Bob and Mike,
I read more emotion than discussion in your replies.
You also jump to the conclusion that varying a bunker pattern amounts to penal design of hit it here or else!
I am with Jeff D - what does it take to make a par 4 template for bunker placement really work?
I note both your responses focused on your own games. My question was one of competition and competitive balance (as was Pete Dye's) for "the other guy" which might be you at times!
My point is, the good player may not care so much about the frontal opening, AND the "standard" pattern hurts the shorter hitter too much, whereas you are thinking in terms of giving the advantage to the better player for taking risk.
Specifically, I believe the distance differences are more pronounced now, and the advantage of the frontal opening is reduced for the best players, but still viable for the average ones.
Face it, if better players must negotiate a greenside bunker at worst they club up if in between clubs, and face a downhill putt, or club up and try for more backspin to take the bunker out of play. They rarely miss short and they even more rarely use a run up option or hit grounders.
In fact, bunkers are really the average guys strategy dictators, while the green contours suggest shots to better players. They would more likely be thinking in terms of using the wind to avoid trouble (ie hook or fade to shape shot around the bunker) and using the green contours to get it closer to the hole. Suggesting shot pattern with green angle, hazards, etc. is a more viable strategy than leaving an opening for a run up shot these day!
I have taken to contouring greens - both the base slope and the little spikes or rolls to face on way or the other to create optional carry hazards on the approach, and in the green. If you have to carry a spike, or ridge, and it is across your line rather than parallel to it, its a bit tougher. I think those are more strategic dictators for good players, who don't even let themselves think of missing the green entirely.
Meanwhile, the average guy can't carry the bunker and is better off steering well clear. And, the inside-outside bunker pattern leaves them with a longer carry with less or no run up room. Or to reflect Mike's words, does the inside outside pattern nearly force shorter hitters to take the risk, rather than give them a a viable option?
BTW, I am not saying GA guys weren't right most of the time or right for THEIR times. But, times do change, and it pays to never accept what is just because it is......
And, I hinted at my proposed solution - more variety in the layout of "textbook bunkering." I believe that used in the right places, as mentioned previouly, that holes would be better in course context.
Some scenarios can work either way. Think of a hole where the fw bunker pinches the outside and upwind side at or just beyond the normal LZ. Golfers may play short of that bunker anywhere in the fw or elect to work the ball into a narrower fw near the bunker for added distance.
If the crosswind and green bunker is to the inside, the shorter shot has the frontal opening. The longer tee shot puts a shorter club in the hand, and also allows the player to ride the wind by aiming at the outside of the green and bringing it back to the hole, even if near the bunker, which is a safer shot, actually. If its on the outside, then he has a frontal opening, but more likely cancel the wind rather than ride it to avoid going over the bunker.
Either way, the presence of hazards in a variety of locations - almost to the point of being random - do make every player think and play the holes differently. No design theory is so good that is can be used almost exclusively, at least in my opinion.