It really does seem to be binary, doesn't it?
A regular golfer would say: that's strange, to have fairway bunkers surrounded by rough.
A tournament golfer would say: that's great, the more off line you hit it the worse the penalty.
I'm half-surprised that the latter view still holds such sway. It suggests that in a fundamental way some of the game's key decision makers simply don't understand how/why better architecture makes for better golf.
The worst part is, they *think* they know, and in fact are convinced of it. (After all, the principle involved here is not dissimilar to Mr Davis' much-applauded 'graduated rough.')
60 years ago the great tournament golfer Ben Hogan used to say that any full shot that went perfectly straight (ie that didn't fade or draw) was an accident, a mistake. Nowadays, the great set-up men of golf reward that 'accident' lavishly, almost to the exclusion of any other.
It's striking that something so wrong headed and misguided to one set of golfers can seem so right and proper to another.
Peter