Tommy,Me, come down on my good buddy? Actually, I understand your point of view fully, but view it in shades of gray, not your full speed charge ahead black and white! But, just as in my post on routings above, practical considerations can intrude.I usually favor using a "2 foot bump" if I can, but will ignore it if it CAN be rebuilt. What would cause this decision?Usually, if it means a green and tee are just too close together to be safe. Move the next tee, you say? What if it already on a property line? Ignore "published safety standards" by Urban Land Institute? My errors and omissions insurance already costs in excess of $10,000 annually, and I've never cost the insurance company a dime! I think I'll move the green off the natural feature, save a life, and keep my premiums low, thank you.What if using that feature means shortening the hole a bit, and as it happens, the previous and next hole are of similar length and shot value? Three consecutive similar holes, or rebuild the 2 foot bump 30 yards down the fairway, in all of ten minutes work with a bulldozer? What about adding a few "sibling" 2 foot mounds, so that instead of it being a matter of chance on hitting that small feature, where a golfer may take that chance (like chipping out from behind one tree or one hundred, which kind of makes you play sideways) that perhaps any golfer hitting the right third of the fairway is treated equally, and/or the more consistent penalty really makes him think about playing that side, i.e. introducing strategy?Lastly, most of us do, as you say, think we either know more than nature, or at least love to tinker with it. What if I use that 2 foot mound, but it really needs to be 3 feet high to be visible to the golfer (so he/she can appreciate it), perform its intended function of deflection (in or out from the green) or softened up "just a tad" for efficient, non scalped mowing? (If you can run over it with a box blade, the superintendent can mow it with a mower) Leave it as is to be a purist, or "tweak it" so it really, really, works as you (and the superintendent) want it?You, Tom Doak, me, Tom Fazio, would all make different decisions on what to do with that 2 foot bump, wouldn't we? That's all part of the fun!BTW, I have no problem with Fazio charging whatever he wants, and the corollary (or, as worked up as you can get about things, the coronary question , is why do you? Of course, if a club wants to hire Fazio, I have about as much chance as getting the work as you do, so it doesn't ruffle my feathers too badly. Also, ASGCA would have no official position of fees, as that may be considered price fixing. We do have an by law ban on criticizing other members, at least in the facet of using it to get work.But the real reason we don't criticize like outside agents, like yourselves, is that more often than not, we know (or know we don't know) the types of enviro., budget, owner, or site problems the architect was likely to face, and know how much those things can affect the outcome.Jeff