Seems to me they get treated like lepers by the USGA as they stay well away from them. Is that a mistake?
Example #1: the third at Merion. Perhaps the most flexible par 3 in US Open history, its 8,000 plus square foot green is the largest target on the course. Saturday they are hitting 5 irons to its wicked front left hole location. Sunday it was drivers and three woods. Did you catch Phil fussing on camera leaving the 4th tee yesterday? He was not a happy camper after the double. If I was czar, I would have set the central, easiest hole location on the third green yesterday. It's 260 plus into a breeze. With 1,000 yards to follow between the 5th and 6th holes (also into the breeze), why not balance out the challenge? Throw the occasional bone to the players. Good golf is not about having every single shot be exasperatingly difficult.
Are hole locations within 7 or 8 paces of the edges of greens the only good ones? I find that hard to believe. Sometimes a high point can be found near the middle of greens - I am not even talking about such vexing locations. I am talking about simple, 'defenseless' middle hole locations. Here are two more examples.
Example 2: the tenth at Merion. Not enough pros had a go at the tenth. One reason? You can't get anywhere near the left hole location that was used on Sunday when the tee was up. Best case you end up with a 40-50 ft putt which maybe you can lag to within 5 ft. Why not wedge it close and save the drama caused by an errant tee ball? I contend the mindset changes if the hole is in the middle of the green and a drive can leave a realistic eagle putt (i.e. not too long and not crazy difficult either). Basically, use such a hole location to bait the player.
Example 3: the first at Merion. A par is always a good start at a US Open and yet additional pressure is applied to the player if the hole is found in the dead middle of Merion's first green. It goes from being a hole where you accept par to one where you feel the need to get birdie as you know that many of your competitors will be snacking on the easy hole location. That added weight of feeling the need to make something happen is intriguing to me. That element is missing with corner hole locations.
Don't central hole locations have a role to play/serve a purpose from time to time? Even just 2 or 3 times during 72 holes? I appreciate it is the once-a-year US Open and a searching examination is the goal. I don't mean to water down the challenge as much as to make the players continually think and adjust.
Best,