So why do we place so much emphasis on bunkering and visible sand? Would we have a different emphasis if we could post videos of golfballs running and bounding along the ground instead of still shots glamourizing the artistic bunkers? Honestly, has sand overtaken our infatuation with water?
In the grand scheme of things, how important is sand to you when evaluating....heck, let’s even say enjoying...a golf course?
I know we’ve hit on this before, but let’s be honest and elevate the element of sand to where it belongs in our assesments......is anyone honest enough to say that exposed sand is more important to them than, say, green surfaces??
Let's talk about honesty first in your last question (I am assuming that you are referring to putting surfaces and not green grass entirely). My first exposure to golf was on rudimentary courses most often replacing former crop land, with few if any sand bunkers, and mostly pushed-up greens. The game drew my attraction purely from an athletic standpoint- hitting the ball in the general direction of the green, then toward the flagstick, and finally into the hole, while keeping track of the number of times I hit the ball. Like baseball or basketball, the two sports I played growing up, I could compete against my buddies. Better yet, if no one wanted to play, I could compete against past rounds. Seldom was the quality of the course a consideration; price and proximity drove the decision.
My real interest in gca was stoked when I went to Ohio State and got to experience a real championship course which incorporated all of the important major design features without being dependent on one particular type. Scarlet was not extensively bunkered, but all of them were of consequence. Given the choice of playing a course with heavily undulating green complexes but few bunkers and one that is well-bunkered with flatter greens (say Bethpage- Black), I hold the latter in much higher esteem.
Golf is a game with a very strong tradition. Macdonald, Wilson, Doak and others didn't seek guidance and inspiration by visiting areas with heavy soils for good reasons. Perhaps if we were weaned on the courses I first experienced and didn't have television, we may look more kindly on the design and presentation being suggested. I do think that the game would be much less interesting and compelling.
Most activists appear to have one thing in common, a driving desire to move populations away from their preferences toward their own. I can understand appealing to economy through better positioning, design and construction of the major design features, but I don't think it is useful to suggest that sand bunkers don't belong in regions not blessed with sandy soils. Perhaps this ideal appeals to some here, and it would be interesting to see its proponents actualize this philosophy.
If economy is paramount, our north Texas cotton soils and relatively flat terrain are only suitable to the type of architecture suggested here. Indeed, the father of TX gca, Ralph Plummer, was extremely frugal and typically bunkered his courses sparingly. Nearly all of his courses have had extensive renovation to remain relevant.
My home course has 63 bunkers pretty evenly split between fairways and greens. Even in Texas, golfers want a good variety of hazards. I suspect that Yeamans 80+ bunkers are important to its members, and though the soil may be more conducive to building and maintaining them, why would someone suggest that they might be less valued here?