Ben, I asked a simple question.
You called the bunker "epic."
So which of us is offering "critique?"
BTW, I have indeed golfed my ball in the sand hills and likely am more familiar with the gunch than you or Barney.
Kindest regards,
Bogey
Bogey, (weird saying that, it's my Labrador's name)
It is 100% true you asked a question instead of offering a critique. My mistake in saying you offered a critique.
By the way, I hit a couple shots out of that hole last September. Leaving it native would have been a decision based in romance instead of reality.
Will,
You're right, you never said any of those things. I never said that you said any of those things. If you reread my reply, you will see that I wrote, ""Will, I wasn't referring to you--or anyone--in particular when I wrote my post above."
Let me be clear in what my opinion of many of the questions were.
Revetted bunkers would look dumb in the Sand Hills. Native blow outs--or bunkers scraped out by excavator and then shaped by the wind--are in my opinion the easiest way to maintain sand hazards in that environment. Playability is a concern for native areas, and that hole is better with some bare sand areas rather than all native. It's an opinion yes. But my opinion is based of having played out of the hole and keeping playability in the forefront. Not how "minimalist" it would be to keep the hole as is, or some idea of aesthetics gleaned from a photo.
Will, of course this site is for discussion, I am not saying we shouldn't discuss. But is it your opinion that the mob can just discuss without any true knowledge of the situation? Tom, Don, Chris, Zach and many others could set us straight in an instant about why the bunkers are better as blowouts and the hole is better as partial bunker.