So does that mean every bunker on every course has to be there for a strategic purpose and only for good players? Greenside bunkers have to have a significant impact on shot values and determine the line of play?
If that were the case, you would probably need to fill in around 100 bunkers at NGLA.
SBusch,
I believe your question was probably directed at Philip; but I'd like to give it a try. This is a good question.
In most strategic designs I have played, the bunkers do serve the purpose that Philip proposed. The fairway bunkers suggest the aggressive risk/reward route to the preferred angle, or they shorten the approach shot, or some other reward. Bunkers are not placed to penalize the poor player, but to entice the good player (Line of Charm and all that).
The placement of greenside bunkers reside in harmony with that approach, sort of a "Greenside Bunker Placement Meld" (to partially steal a phrase made popular by TE Paul regarding maintenance). Some of the more interesting strategic designs have few or no bunkers that would be considered "penal," i.e., they are not there to penalize a wayward shot from a poor or weak player, but rather to entice the good/strong player to take an aggressive line. They are not out of the preferred line of play.
But as you note, many bunkers on some of the grand courses, like NGLA or TOC, would be filled in if that were the hard and fast rule: only place bunkers for the strong player.
I think many disciples of the strategic school sometimes forget that interpreting a designer's placement of bunkers is a tricky business.
The result is that they often fail to see that some bunkers that may indeed be penal for one player, are not penal for another. A good example are the cross- or fairway bunkers short on some long par 4's. The good player doesn't even notice these. But the weaker or shorter hitter might have to carefully consider these in his/her layup shot. For them, they are (or can be) strategic bunkers, if they reside on the preferred approach line.
In other cases, as I stated in my previous post, a cross-bunker short, which may be irrelevant to the stong player, can play a significant part in the strategic design for the short hitter.
Also, contours, hollows, cants and ridges can be the primary strategic element, the overriding consideration on a green complex. Even in strategic design, a good solid stategic design, bunkers can be penal in nature. I think this is most often true greenside. While a classic strategic par four might have fairway bunker right, greenside bunker left. There are strategic designs that have both fairway AND greenside bunkers on one side only. In a solid stategic design the orientation of the green and the corresponding contours can indicate a welcoming line of play moreso than the placement of the bunkers.
Number 2 at Metropolitan in Oakland is a good example of this. While the fairway bunkers are center and left, the greenside bunker is also left. At first glance, some might consider this a violation of stategic design principles. After all, in the classic example, if fairway bunkers are left, that side of the green should allegedly be open to reward the risky/aggressive line of play. But the green truly dictates the stategy. And the green is canted (primarily) from right/high to left/low, thereby inviting an approach from the left side of the fairway. My guess is that the greenside left bunker is there to reinforce that strategy. The cant of the green will take all but the most perfectly struck fade from the right side of the fairway and move it towards that left greenside bunker.