MDugger,
I understand your point of view.
But, how relevant is the look of the bunkers from 3,000 feet, to the golfer ? The person actually playing the golf course ?
I could show you aerials of bunkers at NGLA that you'd declare as UGLY. But, playing the golf course and seeing, confronting and playing them would leave you with a completely different view, one based on sound, first hand information and experience.
But, golfers, unless they combine bungee jumping, don't play golf from 3,000 feet, they play golf on the ground, a ground that is integrated with architectural features placed within or on that surface.
If there was one thing I learned from Scott Burrough's AOTD it was that bunker shapes as viewed from aerials don't provide ample representation of the architectural feature that's on the ground, and that an evaluation based solely on an aerial doesn't provide enough substantive information to allow the viewer to make a thorough, intelligent analysis of that feature as it relates to the look and play of the golf course.
Matt Ward's title to the thread and the text of his opening remarks called for a thorough evaluation of the bunker complex. But, his position was based on incredibly limited access by which to examine that bunker complex.
Had he qualified his title by adding "from the air" I wouldn't have posed my question.
But, he called for an in depth analysis of the bunker complex, and I thought that any evaluation, based solely on some aerial views from a blimp would be incomplete at best and disengenuous and highly inaccurate at worst.
You will notice, in Alex's post on Hidden Creek, that he qualified his title so that those viewing his thread would have a better understanding of his viewpoint, which I think was the right thing to do.
You may view my question and position as nit picking, but, I'd rather attempt to clarify and qualify the issue rather then let it go down the path of reckless abandon.
But, that's just my opinion.