Maybe?
I totally enjoy hazards when I play. If I play a course often, I try different approaches. I actually look for the hazard that are challenging, generally the shortest distance to the pin. I love the older courses with walls, stonewalls, I like bunkers to have a similar profile of a sheer face, not s smooth saucer shape. If errors are made in the golfer’s strategic game, it should be penalised, forcing a retreat to re take the hazard or to circumvent it altogether.
I dislike fairway bunkers that allow a ball to bounce out due to their shallow saucer shape. IMHO, these types of hazards are just a token trap for the golfer and are a total waste of money. No pleasure in defeating a weak obstacle as in truth it is not an obstacle at all.
As previously mentioned I believe fairway bunkers should be deep. They are there to catch the overconfident golfer, to persuade him to go ‘All In’ or play the waiting game, which should be within his ability. However, once committed to go ‘All In’ the penalty should reflect the magnitude of the challenge.
I get my enjoyment and satisfaction from overcoming challenges, which in themselves are real, not token.
The name of the game is golf, it is a challenge or at least it is meant to be. Hazards should be what their name implies and create obstacles. Yet I am not keen on island Greens, in my opinion they are too penal and are only playable by the top range of golfers. Courses with island tees actually put me off, as I believe the golfer has the right to retreat before a taken recovery shot, however, there will always be the exception. Nevertheless, please give me stonewalls and deep bunkers with a steep front face, as it is sometime good to see the mighty humbled.
I am a believer in Robert ‘The Bruce’ and that great little spider.
Melvyn