course was designed, I would think that the 6th tee would have been located down near where the present 5th green is, and slightly left. Please believe me when I tell you that we had considerable conversation about moving the 6th tee down the hill closer to the new 5th green. We felt that the hole would play better playing into the counter slope on the left rather than the fairway falling away from the line of ball flight on the tee shot. However, as much as we tried, we couldn't get enough distance because of the new lots created left of #5 to have a legitimate par 5. The original course could have had a par 5 with the tee down lower, but it would undoubtedly been moved up to get the distance needed for today's player. It would not be viewed as a great hole as a long par 4, in our opinion. But, that is another discussion.
So, I agree that it would be preferable not to have to climb that hill to the 6th tee, but when everything is considered, including the views that are afforded, we felt it made absolute good sense to move the 5th hole down to the ocean edge. Regardless of the flow that some think the old 5th gave the course, it was generally viewed as the weakest hole on the course, and when the opportunity availed itself to build a hole in the location that the original design intent, we were please to be able to be a part of that change.
BTW, we also made several other changes on the course during that time, but I have yet to read where anyone has commented on them. I can only assume that we must have done a better job of blending that work with the original than some think we did at the new 5th.
Sorry for the dissertation, but I thought some might like to know the hows/whys to how the new 5th came into being.
Cheers