KEY POINTS:
Vijay Singh says it will be won by as much as 10 over par. Australian Adam Scott estimates it will be six over. Tiger Woods says four over par will win the US Open golf championship at Oakmont in what promises to be the most punishing tournament in majors history.
Apart from the fact that Woods already seems to have the psychological war won, next week's US Open will be dominated by Oakmont's course - a brutal, destructive monster that seems set to take the world's best golf games and grind them into sausage meat.
The fairways are narrow and unforgiving and even straight shots can bounce into trouble off their firm surfaces. The rough is punitive, as is usually the case with US Opens, and even talented escape artists like Phil Mickelson may not be able to work their usual magic, playing creative shots from the rough.
The bunkers are so many and so deep that you need a caver's helmet and spotlight and preferably a camel train to get in and out. The greens are lightning fast - and the source of Sam Snead's famous remark: "I marked my ball with a dime and the dime slid down six inches."
Over-dramatic? Consider the quote attributed to the course's superintendent, John Zimmers, who once apparently said: "When I bring guests to the course, I want them to return to their cars after the round and sit there shaking. I want tears streaming down their faces."
Or Mickey Pohl, Oakmont member and chairman of the US Open 2007: "I brought a nine-handicapper here as a guest. He shot 104 and almost left in tears. If he's a nine, I'm an NBA player."
Oh, and there's the small matter of defending champion Geoff Ogilvy who played a practice round recently. Ogilvy wasn't talking but the word is he shot 85, including seven lost balls.
Oakmont is the course - and the club - which takes the most pride in beating up its guests. Golfers approach this beast of a course with real trepidation. It is not a matter of calculating how many birdies the world's leading players might hit; it's more a matter how many bogeys they can avoid.
That's why most of the golfers are picking that the result of this Open will be a record high score - higher even than the five-over-par winning score by Ogilvy at Winged Foot last year and maybe higher than the record seven-over-par shot by Hale Irwin to win the US Open (again at Winged Foot) in 1974.
Last year's event saw Phil Mickelson and Colin Montgomerie famously self-combust, handing the tournament to a mildly astonished Ogilvy. Less well-known is that if Jim Furyk or Padraig Harrington had hit four or three pars respectively in their final holes, they would have won. Instead Furyk hit two bogeys in the last four holes and lost by one and Harrington made bogey on all three of the last holes and lost by two. Ogilvy parred the last five to win.
That US Open sparked a debate about whether it is better to see the world's finest reduced to mere mortals as they are forced to endure the 'train wrecks' which so often claim the amateur golfer. Better, say many, to see the best playing at their best.
Not a bit of it. It is fascinating to see top golfers struggle in much the same way weekend hackers battle against the course, the elements and their lack of talent. Ogilvy and his mates have the talent but a course like Oakmont - especially in these days where golf and club technology have so emasculated many courses - is calculated to balance the ledger.
So who will win? Woods will obviously start as favourite and, even though he barely made the top 15 in his last tournament, his putter was getting hot in his final round and the winner at Oakmont will need to putt well on these glassy, table-top greens.
Otherwise, however, you're talking pick-the-Lotto-numbers. The winner will likely be straight off the tee - forget about length on this long but brutal course - and they will also have a good scrambling game and a short game on form.
Of the so-called big five, other than Woods, there are question marks next to the rest - Phil Mickelson (recent wrist injury), Ernie Els (not yet in form), Vijay Singh (reasonable form; question over accuracy under pressure) and Retief Goosen (out of form) although any or all of them could snap back into contention here.
