David, Just tell me where I am wrong about the course as it sits today....
John you are not talking about the course "as it sits today." If you were you'd not be going on about the "MacKenzie bunker model" or the 'over-designed eye candy'.
Further, it helps to understand the history when one one views the course "as it sits today." For example, the bunkers on 13 were blended into the dune into which they were cut. Typical of MacKenzie's goal of blending the unnatural completely into the natural.
What we see today doesnt blend nearly as well but to say it doesnt blend at all is inaccurate. Maybe you have to be there understand, but there are bare patches of sand all over the place, especially around No. 13. A big dune with no sand showing would look much more unnatural. It would be great if they could return the look to the original-- original bare sand, original wider fairways-- but it still works well even as it is.
Could your attitude in defending the course in its infancy explain why some people are in love with modern designs today. Will they too grow more and more artifical each year as man intrudes with his machines and chemicals.
Most modern designs today are far from natural to begin with. If you are talking about the neo-classic courses, then I'd have to say that it depends upon the circumstances. Some will become less natural, some more, some will stay about the same degree of naturalness.
Throwing aesthetics out the window what is your opinion strategically of the perspective bunkers behind the greens...would you agree with me that they allow the low handicap to dial into his target with no fear of their hazardess...while at the same time striking fear into the high handicap who only wants to hit near the green and get lucky for a prox once or twice a round.
. . . they are not purely perspective bunkers, the most visible bunkers on 13 arent really even behind the green. You also underestimate the hazardness of the bunkers, especially to the low handicapper. Unless of course low handicappers can always easily control a downhill bunkershot.
Take a look at a different angle of No. 13. Do you really consider these out of play for the low handicapper? safe havens? Would you consider the bunker shot to that pin an easy one? How many out of 10 do you think you could get up and down to that pin?
It is true that some golfers (more low handicappers than high) will be able to use the bunkers to gain persective, from the right side. In fact the approach from the right side is by far the most inviting visually . . .
From the left side, I am not so sure the bunkers provide much comfort for anyone . . .
It is also true that the higher handicapper will likely be more intimidated by these bunkers, but probably less so than by the drop off and hazard on the right. Plus, high handicappers rarely miss greens long. So the bunkers probably make the hole play harder for the higher handicapper than it actually does play. This is a favorite technique of MacKenzie to make the game thrilling for all levels.
While I believe I'd prefer it as it was, the course "as it is" still works well from a strategic and aesthetic perspective.
