You have to go all the way back to 2018 for the last time the US Open was won at par or worse, when eventual champion Brooks Koepka valiantly outmanoeuvred the field at a feisty Shinnecock Hills.
Since the turn of the century, five other US Open winners have secured the coveted Major with a score of par or worse, but do we want to see more stern tests for the best players in the world?
My feelings on this couldn't be more clear, so in order to add a little balance to my staunch position, I decided to ask some of my colleagues at Golf Monthly a simple question... Should a score of par (or worse) win the US Open?
Should Par Win A Golf Tournament?
Before we hear from my esteemed colleagues, I thought I'd make my position clear.
I despise the notion that 30-under-par could be remotely possible in a professional golf tournament at the highest level - especially considering the ludicrously large prize money payouts they are playing for.
I want to see players struggle, not a bloated birdie-fest. That's the reason I love Major Championship golf (with the exception of the most recent PGA Championship - which in my opinion was the worst Major I can remember).
I want carnage at the US Open - plain and simple. Let's make the best players in the world battle the hardest golf course in the world and see who wins.
If only four players break par, like they did at the 2016 US Open at Oakmont, that's still two or three too many in my opinion.
Par should absolutely be a possible and probable winning score at Major Championships.
Let the sub-section of mollycoddled professionals who love to complain about the difficulty have the regular PGA Tour, DP World Tour or LIV Golf season to catch their breath, because the US Open should be hard.
When it comes to golf course set-up, there is a fine line between hard and unfair. In a bid to keep the winning score as close as possible to par, the USGA hasn’t always got this balance right (see Chambers Bay in 2015 and Shinnecock Hills in 2018).
The problem is that a golf course is a living, breathing thing. It changes with the weather. Sun, rain and wind all dramatically alter the way any golf course plays.
That’s why I’ve always felt that setting a golf course up with a certain winning score in mind creates a danger of a set up that becomes unnecessarily unfair (golf has always been unfair but there are degrees).
I love the tough set up of the US Open. I love that it’s a grind and that when it works well it rewards the grittiest golfer. I couldn’t care less if the winner shoots level par, 5-under or 5-over. Who remembers what Bryson shot last time? I don’t.
I have absolutely no problem with level-par winning a golf tournament.
In fact, I love watching difficult events like the US Open. The PGA Championship is so often criticised for having no identity – the exact opposite of the US Open.
Naturally, some people still complain. It's so interesting to watch how players approach it from a strategic standpoint, too. They're so used to chasing birdies that it can be hard to adjust to par being a good score.
Some carry on their normal approach and others adapt, which makes for an interesting viewing experience. And, let's face it, for a lot of these professionals, many regular PGA Tour stops aren't overly difficult.
Who wouldn't want to watch something different at least once a year?
I simply can't understand peoples fascination or annoyance at how many under par a tournament winning score is.
Par is just an arbitrary number we have made up and assigned to a hole, it has no real meaning. Ultimately, the person who completes 72 holes in the fewest strokes wins the golf tournament whether that's 260 or 285.
If relation to par bothers you, just reassign the pars in your own head and you can get the winning score in relation to par to whatever makes you happy. It will still be the same total number of strokes though.
Have your say...
You've heard the thoughts of the experts at Golf Monthly HQ, but what do you think?
Should the US Open be won at a score of par or worse? Leave us a comment below - I'd love someone to try and convince me that the Oakmont carnage isn't going to be box-office brilliance!
