Somehow I missed this thread. Thanks to Matt Mollica for pointing it out, he obviously was surprised I hadn't contributed.
Thanks for posting the article Neil, very interesting, and will be very useful in compiling Brendan's records. I agree that this is a drawn 'copy' of a Mackenzie document. The bunkering plan provided to the club included detailed elevation plans of each hole, as well as the reasoning for how each bunker should influence the direction of play.
I've printed off a copy of the plan, and I'll take it down to the club in the next week and do some comparisons with the old course overheads we have. There are a great set of full course overheads from the 30's, 50's, 70's and current, which are invaluable in course discussions at Greens Committe meetings.
Mike has given a good account of 3, I'm sure the hole was never played with fairway left of the bunker, and it is certainly not a poorer hole for it (although Dr.Mac's plan does look intriguing also) now, it's one of the best short 4's in the country.
Dave Elvins: I'm also pretty sure 16 was never played as a 300yd par 4. It makes sense that Mackenzie would move the 16th tee closer to the 'new' 15th green when he suggested it become a par 3, but as far as I know that suggestion was never acted upon, and thus the walk back to the 16th tee exists as it does. The 'original' in 1925 was a 418yd par.5. and from that I would conclude that the tee was moved slightly back on a similar line to the original.
I also don't think the 3rd green has really moved significantly. Maybe slightly, but if the full width of the 10th tee was drawn into the original, I don't think there is much difference at all. The original 3rd hole was 250m exactly, the current hole is 269m
Mike C: The 11th tee is an interesting one, and I agree it would be a good hole with the original tee position re-instated. The problem would be safety on the 13th green, and I think it would be a significant one with the 'standard miss' for club golfers being short and wide right.
Neil: Mick Morcom's contribution to the design (fairways and greens) and construction are certainly acknowledged by those at KHGC that know their history.
Mike's comments on the length of the course are well made, and not often recognised. Apart from the obvious loss of length on 15, the 11th and 4th holes were both reduced in length over that 60 year period, and were both longer holes than they are today.
Another interesting note re: the routing is that this site was chosen because the length of it was predominantly north-to-south, meaning very few holes would have to be played into the afternoon sun (which comes from the bottom of the plan and google map for those that don't know).
The fasciniating ones on this plan for me are the 13th and 17th, and I will check the old aerials to see what they show and report back. I'm also very interested in the 2nd hole drawings, as they strongly represent what I believe the hole should look like now.
............and it's also great to hear some praise for a very underated routing