Yes, yes, yes, the course enjoys great topography (a supremely routed hole like 13 doesn't need a boost from man) and terrific greens (14 requires no help back in the fairway). I am a big fan of the depth and placement of the bunkers on 1 and 5 also but overall, that's a low hit rate.
Bunkers on the outside of doglegs (2, 18), no central hazards of significance (10 looks good but so what), bunkers on the sides of fairways that add no strategic value (3, 8 ) and several fairways that beg for bunkers instead of trees (e.g. 7, 11, 15, 17). Put another way, who wouldn’t drool to see someone approach 11 and/or 15 ~220 yards out from sand?
I make this post in part because I find it unappealing and monotonous to listen to television commentary on an annual basis that never criticizes a course, especially one that has changed so much in the past 20 years. I hugely appreciate the original design's minimalistic intent and I understand why it has evolved. It is just I think the fairway bunkering is feeble compared to the other standout design elements.
Am I alone?