Too often, the powers to be for the clubs or associations conducting major championships have no earthly clue how to set up the courses they've selected. It used to be that courses were selected only for their quality. What has evolved over the last decade or so is that course quality is secondary to club facilities: parking, corporate tent space, gallery room, practice range, clubhouse size, access to highways, etc. It remains though, that the course should be the stage on which these events are played. Their design quality should never be modified in the interest of unqualified people who cannot relate to ever hitting shots that expert players are able to hit. The tendancy seems to be that adminitrators or committeemen overestimate the abilities of these expert players by setting up courses with unfair hole settings (18th at Olympia Fields on Friday of 1997 Senior Open or 18th at Olympic Club on Friday of 1998 Open), extremely narrow fairways with tall, thick rough (Carnoustie this year or Winged Foot during 1974 Open) or fairways that dogleg too sharply and against the lay of the land (Olmpic's 17th in 1987 Open and 4th, 5th and 9th in 1998). Clubs and associations that conduct the majors are right in one respect: their philosophy that if they miss and their setup is wrong, it errs on the difficult or unfair side. The PGA Tour would never be comfortable erring on the difficult side--Finchem gets paid by the players and his raises are somewhat tied into the overall happiness of his members. Most believe that fans want to see eagles and birdies more than just good shots that result in the lowest scores relative to everyone else--perhaps the best reason why the Players Championship can never be a major championship--the players control everything about the event. So when scores are extremely high due to the setup of the course is it unfair? Yes. There is a middle ground albeit hard to attain with those who are in charge.