Thanks for this series, Ian
As one who played the course a lot in the late 1960's (in lieu of studying), it is sobering to think that most of my experiences there are closer to the course of 1930 than that of today!
Look at the old aerial of #1 and you can see how much more width the course had in ye olden days. You can also see the simpler, less foo foo bunkering and a closely-mown lay up area to the left that JK III would have liked. In in my day for the best players (i.e. Watson), the hole was often a drive and an 8-iron when the ground was firm (or so I was then told). Both aerials also show the natural barranca which cuts across the fairway at about 180-200 yards. this feature, alas, is now NLE having been filled in to assuage the complaints of the shorter hitters in the club, ladies and gentlemen alike. Sic transit gloria....
I played Stanford in October for the first time in about 7 years, and while much remained of the genius of the original course, too much was buried in a sequence of ill-conceived remodelling and renovation choices. More importantly, as you said above, the conditioning/preparation is now more relevant to a PGA tour stop than a natural California quasi-desert Bell/Thomas creation. In October one would expect the course to be at its brownest, with cracks in the hardpan "rough" areas, and green grasses barely surviving their wait for the winter rains. This October, it was as lush as any McChampionshipcourse in Palm Springs or Scottsdale or Naples, and the robles (native oaks which thrive in drought conditions) were continuing to die due to being exposed to too much water.
Great place, great memories, but a shadow of what it used to be.
As for the hole itself, it is a very good starter. If you drive long and true you can try to fashion a shot to the green, although it must be some sort of cut unless you are Watson/Woods long. The canted angle of the green adds to the interest, and in October I thought that the back-front slope (particularly at the front) was still pretty scary (the pin was there that day), even though John is probably right that the green has been softened to accomodate higher green speeds. There are options for the shorter player, all of which entail a troublesome pitch for the third shot.
Finally, as to the greens, all the old ones are relatively "uninteresting" if you are enamored/attuned to wild heaving masses of quirk such as done by Mackenzie or RT Jones. In fact, the only heaving greens at Stanford are those designed by either Jones Jr. or Knott (3, 4, 8, 11). The others are far less showy but require one's complete attention if a birdie is to be made or a three-putt avoided. They remind me of Tillinghast's Brook Hollow or the few original Coore/Crenshaw greens I have seen. Some times in GCA, less is really more.....
rich