Why don't architects introduce

[SL_Solow]

I am late to this topic.  I tend to agree with those who suggest that it is related to the loss of width in fairways a topic which has been discussed in some of Pat's prior threads.  As fairways narrow and the options for playing a hole decrease, the perception that a centerline hazrd is "unfair " increases because the premium for hitting the center of the fairway has become disproportionate.  The centerline hazard adds interest when the player has a reasonable opportunity to avoid it and the manner in which he avoids it makes a difference.  When a fairway is only 30 yards wide and the angle of approach is not appreciably different from the left or right the center hazard is little more than overkill.  So long as tight tree lined fairways or narrow fairways flanked by bunkers are viewed as the marks of "championship" courses, there will be little use for these interesting hazrds.  But widen the fairways and add some risk reward elements dependent on the hole location, wind etc and the golf becomes more interesting when such hazards are used judiciously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow,

Narrowed fairways are probably a byproduct of irrigation system costs which produced a trend unto itself, but, today, with the highly modernized irrigation systems, producing width on a fairway or two or three, shouldn't be difficult.

Given that I've seen modern courses with wide fairways, why not the introduction of centerline bunkers ?

Hidden Creek has two, one on the short par 4 8th and a recently added one on the par 5 3rd.

Both add exponentially to the architectural and strategic interest.

These seem the exception rather than the rule.

I wonder, with the shrinkage of fairways due to irrigation systems, how many centerline bunker complexes were REMOVED ?

Can anyone name any ?

[Lester George]

I use them on many occasions.  Always have.

Lester

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like others, I have used several, but didn't bother to mention those at Indian Creek, Quarry, Wilderness, etc.

It does raise the question though about the evolution of design.  It strikes me that perhaps the natural hazards in the old days may have also been random.  After courses started getting architected, it probably made sense to not have random hazards.  After all, is randon condusive to strategic, or is carefully placed condusive to strategic?

Random could be sort of anti-strategy in many cases, if not enough room to reasonable land a ball exists between such hazards, effectively eliminating that as a planned route of play.  Once bunkers became less random and more scientfic, they bracketed proposed landing zones, but once you put one in the middle, you are really just creating two landing zones, and in reality, perhaps the great depression killed them off, with the thinking that for the most part, one LZ per hole should be enough.....