Shivas,

I don't know about your eyes, but, I can't see little mounds in the fairway at 250 yards.

They blend in too well with the surrounding fairway.

I don't know if you've ever played Wild Horse.
If not, I'd suggest that you make the effort.
It's a remarkable golf course built on a shoestring budget.

I only wish those in charge hadn't allowed the surrounding homes to be so close to the golf course and so prominent in the golfer's eye.

If Wild Horse was surrounded by terrain instead of tract houses I think its status would be loftier.

Dave Moriarty,

You're correct, the centerline hazard can be on the drive, second or approach shot.

The Road Hole bunker might even qualify.

Shivas,  Doug talked about small bunkers or depressions or evergreen trees or tiny lakes or anything else that was small relative to the size of the fairway, so that there was ample fairway to go around.   You'll have to ask him whether tiny bumps one couldnt see from the tee count.  But Shivas, who cares?  I've agreed with you that if a depression or little bump is so small that it has no strategic consequence, then it shouldnt be considered.  So what is your point here?
_________________

As for your and RJ's exclusion of near green-hazards as centerline hazards, it seems an artificial distinction, and I dont follow either of your logic.  Assuming adequate fairway width (a necessity with many  centerline bunkers) then greenside centerline bunkers still have to be negotiated similarly to landing area centerline features, only the golfer can start negotiating them a shot earlier.  The pin placement may instruct certain golfers in where they should go, but the golfer still has to recognize this and execute.  

RJ, you'd be surprised on RC 13 how often golfers have to approach with the bunker between them and the pin, even when the pin is cut to one of the sides.  Then there is the pin which looks to be on one side of the bunker, but the angle is best from the other . . . I'll let you figure out which pin this is.  
_______

As to the rest, Shivas, your fascination with how I do or dont play golf is a distraction, and positively annoying.  If you dont like the way you think I choose to play, then don't play with me.  My golf game has nothing to do with this website, so let it go.

I only wish those in charge hadn't allowed the surrounding homes to be so close to the golf course and so prominent in the golfer's eye.

If Wild Horse was surrounded by terrain instead of tract houses I think its status would be loftier.

Hey RJ, don't you have a home here???

If trees count - then include Scarboro in toronto -Tillinghast's only existing contribution to golf design north of the border.There is tree in the middle of the fairway on the 350 yd uphill par 4 3rd. It is situated approx 225 yards off the tee. While it is not large - it does come into play.

The real irony of a subject like this one is there may be far more central hazard features (bunkers and such practically surrounded by fairway) done in recent times (the last ten or so years) then there were in the entire era of the Golden Age!

That has some interesting implications Tom.  Are we a bunch of old fuddy duddies that have golden era, classic design biases, always extolling the virtues of what we might sometimes imagine were classic features like centerline bunkers, "imagining" them as ubiquitous in the golden age era; when they may not have been used in as widespread of a manner we are imagining?

Imagine that!

Then; are we having some sort of influence on modern archies in our ongoing little discussions here that many archies say they don't have time to read, encouraging more use of centerline hazard features?

I only wish those in charge hadn't allowed the surrounding homes to be so close to the golf course and so prominent in the golfer's eye.

If Wild Horse was surrounded by terrain instead of tract houses I think its status would be loftier.

How does the visual impact of elaborate clubhouses differ from tract housing?

Dick, I can understand that having golfed Banff with the massive hotel looming very large, but even so, it's proximity was not what I would call adjacent.

The bigger issue for me is not the visual impact of inconsequential surrounds, but, more importantly is the quality of the golf course.
Places like WH, TOC (i assume), and even Smeyer's Southern Dunes, captivates the golfer's awareness to the extent that off property visuals have little to do with the quality of the course.

With the housing boom, I suppose things are substantially different from just three years ago.
And, Confirms everything affects GCA.

"Maybe it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but if you're going to force a decision of one side or the other of a particular feature doesn't that significantly increase the total playable area required for that particular hole?"

I'm sure it probably does. Here's a perfect example----NGLA's #8 (the Bottle Hole), one of the best real centerline hazard holes anywhere. From the right side of the fairway to the left side is 67 yards, and the last bunker in the centerline which is perpindicular to the line of play (not in-line like the rest) is 13-14 yards wide.

Interesting that the topic of bordering houses comes up on a centerline bunker thread . . .  

Patrick or anyone, did you find that the centerline bunker brought the houses more into focus, since the golfer must play to the sides of the fairways where the houses are presumably located?

I havent played the course, so I am just assuming the houses border the fairways.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Doug,  thanks for the clarification.  I hope you dont expect that to stop us from arguing ,though.  In fact, I wont be surprised if Shivas now argues that this isnt really what you were thinking at all.