[Tim Weiman]

Ken Cotner:

You have raised an interesting point. How would you express the difference between "local knowledge" and "understanding architecture"? How does one help and the other not help?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Cotner,

You, Darren and me are amongst the few who recognize the difference.  Sadly, the masses, led by TEPaul, have no clue

TEPaul, this is about the advantage, real or imagined of understanding architecture, not local knowledge.

[TEPaul]

Local knowledge is a very valuable thing to have in a tournament situation.

Understanding architecture extremely well may not do that much for a tournament player that has no local knowledge at all but I'd bet that a tournament player who has no local knowledge but understands architecture extremely well would have a decided advantage over a tournament player who has no local knowledge and very little understanding of architecture!

A tournament player like Crenshaw, in my opinion, has an extremely good understanding of architecture and also extremely good local knowledge of ANGC! That unique combination gives him an edge, in my opinion! Even if the edge is a very small one--we're talking in strokes here and as we all know a stroke saved can win you the Masters! Did you realize that Pat? Perhaps not!

I would even bet Crenshaw's local knowledge of ANGC has probably been heightened to a degree simply because he has such a good understanding of architecture!

I see you've gotten two other people on here to agree with you Pat! Congratulations, I think that's a new Golfclubatlas record for you!

But you're still wrong and if those two others agree with you, so are they!

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Wouldn't it be more helpful for you to articulate your own understanding of the difference between "local knowledge" and "understanding architecture"? Why not describe the difference specifically as it applies to Augusta?

What point is there to make a comment like "the masses have no clue"? Doesn't that just turn people off?

[Ken_Cotner]

Tim,
Now you want me to explain what I meant when I said there is a difference between local knowledge and understanding architecture?  But that would mean I have to KNOW what I meant!  That's no fun!

Tom,
I have a wife and daughter -- I'm used to being called wrong all the time!  Of course I'm still right; I just never claim to be!

I think what I mean may be illustrated by these examples:  Ben (or Jack or Tiger or whoever) may remember that a particular putt on 17 breaks right when it looks like it wants to break left.  Or that it is critical to stay below the hole on 15 (or wherever).  This is local knowledge, whether gotten through personal experience, a great caddy, or studying years of Masters videotape.  It can save a stroke or two or three.

Ben (or whoever) may stand on the tee at Ballybunion Old #10 (or whichever is the little dropshot par-3) and judge how the hole fits into the routing; the risk/reward opportunities; the form and function of the bunkers; the movement in and around the green; etc.  That is understanding architecture.  It won't help him score one stroke better in a tournament.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

KC

[Tim Weiman]

Ken Cotner:

The Ballybunion hole you are referring to is #8. Having played it countless times, I'm not sure I could articulate the difference between "local knowledge" and the "architecture".

FYI, never once have I thought about how the hole fits into the routing plan......at least not while playing.

But, by this point I'm well schooled on the form and function of the bunkers and the movement of land around the green. That goes through my mind every time I play the hole and has greatly influenced both my approach to playing it and the results.

I can't hit a golf ball nearly as well as I could fifteen years ago, but I'll take Tim today verses Tim then on this hole. I've got something today I just didn't have back then. Whether it is "local knowledge" or my understanding of the "architecture", I haven't a clue. I just know it works!

[Gentile Ben]

Now, if a player noticed one green was a new USGA Green at Augusta and another was an old mix green, and the USGA one drained and thus was firmer, wouldn't he be knowing something about local knowledge and architecture? And wouldn't he be at an advantage over other players who don't compute these things?

Architecture and local knowledge. Seem to linked if you ask me.

[Ken_Cotner]

Tim,

Point taken, but it may semantics at work.  Your example sounds more like what I think of as "local knowledge".

I guess "understanding" architecture to me for purposes of this thread is more akin to "appreciating" architecture, i.e. making value judgments about the hole's design attributes (e.g. "That bunker on the inside of the dogleg of #16 is very well-placed and creates a strategic decision, but looks out of place compared with the environment and the rest of the course.").  BTW, I know you can do this much better than me!

Maybe local knowledge is just understanding the EFFECTS of the architecture?

KC, rambling...

[TEPaul]

Dear Gentile Ben:

I think we're all agreed on here (except a few numbskulls like Pat Mucci) that you have a decided edge at ANGC in the Masters with superior local knowledge and a superior understanding of architecture!

