Have we become ignorant of strategic value and more focused on

[Grant Saunders]

aesthetics, especially aesthetics that enjoy most favoured nation status with the GCA crowd ?

The two courses are virtually unchanged in terms of routing and individual hole design, yet many, including myself are fawning over the look of the bunkers and yet others are claiming a dramatic improvement.

Has it become all about "looks" ?

Yes.

And not just looks but giving far too much weight to certain aspects of looks even if they dont reflect the rest of the overall feel and concept.

While not exactly what you are getting at, a recent thread I started dealt with an angle in a similar vein.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55423.msg1287497.html#msg1287497

The crux of my point was how cohesion is important in styling and that just changing one aspect doesnt automatically create an entirely different impression. In other words, giving bunkers frilly edges doesnt instantly make a golf course appear natural and at one with the landscape.

The following is a picture of a beautiful classic car where all the styling is working together harmoniously and the result is consistent and eye catching.



The following shows how a feature (the tyres) has been applied to a situation where it is out of place with the rest of the package and the result (for me at least) is somewhat shit.



Unfortunately, on golf courses, there seems to be a lot of work resembling the second scenario with people trying to pass it off as the first example.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

Now let's take your example, a good contrast, a little further.

Let's suppose that both cars are owned by a 92 year old women, in failing health, who gets out only to go to the grocery store, movies and to see her doctors.

Let's take the example you presented and look at the form, function and cost to maintain.

Different than for a 35 year old bachelor ?

Second question, dealing with function.

If the bland looking bunkers had the fairway mowed right into them, but the good looking bunkers had a buffer of rough between them and the fairway, would you still favor the good looking bunkers, rather than the bland ones ?

What does the answer tell you ?

[Grant Saunders]

Patrick

For me, function trumps form.

 If the function is achieved then aesthetics can certainly play their part and compliment or enhance the product.  Looks should not however be valued ahead of that function.

[Jay Flemma]

There definitely have been some surreal moments of late...led by the Villages thread:)

[Matthew Petersen]

There's a currently active thread on Apache Stronghold, where the maintenance woes are well known. Now, they have problems there beyond just the bunkers, but it did occur to me when I was there that even if everything else was rectified, the course would never seem "finished" unless the bunkers were restored. Which is interesting, because in their state now, they actually make for fascinating hazards, and are no doubt far more hazardous than if they were simply sand-filled pits where a consistent lie could be expected. Now, you go in what remains of one and you may be in a sandy area, in scraggly grass, or on hardpan, or some combination. Granted, this is vaguely unfair in a deep greenside bunker that was designed with the expectation that it would be sand-filled, and the player would be able to loft the ball out (hard to do from hard pan). But as strategic hazards, the fairway bunkers and many of the greenside bunkers are, IMHO, far more interesting in their current disheveled state. But keeping those hazards in that conditions will never fly if the course wats to return to prominence, fawning reviews, glossy photos mags, etc.