Can Mike Davis (USGA) save golf?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
My point about the USGA making par irrelevant (or should I say more of an arbitrary value) was that at Oakmont, #8 played 300 yards and was called a par three on the card.  #14 at Torrey played 267 yards and was called a par four on the card.  Have you played both holes?  I have and I would argue that #8 at Oakmont is a more difficult hole at 300 yards than #14 is at 267 yards.  So why is one called a par three and one a par four?  The USGA effectively said (as you say), distance doesn't matter, it's just a golf hole, play it the best you can to make your lowest score.  Par was listed only because red or black figures relative to some arbitrary par figure matter. 

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

I think Mike Davis certainly has gotten into some set-up practices that are much more "par skewing" than has been done before in US Opens, but with actual "par" on a hole or a whole course, the type of players at that level sure don't look at "par" the way most of the rest of us do. In other words, those guys are a ton more intuitive about risk/reward factors and what they and their fellow competitors can and can't do on any hole regardless of its actual par.

In my opinion, the best "par skewing" by Davis at Oakmont wasn't the 8th hole at 288, it was when he put the tees up on #2. Actually, I think he was quite surprised when he put the tees up on #14 that it didn't tempt more players into going for that green off the tee.

I guess he found out with that one just how intuitive those guys can be!

PS:
Oakmont has now taken on the reputation of a long and difficult brute which makes it pretty ironic just how adaptable their three "short" par 4s can be (potentially driveable).

PPS:
I was standing at the tee of #8 at the 2007 Open when Bubba Watson laced a draw 6 iron from 255 right over the bunker to a back left pin to about ten feet leaving his fellow competitors just shaking their heads!

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,
My point about the USGA making par irrelevant (or should I say more of an arbitrary value) was that at Oakmont, #8 played 300 yards and was called a par three on the card.  #14 at Torrey played 267 yards and was called a par four on the card.  Have you played both holes?  I have and I would argue that #8 at Oakmont is a more difficult hole at 300 yards than #14 is at 267 yards.  So why is one called a par three and one a par four?  The USGA effectively said (as you say), distance doesn't matter, it's just a golf hole, play it the best you can to make your lowest score.  Par was listed only because red or black figures relative to some arbitrary par figure matter. 

I haven't played either hole.   

But I did look up the average scores for each one.  If I added right, average for the 267 yard par four 14th at TP was 3.81 strokes.  That is during the fourth round of the U.S. Open.  Average for the 8th at Oakmont was under 3.5 strokes per round.  They didn't always play #8 from the tips.  But even if they had, I am pretty sure the average would not have jumped up to over 3.8. 

Distance almost always does a good job of determining par.  But there are some exceptions.  Isn't that generally what the half par holes are about?  Under some conditions, it makes sense to me that longer holes have lower par.  That can apply to both par 3's and par 4's. 

BTW, on TV it looked a whole lot easier to bounce a ball onto #8 at Oakmont, than #14 at TP.  For the pro's, Oakmont #8 looked to me like an easier shot.  Actual scores suggest that is right.