But let me ask you--who do you think is the smartest--You, Gentile Ben, or your alter ego Jewish Ben?

[CHrisB]

Pat Mucci:

Wouldn't it be more helpful for you to articulate your own understanding of the difference between "local knowledge" and "understanding architecture"? Why not describe the difference specifically as it applies to Augusta?

Pat,
I second Tim's questions to you, not because I want to argue with the answers, but because I'd really like to know how you view "local knowledge" versus "understanding architecture", particularly as applied at ANGC.  I think if I understand this disctinction I'll understand your point better.

Thanks--CB

[Ken_Cotner]

Dear Gentile Ben:

I think we're all agreed on here (except a few numbskulls like Pat Mucci) that you have a decided edge at ANGC in the Masters with superior local knowledge and a superior understanding of architecture!

No, we aren't all agreed on here!  I still say the superior understanding of architecture does NOT give you a decided edge!  (Why isn't there a "stomping foot" icon up there?)

KC, Proud Numbskull

[CHrisB]

Tom,
I'll give this a try...

  Pat please answer our questions!    


                               

[Rick Shefchik]

Top Ten reasons why a pro wins any given tournament:

10. Understands golf architecture.
9. Wife (or girlfriend) isn't mad at him for being away from home that week.
8. Local knowledge.
7. Likes local restaurants.
6. Breakthrough with swing guru.
5. Breakthrough with sports psychologist.
4. Doesn't need the money.
3. Good breaks.
2. Hot putter.
1. Tiger played lousy.

[Tim Weiman]

ChrisB:

I'll second your point about not wanting to "argue", something we do far too often, in my opinion.

As I indicated in my exchange with Ken Cotner, I have no idea what the difference is between "local knowledge" and "understanding architecture". To me they are so closely related that I'm not sure what the difference is or whether it matters at all. I hope my example of #8 at Ballybunion illustrates the point.

But, let me try another hole, one I've only played a few times:#15 at Crystal Downs. I distinctly remember coming upon this hole for the first time and looking on it with a bit of suspicion. Looking at the wide open fairway and total absence of hazards got me thinking. Experience told me that Mackenzie must be up to some trick.

Sure enough he was. While the faiway is quite wide banging away with a driver carries great risk, I discovered. At about 270 yards out (I think) the fairway flows down and tends to kick balls both left and right into hazards. I had a hunch that a good long iron of maybe 210-225 yards might be the better play. And that proved to be the case with one notable exception. Even if you hit the ball right down the middle, you may still be left with a blind shot to the green, something which is obscured from the tee. Just like the hazards left and right as the fairway narrows in driver range.

Now that I've played the hole a couple times, my original suspicion proved correct. Indeed, the Good Doctor was up to no good. There are certain positions off the tee that make scoring alot easier.

Now again, the better I'm playing the better I will be able to score on this hole. But, I would argue, that all else being equal, knowledge is damn important to playing this hole. Whether that amounts to "local knowledge" or "understanding architecture" I don't have the slightest idea. I just know it matters, whatever it is.

One other example is the second hole at Pinehurst #2. Totally wide open fairway, but Ross is playing the same trick as Mackenzie only this time it relates to the green complex, the defences and the preferred angle for an approach shot.

Local knowledge......understanding architecture......you tell me......I'll only say that ball striking ability isn't the only thing required to play the game.

Finally, let me point out that Robert Trent Jones, Jr. wrote an entire book about how understanding architecture can influence the playing experience

Tom Watson, wrote the Forward and summed up Jones' writing by saying "it will improve your game". I'm not going to argue with Watson, a former Ballybunion Captain!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

I'll basically "ditto" Ken Cotner's answer

Tim Weiman,

You should understand that TEPaul and I have an unusual relationship, and barbs hurled at one another are really terms of endearment.

Got to go to dinner, be back later.

[D. Kilfara]

Tom Paul and Patrick Mucci -

I'm glad that you have both explained to me that you are friends, and that you're just busting each other's chops when you bicker like you do in a thread like this. I, for one, am pleased to realize that the two of you aren't really at each other's throats all the time, because that's what it does indeed look like. Two follow-up points, however:

1) Not everyone is aware that you have this sort of "special relationship." What is actually playful often looks hurtful, and I think it often leads people into drawing false conclusions or becoming angry themselves.

