Good post, Sean. One thing that strikes me is that a lot, if not most, of the old UK bunkers have those raised fronts not through design, but through play (splash up of sand during attemped recoveries). Part of the regular maintenace practices for these bunkers is to reduce the raised fronts rather than consecrate them (good example, the geenside bunkers to the left of the 6th green at Dornoch).
For whatever reason (probably marketing or lack of confidence that their bunkers will evolve "properly" over time), US archies (including Dye and most of the other MFAs) seem to want to recreate the end of sell-by date look of UK bunkers from Day one, and cast that look in stone. In order for those sorts of bunkers to be maintainable, you NEED that collar of thick rough. So you get:
--immediate eye candy
--bunkers maintained per schedule rather than evolution
--stupid unplayability
Per the latter point, just look at Mike Cirba's most recent reports on Merion. Great course, but even 6-7 years later, they still don't seem to have a clue as to how to manage their bunker "restoration" project. When I played there with Mike in 2001, my summary comment was, "Look ugly, play great." I assume then, that the Groucho Marx eyebrows would evolve into something more user-friendly. I seem to have been wrong.
I think that parkalnd courses, whether in the US or the UK or wherever, should NEVER try to imitate links course. As I said on the other thread, I spent a few scary nights in the woods of Pound Ridge when I was a sprog, and the last thing I would have ever though of from that terrain was golf, much less links golf (now that I know what it is). In this case, Pete Dye should be ashamed.
Rich