Ally,
I will agree with you that every bunker should serve a purpose, given their cost to build and maintain, and probably those that survive long term will serve at least two purposes. One, it must be a hazard, and the second function can be aesthetic, aesthetic from the clubhouse or some distant scenery on a hole, directional, divider, definition, safety, save bunker to keep golfers from going into even worse areas, occasionally drainage, etc.
Someone mentioned visual deception, and that is valuable. On any budget driven project, and maybe a few that aren't, It's a good idea, but the question is, just how good an idea is it? Because it usually involves being some distance from the green or fw landing zone (i.e., somewhere between the golfer and target) it will tend NOT to be a conventional hazard. I can see it being used once or once per nine, maybe once on a tee shot and once on an approach. I recently mentioned Faz had done a great job at Shadow Creek, using a large fronting bunker and oversized green to make a short approach look even shorter, only by increasing bunker size and green size 10-15%, which is cost efficient. On his hole where he scattered ever smaller bunkers to make the green look further away, it resulted in 3-4 visual only bunkers, which also aren't really in play, which is not as cost efficient.
Even not considering cost, if I use visual deception more than a few times, is it a neat feature that provides challenge, and/or at what point is it just as repetitive as "bunker left, bunker right?"
Short version, probably anything is worthwhile once per course, but in the name of variety of challenge and look, and with so many conceptual choices out there, is there any particular bunker scheme/concept that should be the "standard" design option?
For instance, off the tee, as a generalized challenge (with many detail options) basically we place a fw bunker that asks the golfer to [size=78%]([/size]optionally) carry it (generally short of the landing zone), skirt it (at the landing zone), or stay short of it (just past the landing zone). We can ask them to:
Avoid the center of the fw with a center bunker, if enough fw exists on either side
Create a split fw that offers the heroic carry of a fw bunker as one option
Create a split fw where the pin position dictates one side is a better approach angle
Create more subtle sub favored landing zones within a bigger one, i.e., a flat area within a larger rolling fw, using contours.
Create more subtle sub landing zones to avoid that aren't hazards, i.e., slopes that carry tee shots off the fw to rough.
Protect a small zone that enhances roll, i.e., create and defend the "turbo boost" of extra roll.
Play a fade or draw around a tree
Create a situation with ground hazards where the angle, width, and wind of the target zone suggest a draw or fade.
Play to a narrow target requiring control
Bite off what you can chew
The gradual narrowing of target zone by hazards, decreasing the margin for error the longer the tee shot gets
Play to a wide open target (hey, nothing wrong with an easy tee shot every once in a while)
Negotiate a cross slope (overall or in some portion of the target zone as per above)
Forced Carry (optional carries are always superior for average players)
Forced Layup, similar to the pinch bunkers that ask you to stay short, but crossing nearly all the fairway)
Of course, we can:
- Stagger bunkers in any number of patterns to create slightly different options for shorter/longer, draw/fade type players.
- Make the hazards large, which tend to intimidate and act as stop signs
- Make the hazards small, which tend to make golfers figure their chances of missing those are much better.
- Force perspective up or down
- Hide some ground, which creates visual deception
Of course, we can combine a few of these elements where the land allows.
There are more, I think, and I did elaborate further in one of Paul Daley's earlier books. The list above provides over the 14 ideas necessary for one of each tee shot on a typical regulation course, and at least half of them could bear to be created twice - once left and once right, for instance. So the question is, why do so many courses repeat bunker left, bunker right on tee shots, or perhaps overly rely on lateral target zone bunkers when they could have almost infinite variety?
I recall a similar discussion here years ago. I presented my basic set of possible scenarios, also concluding that I leave it to the golfer to come up with all the mental gymnastics of how those bunkers affect them, probably overthinking it. Tom Doak responded with a dissertation on placing just one bunker somewhere and then proceeded to elaborate on 11 possible ways the golfer could consider playing it. Basically, the same thought presented differently.