2) It's very possible for the two of you to hijack a thread with your playful banter. This happened recently in the "Is Pacific Dunes too easy?" thread, where Rich's joke about Rick Hartmann - which I understood, but several people obviously didn't get - led to 20 or so posts between the two of you which drowned out by your comments which ultimately had nothing to do with the thread. Perhaps the meaningful posts in the thread were coming to an end already, perhaps not. Tough to say. (The thread is dead now, regardless.)

Couldn't you guys take some of this banter offline or something? Or would that miss the whole point?

Cheers,
Darren
(speaking with good intentions, but prepared to accept whatever abuse is hurled at me for bringing this up...)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gentile Ben,

Could you name me a classic golf course that rebuilt a green totally out of context with the other 17 greens by building it to USGA specs versus the method employed on the other 17 greens ? That green would be forever different, in many ways.

Do you think that building a new green to a different spec would be a secret for long ?   Do you really believe that a golfer can determine by looking at a green, what its perk rates are.  Its moisture content, its firmness.  And, don't you feel that the best players in the world would figure that out after a practice round or two, let alone the pre-tournament info so abundantly announced in the media ?

Darren Kilfara,

TEPaul and I are friends, as are Tommy Naccarato and I.
We agree on many aspects of architecture, but the 5 % or so that we don't agree on tends to promote passionate debate.
We understand each other, even when TEPaul is wrong, which is quite often.

With respect to hijacking threads, Rich Goodale was the deviant who led the PD thread astray.
I think if you look back over the last three years you'll see that others are more prone to move off the central issue.  
On My par 5 thread I saw that happening and sought to get it back on track.

But, let me get back to the ANGC issue, and make what many will deem a wild statement.

Though the green, there is not much in the way of unusual or hidden local knowledge at ANGC.  Let me repeat the statement.  Please keep in mind that this is in the context of the World's best players.  Through the green, there is not much in the way of unusual or hidden local knowlege.  It is a pretty straight forward golf course, where the most basic of playing tenets apply.

The putting surfaces take some getting used to, and some may never be comfortable working to and on them, and I can see referencing local knowledge with respect to the greens.
But, remember, these are the greatest players in the world.
They play practice rounds.
They play practice rounds with each other.
There were caddies who were there for decades and knew a great deal about the putting surfaces.

It is the most highly visible golf course for any major.
It is the same course every year.
Even people who have never been there gain a sense of familiarity through the overwhelming exposure it receives.

I would think that the existance and value of local knowledge, on a golf course that the World's best players only see every 13 years or so, would be more realistic.

If the architect has done a good job, the appropriate tactical signals will be sent to the eye, and if that fails, playing the course a dozen to a hundred times, should fill in the missing blanks.

Now, NGLA, there's were local knowledge comes in handy.

Tim Weiman,

I clearly posted a smiley face   after my TEPaul and masses comment.  It was pretty clear the statement was made in jest

[CHrisB]

Pat,
Thanks for your answers (although you answered them to Darren). When you take the time to articulate what you believe, I gain an awful lot from that.  Especially now that I see we agree a lot more on this issue than I thought. The back and forth lobbing of questions and challenges doesn't really advance the thread in my opinion.

And you may be right; local knowledge may be more important at Valderrama or the Belfry or some of the U.S. Open sites.  But maybe not; we can't really know unless we've "been there" or spoken to those who have...

My guess is that as conditions become more severe (esp. firmness and speed of greens turned way up), the information a player has to "read" or pick up on is smaller/less visible/more elusive, and things that you never knew about a course start to come out.  Hence some of the comments that playing Pebble Beach in the AT&T does you no good in playing the U.S. Open in June.  Probably the same at Augusta; you've played 4 rounds there but play in the Masters (esp. on Sunday) and I'll bet you're liable to see things that you still can't believe.  Or maybe not!  You and I may never know!

But again, I sure wish I could find out for myself!

[Q.R.M.]

MrMucci
I'm just guessing that you don't think that Gentile Ben can provide you with an answer to your last question to him.  Well unfortunately I can.  It's in Westchester, NY.  Just take the Hutchinson Pkwy North to Exit 21, make a left onto Weaver St., then turn left onto Griffen Avenue and then turn left into the club.  Then go to the first green and you will have your answer I am sorry to say.  The reason might have been the only solution (I don't know), but this should provide the final straw confirming that the world famous architectural firm that caused this problem should never again be allowed to touch another classic course.  Please do some homework and let me know what you think!

