jeffw, can't really argue with anything you said.
-----
Regarding "why not allow -20?", or its corollary, "why focus on a winning score?", I'll offer the following:
Sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, you really need to push things to the limit to separate players. This holds true in other areas as well. When I was in college, my second semester freshman year I had a chemistry course that was an eye opener, for me and most of the class. The thing is, a few kids still rocked the first test. They were smarter and better prepared. That test identified that.
I realize that means occasionally you have things like Shinny's 7th, or Olympic's 18th. I accept that. Most seem to want it both ways - have a course tough and brutal to identify, but not accept when something OCCASIONALLY goes awry.
Similarly, in looking at US Open records/results, to me, Tiger still has the most impressive performance. When makes his -12 in 2000 special is not just the final number, but also - mostly, even - the margin of victory. Rory went further under par, but his margin was half that of Tiger's.
What does that mean for Shinny? Not sure I can really say, at this point. I sure don't recall no one being able to hold greens, I recall them really struggling. Yet somehow, two players, who were arguably the two best players in the world at that moment, managed to put together solid scores. That says something to me. Much like Ben Curtis's win in 03 at Sandwich is not a bad mark on the course or the set up - sure, he didn't do a whole lot else (much more than Beem, Micheel, and other one hit wonders, though) - but because he beat Bjorn, Singh, Love and Woods when they were all at the top of the charts.
I'm looking forward to seeing everyone play the 10th more than almost any hole in recent memory.