Over at Golf Observer, David Barrett does an excellent job of detailing the changes made between 2002 and 2009 at Bethpage Black.  If you want to understand better how Rees Jones and Mike Davis worked in tandem to create more options for players despite added length, it's worth the read.

The bottom line is that the course max length may be longer, but do not expect Bethpage to play much longer than 7250 yards on any given day.  This is especially true if the rain continues in the New York area.  As Larry Dorman reports, Mike Davis is particularly worried about rain and the impact that it will have on the thick grass in the rough.  The fairways are wider, rough shorter in most places, and the forced carries and layups familiar to the nightmares of the 2002 field have largely been rescinded.  Davis has even gone so far to say to Jason Sobel that the Sunday round may potentially be the easiest of the four.

Additionally, Bethpage will play shorter because players are longer off of the tee across the board.  Mike Stachura took a good look at how he expects the course's added length to have minimal effect on the field.  Multi-piece construction golf balls are everywhere.  Hybrids have replaced long irons and made the 1 and 2 iron almost extinct.  Shaft technology is not only better but manufacturers are better at fitting players to the entire spectrum of equipment.

All told, it would seem that Bethpage will be friendlier to players of all lengths.  After all, in the Mike Davis era, players of modest length have fared pretty well.  Jim Furyk - never known for his length - has finished runner up in two of the last three Opens.  Rocco Mediate sure was an unexpected contender given the length at Torrey, though he has finished 4th and 6th at prior US Opens (2001, 2005).

Barker Davis in the Washington Times contends that Bethpage is a bomber's only course because of the Davis changes.  He claims that there is less emphasis on hitting fairways and the added length favors bombers.  Here's his main statistical claim:

The importance of length is obvious when looking at the seven longest major championships in history, according to fullswing quotient. Only six players recorded top-10 finishes in three or more of those majors: Woods (five), Mickelson (four), Sergio Garcia (three), Geoff Ogilvy (three), Vijay Singh (three) and Padraig Harrington (three). Of those six players, only Harrington ranks outside the top 36 in driving distance on the PGA Tour. None ranks in the top 90 in driving accuracy.

Ok, that all sounds nice, but what in the world is "full swing quotient?"  In another piece, Davis defines it.

"Full-swing quotient" is calculated by subtracting 36 (two putts a hole) from total par and then dividing the layout's yardage by that remainder. The full-swing quotient is the average yardage that must be covered on a given course by each allotted full swing.

Unfortunately, this logic doesn't work.  For one, dismissing each hole as a two putt green is an absurd notion - particularly in a US Open.  There is the annual six putt for some poor sucker that is somehow lost in assuming a two-putt.  Then, on the 500 yard par 4s, the notion doesn't work too well either.  The average drive will probably be around 270 yards this week around the course.  That reduces the "full-shot quotient."  Or, how about the par 3 that could play anywhere from 130 to 220 yards?

Don't get me wrong - being long helps at any golf course.  I have supported and defended that claim for years with legitimate statistical data.  I just don't think that this statistic is relevant.

Look at several of the majors that appear on Davis' list.  Basically, the last three US Opens are on there.  In 2006, out of the top 11 players, 7 were short hitters.  Of the top 12 in 2007, again, seven were short or mid-length hitters.  And in 2008, ffive of the top twelve were shorties.  Shorter hitters can thrive in Mike Davis US Opens.