This is crazy!!

[Matt Rossman]

This might be old news to some, but new to me. I was doing some bathroom reading at work this moring and came across a article in November 2005 Golf Digest.

The par-3 8th hole at Oakmont will be played at a whopping 285 yards in atleast 2 of the 4 rounds in the 2007 Open. This is crazy. Someone had a thread on here the other day about "When did you know Technology has taken over", well this is it for me. Poor Fred Funk, I feel your pain brotha!

[Brent Hutto]

Matt,

While that's no doubt quite a change from the last time an Open was played on that course, don't you think it's possible that an interesting hole of 285 yards length could be used in a championship? There was a "Par 4" of not much different length at Whistling Straits which IIRC proved decisive in a PGA Championship playoff. I like half-par holes, personally.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - I'm with you - half-par holes are cool.  And for you and me, that is a half-par hole without a doubt.  Hell, screw that, it's a par four.  

What's kind of sad in this case is that for the pros, that's not a half-par hole, not even close.  From all accounts - and this was discussed before - there's nothing in the way, no real strategy or anything, it's just a VERY long par three.

So the sad part is that THAT's what it takes to get the pros a long par three.  I'm sure some of the longer ones will hit a low iron on the hole.

TH

[jeffwarne]

I bet Fred Funk plays it well-full driver.Seriously his accuracy will be an advantage there.It'll be tougher for the guys between 3 wood and 2 iron.

This actually makes sense to me if par 4s are 500+ yards.

Regardless of the par,doesn't it make sense to test a player from this distance-par 3 1/2-same as 240 20 years ago

I'm no fan of the arms race but if the attempt is to produce a long par 3 this may still be a bit short-plus they won't play the full hole anyway.

[Matt Rossman]

personally I am not a fan of any par 3 where you have to hit a wood. Maybe that's wierd, but just my opinion. I love a par 3 which forces the pro to hit a solid 2 or 3-iron to the pin. I just think 285 is a little much

[AndrewB]

See the Changes at Oakmont thread for some discussion on this ...

[Brent Hutto]

Here's a few things I believe are great features of any course...

At least one Par 3 that can be reached with a wedge yet provides an effectively small target for that wedge shot.

At least one Par 3 that requires a fairway wood or even a driver.

At least one Par 5 that nobody can reach in two shots under normal conditions.

At least one Par 5 that the majority of players can comfortably reach with two good shots.

At least one Par 4 that is at least in theory drivable by longer hitters.

At least one Par 4 that isn't reachable in regulation without a good, strong drive.

Now I'm not saying every course in the world needs all of these holes. I'm just saying that a course with a wide-open 285 yard hole and/or a downhill 330 yard hole and/or a 110 yard "postage stamp" and/or a 600+ yard hole is more interesting than the more usual case in which all the Par 3's are between 150 and 190 yards and all of the Par 5's are set up with the big hitters having 200-220 yards in after a good drive.

[David_Elvins]

Its all been said before but if pro players have added 20% in distance in the last 20 years this is comparable to a 235 yard hole in 1985.  No big deal.  Par 3s were longer than that in the Golden Age.  However, I do feel it is a bit wrong that it has come to this.

[Garland Bayley]

For me the hole would be memorable!

With all the lists being created of best combo of 18 holes by 18 architects, I began to create my personal list. I came to realize that there was a definite trend to what I remembered from the courses I played. Foremost, I seemed to remember the short par 3s, the nearly drivable par 4s, and the reachable in 2 par 5s. This was followed in my memory by the long par 3s, 4s, and 5s. I had trouble recalling par 3s from 130 to 200 yds., the par 4s from 340 to 420 yds, and the par 5s from 520 to 590 yds. I guess I tend to remember the birdiable holes and the unparable holes!

[Bill_McBride]

The good news about this hole at that length is that Oakmont will play fast as hell, and there is nothing in front of most of the green.  Right, Funk will nail a dead straight driver and have birdie putts four straight days.

[Joel_Stewart]

I've never played Oakmont, but I'll assume you can hit it in front of the green (short) and still be safe?   Then its a chip and putt for par.

At Olympic we extended the 3rd hole which plays downhill to just over 250 yards for the 2007 US Amateur.  Some of our young guns are still hitting 2 and 3 iron.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Par is just meaningless number anyhow.  What really matters is which of the 156 players shoots the lowest number of strokes over 72 holes, not some arbritary number assigned to one of them...  They could call a 550 yard hole a par 3.  What matters is the number written down on the scorecard...

[Brad Tufts]

Wasn't there a hole at Interlachen that played at 260 for one of the opens that Bobby Jones played in?  I think I remember being surprised to learn that while reading the book about his Grand Slam.

And also, how close will the 285-yd par 3 be in length to the par four that Trip Kuehne was bombing it over from the tee in the Amateur a couple years ago?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mike I agree.  Par is really not too meaningful except as a guide.  Tom Watson was questioned why such low numbers were shot at the Mastercard in Hawaii.  He said that all the par fives were reachable so that par was really 68.  I know when I play I always have a number in mind.  When I played Baltusrol last summer from the PGA tees, I figured par was 78 for me.  I was wrong, It should havae been 82.

[George Pazin]

I've never played Oakmont, but I'll assume you can hit it in front of the green (short) and still be safe?   Then its a chip and putt for par.

As long as you don't go left. There is a bunker that guards the left side of the green. Interestingly, this bunker extends a long ways away from the green, maybe 30 or 40 yards, where is juts out into the fairway. From the tee, which is elevated, this bunker appears to be just short of the green. You can't see how much room there is. It does play a tad downhill as well.

I don't remember how long it played for the Am in '03 - 250? - but it was quite common to see the young bucks hit irons off the tee.

[Jim Franklin]

As George said, as long as you stay right you are fine. I know guys that bomb it past me, but I hit it 15 feet into the wind with a 3wood so the pros will probably still hit irons. Not a pushover hole by any stetch, but much more difficult for us mortals than the likes of Tiger, Phil, and Ernie.

[Forrest Richardson]

285 today is about equal to the 230 of the 1950s. That is when Jack Snyder re-built the green because Lew Worsham, the pro at the time, could only stay on the green 1 in 4 attempts. Snyder raised the back right by 1.5-feet and replanted the green. The bunkers stayed and a forward tee was built.

Fazio's Tom Marzolf was responsible for the added length...a response to increased hitting distances. The necessity is to prevent too many fly balls to the green...as the magic is playing the hole by running the shot to the surface. That is what makes it interesting.

[Kevin_Reilly]

At Olympic we extended the 3rd hole which plays downhill to just over 250 yards for the 2007 US Amateur.  Some of our young guns are still hitting 2 and 3 iron.

Joel, I thought the new black tee distance was 229 ...many were surprised by the lasered distance (they thought it was going to be longer).