Sean,
Of course there is a time and a place for everything! My only reason for pointing that out was that its so standard a thought that Ran could probably ban the phrase, and we could all agree that it is inherent in every post here....along with "as long as it fits the land" and save some bandwidth!
I do agree that many, many gca's over rely on bunkers. 75 is too many for the vast majority of cousres. (of course, there is a time and place for courses with 75 bunkers, providing they fit the land) And, in most cases, grass hollows, chocolate drop mounds, etc. would provide the same strategy and more variety, and perhaps better aesthetics (if placed where shadow patterns might develop)
In my conceptual thinking, (which you can get some idea of in the second (? I think) Paul Daley book) I see (have doodled) about 2 dozen basic strategic tee shot scenarios - the cross hazard is one of them, the pinched fw is one, etc, the angled carry hazard is one, etc. Even casual readers here will note my defense of the general reduction of carry bunkers off the tee as compared to the golden age, but they still have there place.
In each new design, I figure if there are more than two dozen good tee shot scenarios, rather than mindlessly repeating flanking bunkers at the landing area, I should probably have 14 different ones. In this way, I actually believe that "pre-thinking" leads to more variety than "going by feel" because golf architects, as humans (yes, its true!) tend to form habits and , IMHO, need a mechanism to break those habits! Again, my point here is that many on this site believe romantically that the gca goes out on site and is totally inspired with new ideas by seeing the land. In reality, we are inspired to implement the right ideas when we see the land.
I also have general ideas about the basic usefulness of each, including wind conditions and hole lengths where they work. So, the cross hazard is in there, but in thinking about it, its just less good and less flexible than some other choices. As Tom D notes, we usually use up whatever allotment of cross hazards we feel comfortable with because we can't pipe creeks, making cross bunkers even less popular.
If a cross hazard is going to block a fw, and limit distance, then I think it works better placed perhaps 300 or so from the tee and normally into the wind. It makes judging how close you can get to the creek difficult and adds strategy of taking enough club to get close. It follows that this would also work best on a par 5 or at least mid length par 4 - on a short 4 there would be no need to challenge the creek.
Similarly, for almost any cross (or angled) carry hazard, I prefer to place them on normally downwind holes because they are more tempting. In a headwind situation, most players would just play well safe, reducing/negating the number of times it would actually play as designed.
As noted, the cross hazard IMHO can work best on the second shots on par 5s, and after reading Tom D's post, on those with sharp doglegs so that all players have a chance to clear it by choosing a good angle off the tee. By that theory, a cross hazard might make more sense off the tee, where you could make it play equally from multiple tees, but somehow, that just seems like a forced carry and not a strategic element, and we are often forced into those by wetlands or ponds we need to keep.
So, I agree there is a place for everything - the above is just a bit of fleshing out of what would constitute the correct places. Others will surely post (or maybe not
) examples of other places cross hazards might work. And they might - no argument there. As always, just MHO. And, as always, I reserve the right to change my mind over time.