Wasn't there talk of "scientific design" a century ago? Didn't this mean measuring shots and distance, and bunkering accordingly? Putting doglegs at specific distances, etc.?
And, I believe RTJ went out to measure tee shot distances before modifying Oakland Hills, not put bunkers out and then forced players to hit that far.....in short, I have always thought design was reactive to play and have never given this much thought, thinking more distance was sought after by golfers since about the second tee shot ever, back at TOC.
And, my belief is most architects followed the leader, and when RTJ and DW put bunkers at 250 only, so did they. Just as if CC put more random bunkers now, so will others.
But, didn't the idea of taking out short bunkers, duffers headaches start with Tillie on his Depression Tour, due to cost? And, Mac at ANGC used bunkers sparingly, and only where they would affect good players, and didn't that become the model moving forward for design? Cost influenced, yes, but also the idea that you only challenged the good players with hazards, because the game was hard enough as you topped shots and muffed shots down the fairway?
I do recall one of my first green designs for Killian and Nugent. I always liked the idea of bunkers short of the green, for the framing and balance they gave. (I must have seen those somewhere in the 1965-1977 era to like them) and was told quickly by both boss and green committee chair, that "those bunkers don't come into play." The idea was pretty firmly rooted then. However, more influential architects, like TD and CC, and better economic times slowly reversed that philosophy on higher end courses.
BTW, judging by the number of bunker reduction projects I do, it is still pretty firmly rooted. When money is an object, bunkers get reduced to those strictly "necessary" to attain the challenge of the design.
Just my take, but an interesting conversation starter.