Why There's Absolutely Nothing Wrong About A 300-Yard Par 3 In The US Open

There's a reason why Oakmont is known as "the beast". It's hard. Uncompromising. It has 175 bunkers and thick, juicy rough. And it's long. Very long. I love it.

Okay, so I've never actually played it, but I'll watch every minute of the 125th US Open and have plenty of popcorn ready for when the players reach the par-3 8th.

At 289 yards, this 'short' hole is one of the longest par 3s in the world. Someone with more course knowledge than myself might be able to name one or two longer, but this is the longest par 3 in Major Championship golf.

In the 2007 US Open, it was even longer, playing to 300 yards, which most club golfers would regard as a short par 4. So, yes, Oakmont really is a beast.

Not everyone is a fan. Why? Why the hissy fit about a hole that will measure approximately the same number as the average drive on the PGA Tour?

We wax lyrical about how far these players hit the ball - 300 yards or so shouldn't cause too much of a problem. And, let's not forget, the par-4 17th measures 312 yards - so there's a chance to get one back there later in the round.

However, at this point, maybe it's best to let one of the best players in the world summarize how a lot of people currently feel about the par-3 8th at Oakmont. Here's Viktor Hovland.

"Yeah, I mean, it just becomes hard. I just don’t think when you have to make a hole that long, it just doesn’t become that great.

"It just becomes like, okay, you got a certain target here and then you got to hit a shot around there and make a par and get out of there instead of a shorter par 3 that entices you to get close to it, but if you’re a little bit off, you’re either in the water or in a short-sided spot or if you bail out, yeah, you still have a tricky little putt.

“I just think all the best par-3s are under 200. You can maybe have it just over 200, but as soon as you start to take head covers off on par 3s, I just think it gets a little silly."

Here's what I think: it's the same for everyone. The game can't all be about firing at pins and making birdies. Do we not see enough four-round totals under par in the teens and twenties? I think we do - and it gets a bit boring.

I'm not a course expert and I dare say that 300-yard par 3s are breaking some kind of unwritten rule in the world of golf course design, but a lot of spectators and casual observers this week won't care much for what makes the perfect par 3 - they just want to be entertained.

So, when I see Bryson DeChambeau arrive on the tee box on Thursday (probably with a 4-iron), I'll be licking my lips. Will he try and run it up onto the green? Or will he try and manufacture something with the driver?

No doubt those in the commentary box will be forced to apologize for the odd bit of 'colorful language' this week, but surely the odd bogey or worse will add to the drama?

Par is also just a number. You could call it a par 2 and it will be just the same for everyone.

As Justin Thomas said after taking a scouting trip to the Pennsylvania venue a few weeks ago, we're probably not talking about a hole that's "good, architecturally", but obsessing over what makes a good or bad hole - which we have a tendency to do - seems to be a waste of time during a Major Championship.

What bugs me more is that the shortest par 3 is the 13th, which measures 182 yards. The 16th, meanwhile, is another very long one at 236 yards, whilst the 6th measures 200 yards. I do think there's a place for short par 3s, and we don't see enough of them in Major Championships.

Jack Nicklaus, who won the first of his 18 Majors at Oakmont in 1962, called the par-3 8th "crazy". "I think it’s difficult to make a good, long par-3," he said. "I think it’s a very difficult thing to have a hole where you’re standing back, hitting a wood at a par 3."

Maybe it is a little crazy. However, is crazy necessarily a bad thing, just for one week of the year? Time to stock up on popcorn.