The 15th, for me, was the problematic hole at Landmand and led to a lengthy, respectful and constructive conversation with Rob Collins. It's 640 from the tips, but we played it from 580 and 555 respectively.
The tee shot, a short forced carry to a seriously wide landing zone, split by a narrow parallel bunker 20yds long slicing through its middle at or about 265yds out. To the hazard's left side is a narrower and lower fairway that, by virtue of its depressed terrain blinds out any view of 2/3 the green. The right, elevated, side offers a better look, but both areas remind the average length hitter they have 280-330yds (all uphill) to a very big two-tier green, with a perpendicular spine dissecting the middle.
The second shot is where the disappointment begins. The average, or short hitter, is asked to hit an absolutely precise shot of 180-210yds into a narrow, severely-canted gully sandwiched between several yawning bunkers that fall 60-100yds short of the green. Even with any success of staying on the grass, the majority of the green is obscured. The only option to this shot is try to hit and carry the ball 230yds ...OVER a huge field of native grasses and bushes...only to land 20yds short of the green in greenside depression....all of which is 100% blind to the golfer in the nearly all areas of the landing zone, or lay -up short of the bunkered neck with a 175-185yd blind shot. The first time player can hit two reasonably good shots and end up totally pooched. Only the bomber has any good chance of even successfully navigating these features.
In our group we had two West Point Golf Team Captains who should've considered joining the Air Force (where they'd easily be nicknamed, B-1 and B-52). They, like Rob himself, bombed their tee balls 290-340 on each rip. On 15, we had only one par, and 3-4 double-bogeys or higher. The first go-round was no better. The group had eagled, birdied or parred the other 3-shotters.
My biggest criticism of this hole was the blindness-to and proximity-of the native areas along the right. I have no issues with blind shots for the most part, but this was an automatic lost ball hazard with no visual warning whatsoever. Conveying that to Rob was easy. He was open and amenable to criticism (didn't hurt that our appreciation for the other seventeen holes was considerable). He walked me through the hole's desired strategy and ultimately realized that while it was certainly strong and representative of he and Tad's design principles, the criticism was eminently fair and its flaws evident.
The easy fix would be to grass and maintain some larger part of it. The other might be to soften the cant in the neck of the pinching approach bunkers. Both would make more economic sense than raising the LZ portions of the fairway. Even the placement of red lateral hazard stakes along the left edge of the native would help. All-in-all, and despite it being misidentified by a fellow panelist, it was a hole that simply didn't work as well as the other 17.