Tommy,
This course is built in the Flint Hills, not the Sand Hills. The simple fact is, that C and C HAD an opportunity to carve out natural sand bunkers simply by clearing out a little native grass. I did not. The cat paw, or any other bunker out there had exactly 0% chance of being seen randomly in nature at Colbert Hills!
Even a great many sandy sites, from Pinehurst to Royal Melbourne have built bunkers, and not particularly to any rugged standard, but to more a stylized form that is highly attractive. For that matter, even at a site like Pac Dunes, Tom Doak BUILT reasonalby normally shaped flash bunkers. Purely natural would have meant just leaving the dunes in place. Why cut more formal hazards? I think its because we generally accept that we must have them!
Thus, the point of this discussion, as I understand Adam's original post, is why fantasize precisely the way you are that you MIGHT have seen any particular type of bunker? Bunkers are remnants of early seaside courses, meant to somewhat emulate that experience, but architects over time realize, to quote Tillie (I think) that the puny strivings of man don't compare with nature. In other words, why try to emulate massive dunes, because chances are you can't.
Instead, architects have used bunkers as stylized reminders of those early days, accepting that they are artificial imitations. From there, we try to make them as attractive as possible, since its clear that they do have aesthetic value on golf courses as well.
They also have emotional value to golfers. So, a Cat's Paw bunker could be considered a proper symbolic gesture, especially in Manhattan, KS. You were not my primary audience when designing that! I may be wrong, but since you are a MacKenzie, Bell, and Thomas fan, I suspect you don't argue about the aesthetics of their flash bunkers at all. Yet, any modern bunker seems to draw your ire. I tend to agree with the post that said that we are looking for something that looks aged, not natural. Golf courses are one of the few artistic endeavors that look better with age, not worse.
Your point about shaping is well taken, as in the 80-90"s, many of us overshaped everything. The point of the shaping was not to emulate the natural, but to see how far we could push the envelope, to make modern courses look different than their predessors. Nothing wrong with that, really. For most people, the new is exciting. Re-doing old things isn't. I know your opinion might vary.
There are also technical things to consider. As a Southern Californian, you may be biased against shaping for drainage. There, with limited rainfall, surface drainage probably works just fine. Here in Texas, or at Colbert Hills, where rock underlays the soil, and I had to grade certain areas.
The site was hilly in many areas, and the golf course in valleys that would in about 20 years be surrounded by houses, which would increase drainage even further. Many fairways had side slopes exceeding 15% when we started. We had to get those under 10% or the balls would roll off the fairways. I knew we would be sodding Zoysia, which requires about 5% minimum slope for proper drainage, so grading got the fairways between these grades.
Simply put, the grading and drainage of that site was custom tailored to the practical problems I knew were there. I stuck with the basic general drainage pattern, but altered it to keep water flow where it would do the least damage to the course. In some cases, this does lead to artifial bowls, and inlets in the fairways, etc. But, that was necessary, and to do less wasn't an option.
I know I could talk all day about this, and your mind would be made up that surface drainage is the "most natural" and no other way would work. However, I am just trying to show a perspective of why we do things certain ways now.
Now, if you are simply talking about the modern style of building greens, and more specifically, building greens surrounds of mounds, ridges, etc. I understand your point. IF you prefer a certain style, you are entitled to that opinion, and entitled only to play golf courses that are designed to your liking, as are we all. For that matter, all our courses probably do look too much a like than too much different, owing to both design conventions and construction standards, using contractors who transfer ideas from architect to architect, sometimes unknowingly, just by assigning certain shapers, etc.
One reason C and C and Doak created a certain appeal is that their stuff WAS new and different, at least to the golfers eye. Ditto Pete Dye and even RTJ in the 50's. In earlier cases, golfers began to recognize repetition and it stuck out when someone came along with a "new" look, even if it was borrowed from Scotland, the Golden Age, or in Muirhead's case, God knows what. But, he carved a niche.
That Muirheads style never caught on as more than a gimmick, is, I suppose, testament that golfers do like the emulation of nature. However, the way they flocked to spectacular courses and paid high prices to do so also may say that the more natural style isn't necessarily the thing that sells them. I think we all enjoy getting out to "nature", but wouldn't for example, want to worry about snakes, so we don't want it too natural. I think most want an "improved landscape' crafted for a very specific use, like golf, and cleaned up and organized so they can intuitively understand it.
I am not a shrink, but from English Gardens to Central Park, to golf courses, which probably follow park design in reality, I think this has been the primary design theory, over an emphasis on "the natural."
As you can tell, I like the debate over some of these "Big Picture" topics. I also appreciate Tom MacWoods posting some of the old architects drawings. So, Tommy, I hope you know I have zero problems with your posts. I just like to bat the ideas back and forth.