"Treat it as a par-5. I don’t see it as an issue."

I understand that the R&A headman and part-time golf architect will be busy Saturday with the intense storm that Kevin Eason predicts should be epic, but something is just a bit off in his rather haughty defense of the long tee shot carries and unreachable par-4s. 

You may recall that the morning players Thursday noted (well, loudly complained) about the unreachable nature and tough carries on three par-4s. Now, in his defense, I can understand and even agree with Peter Dawson's response, covered here by Steve Elling:

Others specifically singled out par-4 hole Nos. 6, 11 and 16, which were playing into the wind. As for the sixth, Dawson shrugged.

"Six is 499 into the wind," he said. "It was a par-5 today, clearly. Treat it as a par-5. I don’t see it as an issue."

And he later said...

"There's nothing wrong with the course," he said.

Here's the twist. The extremes only work one way for Dawson and the R&A, who are clearly obsessed with scoring.

He says treat the sixth hole as a par-5 when it's playing into an extreme wind. Fine, he's right.

But why can't things swing the other way and be chalked up to seaside golf?

Why can't a par-5 play "easy" downwind just be treated as a par-4 by the R&A? After all, the 17th was determined to need "stiffening" and a new green constructed expressly for this championship because it played like a par-4 last time around.

What was wrong with the old one? Why it yielded too many birdies!

So an excess of bogies and double bogies appears to be fine with the R&A. But an excess of birdies or eagles? Fire up the dozers!