In regards to the "get in the bunker" shout, do we hear that at regular tour stops, or just the US Open and PGA that tend to have really, really, penal rough?
Whoops crossed over with Wayne's post, but both serve to show that there are no blanket statements about whether rough, sand, or fw chipping areas are the toughest. It depends on maintenance and course set up.
For that matter, even if they were the same relative hazard (and frankly, for each layer, the difficulty might rank 1,2,3 or 2,3,1 depending on their skill set) isn't it good to have a variety of hazards in a variety of locations so the typical hooker will eventually wind up in a variety of hazard types, as will the slicer?
As much as Pete got them thinking with deep bunkers, we know that if there are deep bunkers on both sides of the green (or deep woods on both sides of a fw) that the choice goes away and they just have to hit it. On the other hand, pairing a sand bunker on one side, and chipping area on the other really starts to get players thinking about where to miss. Whereas, sand and rough might not. Water and fairway chipping might be the most dramatic combo to get players to start aiming for the far side of the green or bail out area away from the water. A very deep sand bunker and fw chipping area would be similar....
So, its not just the hazard itself, its the combo of hazards that make them effective.
Besides, I am often at odds with the so called tastemakers here on gca.com. I kinda figure that through consensus, golf courses in general have sort of gotten to where golfers seem to like them, just like I kinda figure that the Beatles were probably better than the Pink Flamingos by virtue of selling bazillions of LP's vs tens of hundreds.......
Now, I understand the arguments of how visionaries come to change the world. On the other hand, I also understand that you have to pick your battles and given the argument that bunkers are too easy is based on a skewed TV vision (of only the weeks tour leaders, not even the whole field) I am not quite ready to go to battle for harder bunkers.
Now, in the name of cost, I would easily go to battle over the cost of bunker maintenance, and often have. If that results in a little more difficulty in your typical sand bunker to avoid that mega expense of raking, edge trimming, etc. all seven days of the week, then I am all for it.
But, that is not exactly the issue as it was framed in the OP.
BTW, in the real world as I battle it, a typical scenario is deciding between Best or Arkansas White and some slightly off white, slightly prone to burying or fried egg lies at $50 per ton vs $100 per ton for "perfection." I don't know about the other architects here, but I direct my clients to the $50 per ton sand far more often, because its not just the initial cost, but the cost of replacing 10% or so of your sand every year that gets really tiring, really fast.
A typical course might use 1000-1200 CY of bunker sand (or 1400-1675 tons) so even initial construction stands to save $70-$80K with cheaper sand, so its not inconsequential on the typical $4M budget (about 2% with the swipe of a pen to change the sand contract).