300 Yard Par 3's at US Open.. A step too far?

[oasis90]

This week the USGA announced the 8th hole at Oakmont thisyear could play as far as 302 yards at its longest. Is this just a step too far in making the course more of a challenge. I'm all for makin par 5's out of reach in two for them but not being able to hit par 3's in one for the shorter guys? What do you think?

 

[muttleee]

I thought there was usually a limit of 250 yards for par 3s but it seems it's not always stuck to! Post-Gazette.com says it'll play between 252 and 288 yards depending on the weather. Jack thinks some players will still be hitting 5 irons in there!

 

[Up_Point_1]

Muttleee - That's one big 5 iron, even by Pro standards.

There is a huge benefit to a 300 yard Par 3 as far as I can see it, the 'Hole in One' prize would be fan dabby dosey

 

[birdieman]

302yds=madness1
Jack Nicklaus once said par threes should be no longer than 175 yds -couldn't agree more. It's supposed to be a skilled iron shot. Once they get beyond 200 yards the skill element is replaced by luck. We have on our 9th and 10th two par threes measuring 224 and 233 yards, both well guarded and near OOB. We didn't have one birdie on either hole the whole 2006 season. Most members are hitting 3 wood and it's just luck if you get one straight enough to find the green. well strucks 3 woods can end up severley punished which isn't really fair. Woods are for finding wide fairways not small greens.
Holes can be made difficult without always resorting to length!

 

[John_Findlay]

It just shows laziness and a lack of imagination to simply make holes longer and longer to test the pros. "The Postage Stamp" at Troon, for example, still causes untold bother to them during the Open and it's only a wee dink. And what about the 17th at Sawgrass? Will they be making that a wood into the green? I think not. Good design on both holes means they can be short and penal at the same time.

 

[Golfer2112]

Laziness is absolutely the right word, J_F, having a par 3 that long is just silly.

Still, Oakmont is a great course and it should be a great tourney, as usual. Anything close to par will probably be good enough to win. I'll stick my neck out and say that the winning score will be +2

 

[rgs]

i agree laziness is the reason for this length of hole-the postage stamp at troon & 17th sawgrass two great par 3's.
golfe 212-everyone playing would take +2 now as a winning score-based on coments from various pros +8 appears to be the market leader.
I dont think winning a tournament with +8 is doing anything for golf.

 

[Junior]

Couldn't agree more, Short par 3's, surrounded by hazards with tight pins are my favourite type of hole. Even if its a huge elevated tee (which i dont think it is) its still crazy.

 

[chipin1]

The USGA have an obsession with showing their masculinity. It's as if they want to prove that they are better than the R&A and the Masters. It's pathetic! Par 3s should be about good long and mid-iron play. When even Tiger has to hit 3-wood you know you've gone too far.

Once again, this year's US Open will be a sloggers fest - no birdies just a constant struggle. Expect at least half of the field to be out of it by the end of Thursday...

 

[oasis90]

Not at all. these players are professionals and the best in the world at their sport. Fair enough for the club golfer anything over 230 years is silly but with the new 'rescue clubs' for the pros its not a problem. Yesterday the pro's were hitting irons and the hole was playing 270 yards, an extra club and the pros will reach without resorting to the 3wood or driver. the US Open is the toughest test in golf, i think its about time they were tested with real length.