The other thing that made me laugh was the statement that a course should present a 'reasonable' challenge during the US Open. I was always under the impression that the USGA wanted to present the 'stiffest' challenge!
Jon
There is a difference between a stiff challenge and an unfair challenge. Trust me. There will still be plenty of bogeys and doubles on the hole. The change will make it so the pros won't be cry babies about the course, which it seems they always do when conditions are challenging.
Matthew, the word used was 'reasonable' which is pretty much in the same vain as the word 'nice' IMO. As has been mentioned by others on this thread, there is no unfair in golf. Also and correct me if I am wrong but, I always thought that the USGA intended to present the 'stiffest' challenge at the US Open to set the worth of their championship apart from the many other tournaments that offer a 'stiff' challenge.
Lets be honest about what this is about. The hole as was is proven to be a good par 5 but it was more important that it was a par 4 because for the USGA the length of the course in comparison to the par is more important than what is actually there.
Lets face it they saw a winning score of (281) +1 on a 7170 yard par 70 as great. But in reality the par for the course was 73 which would have made Mr. Simson's winning score of -11 in reality. As such a low score is for what ever reason not acceptable they have to effectively falsify the card.
It is all the more baffling when you take into account that a field made up of most of the best players in the game averaged almost 1 over the real par of 73. What is wrong with being proud of what you have with a course and its challenge. Why this embarrassing need to fiddle the books and how come so many people accept this stupid trend as being the only way to go?
Jon
You are correct; I agree. I did not really mean unfair but unreasonable. The green before was unreasonable, whether it was/is played as a par 4 or a par 5. I have stated previously and still stand by the idea that there should be no "par." The game is about hitting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes - whether you are playing stroke or match play.
To answer your third question, it is all psychological, for the viewer and the golfer. If the viewer saw that -11 won the US Open compared to +1, the viewer would think the course must of been easier, even though all that was changed was the par. It gives the feeling that the USGA achieved the "stiffest challenge" as you were talking about before. This also applies to the
mentality of the golfer, which we all know, is a big part of the game.
To answer your first question, the USGA has its own way of making the course a "stiff challenge," as I said before. I am all for a challenge, but the original green was unreasonable. The hole is still going to be one of the biggest challenges on the course, but now, I can say that it is 100% reasonable. There will be 3's, there will be 8's, and everything in and maybe outside that range, despite what par the hole is. If you play the hole driver, wedge, wedge, and make a 4 or 5 that way, go right ahead; you are extremely likely to not make a 3, and in result, lose a stoke to quite a few players. The major reason the average score was 5, was because there were so many 6, 7, and 8's, not because players couldn't make a 3. So, in conclusion, the changes will make it more reasonable to not make a 6, 7, or 8, not to make it easier to make a 3.