Caddie's Role:Golf may not be the usual pastime of philosophers or deep thinkers; they are more likely to prefer a game of chess or a spot of sculpting as recreation.

And yet, as time-consuming as a round of golf is today, the irony is that professionals have about four hours per round to think about whatever enters their heads. Really, it should be an ideal pursuit for philosophers.

I had plenty of time to do some thinking about what it is the USGA were trying to achieve when they set up their annual professional showpiece, the US Open. With the realistic par of 74 on a notional par-70 Oakmont course, we had extra moments for contemplation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a couple of weeks ago.

My man Retief Goosen opted to play his first practice round at 6.45am on Monday in order to have an uninterrupted look at what everyone had been warning us about. Many of the private-jet brigade had dropped by Pittsburgh at various times preceding the big event and returned with tales of woe about what lay ahead.

Oakmont was the brainchild of HC Fownes, a Pittsburgh businessman who had been wrongly diagnosed with a terminal illness. When he realised that in fact he was not terminally ill he decided to buy the Oakmont land and personally design the original course, which was completed in 1904.

It was a one-off for the revitalised amateur designer, and as I tottered down the first fairway in the thick morning light on the Monday of the US Open, it looked like nothing I had seen before on a golf course.

There was a unique feel to what had originally been a tree-lined course. Now that the trees (some 5,000) have been "taken away", and with a grand vista over almost the entire course from the first fairway, it has the look of an inland links about it: obviously inland but with a vast expanse of virtually treeless terrain broken only by tall, swaying fescues.

One of the goals in the USGA's manifesto for their national Open is to offer everyone who attends the finest experience possible, whether inside or outside the ropes. This seems like a pretty healthy objective. The trouble is I find it hard to believe.

There seems to be a general policy among the major organisers this year to "out-tough" each other. Of course there is nothing wrong with a stringent challenge for these ever-improving and extremely talented professionals. That is the endurance test we inside the ropes have all come to expect from a major in the 21st century. But having rambled outside as well as inside the ropes, I am not sure the USGA are meeting their goal for the punters who pay handsomely to come and watch the endurance test.

There are some stands that provide good viewing for a small minority of the patrons, but if you want to follow a group then the opportunities to get involved in the round are minimal.

The main problem for the public at Oakmont is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which bisects the course. The one spectator bridge spanning the freeway reminded me of the Howrah Bridge, which they say supports hundreds of thousands of Indians at rush hour in Calcutta. It was no place for a claustrophobic golf enthusiast, especially if you are further unnerved by the sound of cars hissing by below you at full throttle.

Some venues, I understand, just cannot support the tens of thousands of spectators that want to participate in a modern major. I get the feeling the USGA should be paying the spectators for providing a vibrant live atmosphere at an event that is undoubtedly more accessible from your favourite easy chair in front of your TV screen in your uncluttered living room.

A spectator mutation began at Augusta this year, the dearth of birdies at the Masters muffling the expectant crowd to relieved applause whenever the most skilful exponents of the game somehow coaxed a ball into the cup for a par or bogey.

Perhaps it is time for spectators to reassess their expectation of their star players and turn up the volume for a par at majors.

It was virtually impossible for enthusiasts to comprehend the skill entailed in simply two-putting from 30 feet above the hole at Oakmont. Unless you had walked on the greens you were unlikely to gain adequate perspective. It is understandably far easier for the layman to appreciate a holed birdie putt than a well managed two-putt.

The USGA's philosophy would seem to be ultimately based upon control. They seemed determined nothing should be left to chance when it came to asking questions of the best golfers at their event. From fairway width and bunker preparation to height of rough and firmness of the putting surfaces, everything was factored in.

With the density of the rough and the speed of the severely undulating greens, there seemed little room for creativity; the only question asked of the players was whether they could hit their golf balls straight.

Despite there being a "risk/reward" clause in the USGA list of important criteria in course set-up, the severity of the rough and narrowness of the landing area on the shorter par fours at Oakmont negated the lure of taking the holes on.

Simple accuracy of course negates the original course design. Where HC Fownes wanted you to embrace the challenge of hitting a certain shape off the tee on each hole, the present set-up simply requires a straight one.

It may not be entirely coincidental that modern equipment seems to have taken the shaping of tee shots out of the equation too.

Where the designer originally wanted to punish the errant tee shot with a wispy "flying" rough from which your ball came rocketing out with top spin, the present set-up simply requires you to chop your ball back onto the fairway with a wedge.

Extremely sophisticated ball and club technology in the hands of very talented golfers has led the guardians of the game to seriously tamper with the philosophy of some of the world's best course designers.

Just whose philosophy is more important is obvious when you see what those in control do to some of the world's best golf courses.

Tiger Woods maintained that a 10-handicapper would not have broken 100 in the third round of the US Open.

If the set-up of Oakmont a couple of weeks ago is "for the good of the game" then I need to reassess my philosophy on golf.