[Steve Lang]

I could have sworn I weighed in on this thread back around reply #12 but I don't see it... and its now around reply #96!!!

I don't think its really anything esoteric for the pros and those privileged to play there, simply, if they don't understand ANGC's challenges (aka architecture or local knowledge or lay of the land or whatever you want to call it) or use all the resources available ( photos, history, caddies, past rounds, phase of the moon etc.) to understand it for COMPETING and TRYING to win there, then I hope they enjoy the scenery.  I wouldn't consider them pros or very smart if they didn't research and study and be prepared.

Since the typical first timers only seem to be able to gush about the place, they've already taken themselves out by just getting there, or by just making the cut, then making the top x to return etc..  

So, for those guys really trying to win, I think the #1 item in the top ten list has to be EXECUTION.  What have I heard by commentators.. he (tiger, mick) not only has the shot (the outrageous lob), but he's not afraid to use it (to escape bogey)!  

I think Floyd understood the architecture well enough.  
I think Hoch choked.
I think Mize understood the lay of the land well.  
I think Chip Beck understood the architecture as well as his capabilities.  
I think (as mentioned) Trevino understood the architecture ( & the ANGC folk's history) to boldly stay away.  
I think Ben understood the architecture very well.  

However, I think the winners executed like pros and took the best score out of the course that they could.  

Perhaps this thread could have been entitled, "Was Ben C a smarter player or just a Better Player  at ANGC?"

[Tim Weiman]

QRM:

Why not just tell us what you know? There is no reason to dance around the issue. We are here to learn and would appreciate your input. Just make it direct!

[Ken_Cotner]

ChrisB:


But, let me try another hole, one I've only played a few times:#15 at Crystal Downs. I distinctly remember coming upon this hole for the first time and looking on it with a bit of suspicion. Looking at the wide open fairway and total absence of hazards got me thinking. Experience told me that Mackenzie must be up to some trick...

Tom Watson, wrote the Forward and summed up Jones' writing by saying "it will improve your game". I'm not going to argue with Watson, a former Ballybunion Captain!

Tim,
I hate these real-life examples!   In the words of my daughter, It's Not Fair!!    

OK, let me try this.  While understanding architecture can help a relative newcomer to a course, it won't help Ben Crenshaw in the Masters do better than someone with a ton of local knowledge (but little in the way of understanding classic design principles and history).

BTW, is Watson still doing little tweaks to Ballybunion every so often?  Man, I need to get back over there...

KC, still foot-stomping

[Mike_Cirba]

Q.R.M;

My understanding is that they were planning to slightly soften the contour of that green to provide more hole locations given modern green speeds.  Frankly, I didn't think it was a great idea, but understood that more hole locations would reduce wear.    

Are you saying that the whole thing has been completely rebuilt?  Could you tell us what it now looks and plays like?  

I have voiced the exact same feeling about that architectural firm many times in the past and I have a hunch you're going to be seeing and hearing more coming from "next door" to you, due to additional "out of character" changes to that classic course, based on what I've heard from someone who's been there very recently.  

[Stephen Lang]

 Quaker Ridge Man,

We can't all get on the pkwy and hop over there to see can we?

Are you real or are you really WFM?

[Q.R.M.]

Mike
Seeing stuff like this at a club that you are a member of is very difficult to digest.  I would not have touched that green, but others felt differently.  So a famous architect was brought in - after another famous architect had done other work previously….lets not go there - and the result was a disaster.  I hated the newly constructed green and it was completely incongruous with all of our other greens and then we lost all of the grass on it.  So Gil Hanse was brought in to restore the green.  I don’t really understand why we had to build a USGA green (whatever that means) when our other greens are not, but perhaps there were no other alternatives.  I just don’t know.  The new green won't be opened until next year, so it hasn’t been played yet.  I have heard good things about Gil Hanse so I am hopeful that he can make the best of unfortunate and completely unnecessary, in my opinion, circumstances.

Tim
I’m sorry that I’m not being more direct, but I have my reasons for that and I think and hope that anybody that might care will take the time to figure it out.  If they don’t care, then it doesn’t matter.  I’m just hoping that members at other classic clubs might be reading this and maybe, just maybe, it will help them to avoid the pain that we are suffering through!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()