After finishing up his four rounds and collecting his pretty healthy check at Doral, Tour player Daniel Berger tweeted, "Why do golf course designers think 250 yard par 3s are good holes? The best part 3s in the world are the shortest. Ex. #7 at pebble beach"
Along with being reason #6,809,344 why it can be argued that Tour players are not grownups but are in fact cranky toddlers, it belies a lack of understanding that golf is about holing the ball as soon as possible, and that holes that provide formidable, varied and interesting obstacles to the achievement of that goal tend to be better than holes that do not. The hole that he was moaning about, #13 at the Blue Monster, is not one that I've played, but from having watched pros play it on TV, it's pretty clear that the green is probably both too heavily bunkered and too contoured to give players much of a shot at making a 2, even if they hit a virtuosic shot.
On a 250-yard hole, regardless of whether it's a par 3 or 4, scores from 2 to 4 or 5 should be in the mix. There are plenty of holes where this can happen.
Berger shouldn't be complaining anyway, since most of the time when the Tour plays a course that has a par 3 of 235+, they just move the tees up so that the widdle baby pros can hit yet another 6 iron, rather than a 4 iron, a hybrid or - HEAVEN FORBID!!! - a wood.