I've been sorting through the courses I've played "Down the Shore" lately and return to my very fond memories of Macullough's Emerald Links outside of Ocean City, NJ. With holes loosely based on those found on links and heathland courses, I cannot help but hope that some of the hazard placement is based in reality and mimics the true nature of the real hole.
That being said, a good number of the bunkers are situated in a manner where they will not come into play "all the time." Tee positioning, weather, and even the golfer's ability that day all conspire to bring bunkers into play and remove others from it for that day. Naturally, this idea appeals to my sense of repeatability for the golf course.
We often hear of the adage that a good hazard may not command attention, but it refuses to be ignored. Does this imply that a hazard should be omnipresent with each subsequent round at the course?
Does the so-called necessity for omnipresence push architecture into pigeonholes that remove some sense of creativity, or even restraint, from a designer's toolbox?