Should the USGA strive to have the U.S. Open be won at even par?

The U.S. Open's history is rich with iconic moments—look no further than Bryson DeChambeau’s clinching 55-yard bunker shot a year ago at Pinehurst. But along with this esteemed history are USGA setup controversies and gaffes, like the glass putting greens at Shinnecock Hills in 2004 (and 2018), the wobbly fescue greens at Chambers Bay in 2015 and the delayed penalty for Dustin Johnson and his rules chaos at Oakmont in 2016.

While the U.S. Open has long identified itself as the toughest test in golf, many fans believe that, on occasion, the USGA takes the playing conditions too far in an effort to see winning scores close to even par (though the USGA has never publicly admitted to having a targeted winning score).

To add further fodder to this great debate, we asked Golf Digest+ members and Golf Digest staffers: “Should the USGA strive to have the U.S. Open be won at even par?” First, some quick context: Since 1930, only 40 percent of U.S. Opens have been won with a score of even par or higher.

“Yes”

Tommy Hindman, Knoxville, Tenn.: Absolutely. While it is certainly entertaining to watch the best players in the world ferociously destroy golf courses, there should be at least one event on tour where these guys are put through the paces. The U.S. Open is the one event I get to watch every year that makes these guys look human and increases my self-esteem the next time I’m staring down the barrel of a 12-foot putt to save bogey.

Greg Gottfried, Web Producer: This is all about semantics. Should they strive for even par? Hell yeah. Will striving for even par get you even par? Probably not. Yeah, yeah ... the players are too good and the scores are too low and Scottie Scheffler is a robot, but I appreciate the USGA trying to bring about some chaos. The CJ Cup Byron Nelson was won at 31 under par. Sure, that was Scheffler, and yet, second place was still 23 under. Who wants that? I want players taking on the course the same way they take on their fellow competitors. And if the best of the best beat Oakmont, at least the USGA went for broke. You can't see it, but I'm saluting the USGA's top brass right now. 🫡

Bill Boncosky, Indianapolis: Yes. What is the U.S. Open’s brand? Difficult, tough, penal, frustrating. The U.S. Open identifies not just a great player, but the player in the best emotional space that week.

Paul Golabowski, Noblesville, Ind.: Yes, as long as the golf course isn’t tricked out.

MORE: Who is the next golfer to pull off the career Grand Slam, and how long will it be until it happens?

“No”

Todd Bruce, Goodyear, Ariz.: No. Final score is meaningless. Just make it a very hard test for the best golfers in the world.

Christopher Powers, Staff Writer: I’m all for an even par or over par winner, a la the 2006 U.S. Open, but the test still has to be a fair one like it was that week. Unfortunately, the only way to put these modern-day players in over-par territory over four days is with gale force winds and borderline unplayable greens. In other words, clown golf. We just need to accept that the new “tough but fair test” reality is in the -5 to -12 range. They all simply are too good and hit it too far. That said, if the USGA wants to toe the proverbial line at Oakmont this year and things got out of hand, I’ll be there laughing maniacally.

Greg Plumlee, Wichita, Kan.: No. I watch struggle golf every day in my life. I want to watch birdies and eagles on TV.

Thomas Richardson, Delray Beach, Fla.: No, they should strive to have it won at 40 over so pros could experience the anguish most golfers put up with.

E. Michael Johnson, Equipment Editor: Should the USGA strive to have the U.S. Open won at even par? Well, if they’ve been doing it all along, they’ve failed epicly. Since 1980, the winning score has been even par or higher just nine times in 45 tries. That’s barely reaching the Mendoza line for you baseball fans out there. In the same time frame the winning score has been eight under par or lower 10 times. Here’s the deal: Bryson won last year at Pinehurst at six under. Fitzpatrick at The Country Club in 2022 at the same number. DJ won at Oakmont—yes, freaking Oakmont—at four under in 2016. Those Opens were generally regarded as well played on fair, but difficult courses. Now, Koepka won at one over at Shinny in 2018. Justin Rose at the same number at Merion in 2013. Webb Simpson at the same number at Olympic a year earlier. All on courses, however, thought to be somewhat tricked up or that USGA officials lost some control of the conditions. Even par was a romantic notion half a century ago, but today’s players are too good. The only way to get to that number (short of Mother Nature intervening) is to make the course stupid. Don’t do that. Five under is still watching these guys struggle.

“Who cares?”

Tony Cherone, Memphis: “Who cares? These guys are so good, there’s almost no challenge for them anymore.”

Ernesto Santos, McAllen, Texas: “Let’s not bother them with this; they’re busy rolling back golf ball performance at the moment.”

Mike Stachura, Equipment Editor: In what seems like a remnant from the Mesozoic era both literally and figuratively, the late Sandy Tatum, former president of the USGA and a man who so exemplifies the words “civility” and “erudite” that his picture appears under both entries in the dictionary, was once asked about the difficulty of U.S. Open setups. Involved in course plans that saw championships at Winged Foot and Pebble Beach in the early 1970s won with over-par scores, Tatum discussed whether it was the USGA’s intention to embarrass the best players in the world. On the contrary, he replied adroitly. “We’re trying to identify them.” That’s a simple mission statement yet a wildly moving target in a game that is at once distinctly different from that played half a century ago and remarkably the same.

The USGA’s leadership, and specifically course setup warden John Bodenhamer, routinely bat away questions about projected score and whether even par as a winning number is the goal at the U.S. Open, deferring instead to the more admirable yet undefinable objective of “getting every club in the bag dirty.” Given that “par” is a contrived and elastic concept (see Oakmont and its 299-yard par 3 and 500-yard par 4s), focusing on a winning score relative to a particular scorecard is like trying to analyze poetry with J. Evans Pritchard’s graphs and charts from "Dead Poets’ Society." Like Robin Williams’ Mr. Keating suggests succinctly, “Excrement.” The U.S. Open isn’t about a score. It’s about pain. It’s about survival. It’s about blinding fatigue and wordless satisfaction. It’s about stress and hysterical frustration and the knowing look of a competitor at wit’s end, finding an answer he didn’t know he had.

If it’s reduced to a number, you’ve lost the rhythm, friend. Look at it more deeply: The goal of the U.S. Open should be to make the world’s best golfers feel the agony that us commoners feel every time we tee it up. And yes, the ecstasy, too, that comes from a marathon well run. That’s it. If the champion is bleeding from the mouth just a little bit walking up 18 next Sunday, then in my book that’s the win.