If Dr Mac originally had the 16th as a par 3 onto the peninsula, it begs the question as to why the 17th hole didn't play over the river and leg left up halfway or so up the hill - sort of a 4.5 par? Which would leave a longish uphill par 3 finisher. Perhaps he didn't fancy two long par 3s in the final three holes, but it eliminates what has to be one of the worst holes on a famous archie's course. Personally, I don't think the peninsula would have been fit for a hole as I bet (and I bet it gets quite wet these days) it was a very wet area. I also thought why not play the extent of the peninsula then play a short par 3 over the river as #17? It still leaves the terrible 18th, but does save a long walk and use a great piece of the property in the peninsula and the river. Mind you, the current 17th is a good hole.
MacKenzie's reluctance to use the river as a hazard on the course puzzles me. The only hole where it comes directly into play is the 16th - and we now know that not to be his work at all. A site with such a river meandering through it would surely invite most course designers to have at least a couple of holes playing over it - including I suspect, the Dr Mac of twenty years later. I guess he was still cutting his teeth and maybe developing his confidence; although lack of self belief does not appear to have been one of the good doctor's faults!
The ground conditions would not have been a serious problem; the course is built on a bed of sand and water drains into the river very quickly. Following the heavy snow we had recently I played the course on the first day it re-opened and the thaw had left a few patches of surface water here and there. The following day however, all the water had drained away leaving the turf dry and we were back on summer greens - including the 16th!
I know your opinion of the 18th. Walking up the hill is certainly a grind at the end of a round, but the hole does present a unique golfing challenge. There is one particular spot at the bottom right of the hill where a 7 or 8 iron off flat ground will flip the ball right up onto the green, helped by a convenient bank to the rear left of the putting surface. Finding that spot (known as 'pro's corner') from the tee is the key to playing the hole.
Ultimately, the hill is there and the clubhouse is at the top of it. Somehow the course has to get back up there from down in the valley. The current hole is as good a way of doing it as any I can see. I don't agree that it is a 'bad' hole - just different. It is certainly much talked about, gets the club attention, and presumably helps attract visitors (and income) wanting to know what all the fuss is about! Play it twice a week Sean, and you'd soon come to love it!
I think the best holes are 8, 9, 13 and 15, though 17 is quite good as well.
Most peoples' favourites are 14 and 16. Whatever, there is little doubt that the finishing holes are of a very high quality indeed. The rest of the course is pretty good too, IMO!
Duncan
Am I to understand you think Dr Mac was only involved so far as the basic outline shown above?
I hope to find out. I am learning that the only thing you can trust is documentary evidence, and that basic outline is the only documentary evidence I have so far seen of MacKenzie's involvement in the course design. I have seen it asserted that MacKenzie returned after initial construction and insisted on modifications to the work done, but until I see hard evidence of this I must treat it as anecdotal.
I would love it if there was in the club archives a detailed plan of the course at opening in MacKenzie's own hand, closely matching today's layout. The lack of a framed copy of such a plan hanging on the clubhouse wall leads me to suspect however, that a search for it may prove fruitless.
I sincerely hope that my position of studied scepticism is misplaced.