This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
What you are really describing with the Oakmont hole is the weakness of the Slope system. Distance in golf is a continuum and an extra ten yards is always meaningful, to some players more than others.
Matt, et al, I, too, am in the 285 Par 3 is good camp. Frankly, there aren't enough 220+ par 3s out there to test that aspect of the game. Kyle, it seems that that's all that's been created over the last 20 years. If anything, there's a shortage of good, short par 3's. And, there's definitely a lack of balance or diversity amongst par threes. All too often all four are all long.One only has to look at Pine Valley to see what's happened to par 3's.[/color]What club is most often left in the bag? 3-woodI thought that's what par 5's were for.[/color]A LONG par 3 changes that. I"m not so sure that long par 3's haven't become the rule rather than the exception.[/color]
Thanks John, I always wondered how this was done. So rating number 8 as a par 4 will give Oakmont an even higher course rating. Are there plans to increase the yardage minimums due to technology?