It seems that year after year people who control how the course is setup artificially contrive fairway lines, eliminating strategy and ruining the intent of the course's architect. They take greens that were originally designed when push mowers cut the grass, harden them and speed them up to a point where you can't possibly get a putt from point A to point B if point A is above the hole.

And all this trouble is for what purpose ... protecting par?

If the courses picked by the USGA are such great tests of golf, why do they have to be bastardized so much to test today's players? Originally, there was no such thing as par. In the north of Scotland scorecards merely had the hole's yardage and a place to write your score. The Scots knew that depending on the winds, par might be 34 or 40 on the outward half, while reversed on the inward half.

I believe the USGA loves cynical journalists to write that once a year the pampered pros are reduced to hitting shots like a 20-handicapper at Podunk Municipal. What does that have to do with determining our national champion?

If you have a disdain for professional golf; if you don't like the fact that some pros are earning tremendous amounts of money; or are insular and unfriendly; or that the modern game of golf revolves around what Tiger and Phil and Ernie are doing, and not the U.S. Amateur champion, get over it! But don't let that attitude be your justification for a ridiculous course setup in hopes of identifying the best player in the world.

What a player shoots for a score is all that counts, not how he shoots it! Since when did hitting fairways become a more-important aspect of the game than recovery shots, short game creativity, strategy or any number of other aspects of golf?

Speaking of strategy, do you honestly think that Ben Hogan—one of the best U.S. Open competitors ever—would have tried to hit a particular part of the fairways we saw at Winged Foot to get a better angle to the flagstick? Hell, he would be like every other player out there trying to put anywhere in the fairway. "There's the goal posts, kick it through." Besides, the proper position off the tee to get to a particular hole-location, according to the course designer's intentions, was often in second cut of the three-tiered rough.

To quote from the movie Network, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take anymore!" Let these classic golf courses stand, as designed, and let these players play. Sure, grow some rough—just not the same amount for every hole. Sure, narrow the fairways—just not all of them the same way regardless of the hole's design.

With courses setup this way, as we say at Winged Foot, the only mental distress is worrying if you can hit the fairway. At that point, it's all about execution.

Johnny Miller wondered why he was not seeing much strategy being employed. There's only room for one strategy on a fairway that's only 24 yard wide ... to hit it!

Before the traditionalists out there blame the setup on the need to keep up with technology, I would remind everyone that the "Massacre at Winged Foot" occurred in 1974, well before any technology wars. But it was right in the middle of the war between old-fashioned USGA mentality and the evolving world of professional golf.

Peter Kostis is a golf analyst for CBS Sports, a GOLF MAGAZINE Top 100 Teacher and co-founder of the Kostis-McCord Learning Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. E-mail him your thoughts and questions at kostis@golfonline.com.