Even if boulders are indigenous to a site (I'm sure they look completely natural at Bay Hill!), I have to say that they make terrible hazard boundaries. Two Pete Dye courses I've played recently both utilize this new "feature", and I have to think it's misguided.At one, Mystic Rock at Nemacolin Woodlands SE of Pittsburgh, Boulders were clearly indigenous to the site, and where they appear naturally in areas out of play (woods, surrounding hillsides, etc.), they do add a beautiful, raw element to the course. However, they are also used extensively to line each water hazard, and their symmetrical appearance is both un-natural looking as well as just a bad design feature. Balls landing there can basically go "anywhere" upon carom, and therefore, unlike his formerly used railroad ties, do little to establish a clear boundary line for the hazard. Boulders are once again used prominently at Bulle Rock in MD, primarily on the closing holes, to the same unnatural effect. Mind you, I have nothing against incorporation of previously existing man-made rock walls ala North Berwick, or even the use of naturally existing rock escarpments or ledges in the flow of a hole. But, I think we need to discourage the thinking that boulders which have been excavated during site construction have a ongoing creative purpose in the subsequent design of the course.