John Conley,
let me get this right. A par-71 layout yields average scores of 74.37 and you think that's evidence it was too easy? With the best amateurs in the country in the field? Seems like pretty resistant scoring, if that's your concern.
MargaretC sounds awfully sensible to me on this.
Brad, it is easy to question the move some have made toward building 8,000 yard courses. I did it when I saw the numbers on the Trail courses and believe you echoed the thought. My point is to look what happens when a course isn't long. I found Chaska to be plenty challenging. If I walk up to a daily fee course and join a group chances are I'm the strongest player. It doesn't matter what a player with a handicap shoots if guys you haven't heard of bust out a 60 without even making a 2.
The scoring average of 73 point whatever is actually pretty low for a USGA Amateur. Isn't that about as low as we've seen? Methinks that wouldn't happen if Chaska Town played 7,200.
His 60 wasn't the only low score there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hill yielded very few rounds of par or better. I think both played a good bit longer than Chaska last time those held the Am.
If 73 point something isn't low, what is? I don't recall it being lower.
The gulf between players in this field and the "average" golfer is ever-widening. How today's architects address that is of interest to me. I thought Chaska's formula of several short holes to drag down the total length was pretty good. Even so, it wasn't enough to stop a lot of guys from shooting mid-60s or less.