Thank you. A few questions....
1) Do you realistically ever see par 2s being accepted and utilized at pro tournaments? If so...when do you think this will happen?
They've been used for decades. In fact, the very early use probably was what caused a backlash.
These days, I don't think anyone seriously questions whether it is possible that there are holes where a 1000-rated player expects to get a 2. Even the commentators on video have used a phrase like "really a par 2".
Short holes in general don't work as well, no matter the par. So, I think as holes are tagged as par 2s, most TDs will try to toughen them up to par 3.
However, I think some TDs will discover the psychological pressure of stepping up to a par 2. Even though we have "must birdie" holes now, there's still the consolation prize of getting "par" if you fail. Strip away that veneer of 3-is-OK-ness and the pressure increases. As a par 2, even your Mom watching you on ESPN will know you messed up with a 3.
2) Would you agree Eagle (and the Eaglets of the near future) have changed the perception of what par is and that any perceived solution would be out dated in only a few years as longer and longer throwers enter the pro rank?
The huge under par numbers have always had more to do with the variability in the skill level par was set for. Some pars used at pro tournaments are high enough to be good for recreational players. Some TDs still think a pro tournament played on an intermediate course should use intermediate pars. Or at least don't make the effort to change some of the pars from those on the tee signs.
There are tournaments where there are no top players, yet the under par numbers are far more ridiculous than the 16 and 18 unders of the best players. The historic performances probably shine on a light on the situation, but par isn't defined for the best players in the world. They'll always be able to have big-under-par rounds, just a few less under.
If the solution is to set par to be the expected score of a 1000-rated player it will last forever. Or, it will change slowly as (or if?) the skill that is represented by 1000-rated players changes.
3) Obviously making longer holes is not a permanent solution due to cost of land, etc, etc, so with that in mind would you favor adding artificial obstacles like fake trees, bushes, etc, at strategic locations on existing courses to make them more difficult?
We don't need longer holes to get par right. It's a lazy tailor who insists your arms are too short for the suit. Par should fit whatever holes are out there.
I'll set aside the question of whether fake trouble is OK or not and just address the par implications.
Merely adding some higher scores does not affect par. It affects the average score, but not par.
For example, changing a par 2 into an island hole will not make it a par 3. If hitting the island is expected, it's a par 2. If hitting the island is not expected, it's the world's least-fun par 4.
Adding Hazards that are so small and so near the target that it doesn't make sense to even try to avoid them does not increase par. It just increases average score.
If OB or any other kind of trouble is going to raise par, it needs to affect the throws in some way. A lake that is too wide to throw over can make players take the long way around. A Hazard that is big enough and the right distance from the target can make players try to land on the other side of the target.
Unavoidable trouble can only increase par if so many players are affected by it that it becomes the expected play. In most cases, that would suck.
4) Why haven't we installed marksman like baskets for use at the majors, nts, etc? Seems like a fairly easy way to increase the difficulty of putting without changing anything else. I realize c1 putting won't change that much, but certainly putts from c2 or better would be affected.
Again, you're thinking the arms are too short for the suit.
Missing more putts is no fun, and only the better players have more difficulty putting on Marksmen targets.
