For those of you that may have not seen today's LA Times. As normal they ran a special Masters section, and it maybe one of the better ones they have ever done. Geoff Shackelford has done an admirable job of dominating the middle of the section. All very thought-provoking artilces, and a special Q&A section with Ben Crenshaw. Enjoy!
By Geoff Shackelford, Special to The Times
Ben Crenshaw has appeared in 31 Masters tournaments, with victories in 1984 and 1995 along with 11 top-10 finishes. The 51-year-old Texas native has shot 43 rounds under par at Augusta National, third on the all-time list behind Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson.
For more than a decade, Crenshaw has teamed with course architect Bill Coore to craft modern golf's most diverse set of designs. Best known for their Nebraska prairie links masterpiece, Sand Hills Golf Club, Crenshaw and Coore unveiled two more world-class designs last summer. Friar's Head Golf Club plays through a dramatic Long Island dunescape, and New Jersey's gently rolling Hidden Creek Golf Club is an ode to Britain's heathland-style inland courses.
During the recent SBC Classic at Valencia, Crenshaw spoke candidly about the recent design changes at Augusta National.
Question: What do you think of the course modifications made over the last five years, and in particular, the addition of the "second cut" or rough?
Answer: Where do we start? The addition of the length, and the rough — that's what it is, rough — has been a reaction to a focus on the cumulative score, and it's a knee-jerk reaction in my view. The changes over the last five years have all worked to alter the nature of the tournament. The notion of the player reacting to situations he sees out there and the player being asked to answer difficult questions, that's just about gone. The player is now deferring, and being forced to play certain shots. That is quite opposite in nature to the design that [Bobby] Jones and [Alister] MacKenzie set out to create.
Q: Restoring a "premium on accuracy" has been one justification for the changes. Was it a myth that you could be erratic off the tee and still win the Masters?
A: I understand why people say this, and they have the right to believe that. But I'll say this. Let that kind of golf happen someplace else. Not there, because of what this course was intended to be. It was so beautifully portrayed for years and different than anything else. Everybody had trouble figuring it out each year, and that is what was so fascinating about it. It could be so excruciating for a player to play there in contention because they never knew if they were safe. They had heard and seen so many things, to the point that all of those things entered your mind as a player. So it was a very tenuous feeling when you were in contention. I do understand the reaction to the notion that it was not a driving test at all because of the width. But that wasn't part of the equation from the beginning. You were trying to play to a spot.
Q: Has the rough eliminated many of those spots?
A: There are spots in the rough I'd love to play from, and people who have played there for many years would like to get to, but those places are in the rough now. In essence, it's just an entirely different set of circumstances. It's the same place, but it's totally different.
Q: You've had the lead going into Sunday four times. What's it like to wait all day until it's time to tee off at nearly 3 p.m.?
A: You think about everything under the sun. You think about where you'll try to leave the ball and how you want to attack the holes under a certain breeze. You think about those fearsome greens. The thing I still can't adequately portray to people is the endless fascination of those greens. There are greens that undulate in a way in which you feel like you get a little surprise almost every time you play.
Q: When you won in 1995, you made a memorable birdie putt on 17 from nearly the same spot as Jack Nicklaus' famous 1986 final-round birdie putt. Is it fair to say this hole, before the recent lengthening and narrowing, was the most underrated contributor to back-nine theatrics?
A: It's always been tremendously underrated. You had the possibility, created by the big shoulder dividing the green, for something dramatic to happen. We all knew that when the pin was on the right side of that shoulder, it took a lot of skill and daring to play the shot to that pin. Albeit, that was with something less than a seven-iron, usually an eight- or nine-iron or wedge. The slippery nature of that green created so many possibilities. If you were playing to the right of that right-side hole location, you were trying to give yourself an uphill putt. And if you were long an inch, you were dead and deservedly so. But if you pulled your approach, which happens so often, it contributed to people making five at just the wrong moment. There again, it really typified Augusta in a lot of ways. There was a circumstance where it appeared extremely ample to a lot of people who would ask, 'Why are they having so much trouble hitting this short iron to this big green?' But until you get on that green, until you watch it in person, you just can't believe how difficult it is. To me that right-hand compartment and its depiction was how the hole was meant to be played. But now, there are only about 10 guys who can drive it up the hill far enough to have a short iron in. I don't think the hole was meant to be played from a much longer place. It simply was not meant for a three-, four- or five-iron approach. Now you can't put the pin in that interesting old final-round spot because of the new length.
Q: Some praised the lengthening and narrowing of the 17th, saying that the hole now plays the way a 17th hole of a major championship should play.
A: I would just say unequivocally that they don't know what they're talking about [laughs].
Q: Is it true your dad [the late Charlie Crenshaw] used to become unusually anxious when you'd consider going for the par-five 13th and 15th greens in two?
A: His son had many calamities on those two holes and he saw them and he felt them [laughs]. He was a very emotional guy. And if I'd hit it up to a point where it was obviously make or break, he would kneel down, and all of a sudden cup his hands around his mouth and yell out, "Lay up. Lay up." My brother was there many times laughing. It's kind of hilarious. But it puts the genius of those two holes in perspective. Obviously it's debilitating to go for those greens and not make it over the water. But it is so rewarding when you bring it off. It uplifts you so much mentally. What you have to do sometimes, as a player, is resign yourself that those are just two holes in the round. But they are just so thrilling and so emotional to play. To me that's what MacKenzie and Jones were trying to get at, the emotions of a player. How many times have we seen someone try to design a hole like that and not pull it off? It's just incredible how those two holes were brought off so beautifully, and how they have meant so much to the routing of the course, the holes around them, and how the tournament unfolds.
Q: Is there still a chance for a low final-nine score and other theatrics now that the setup has made aggressive play less commonplace?
A: I suspect that it may not be the case any longer. We will see how the drama unfolds this year, or possibly how the lack of drama unfolds. The shots that you have to play are so difficult even for the small number of players who now legitimately have a chance to win. I keep sliding back into the notion that there are fewer shots to try. It equates to how these guys get around the golf course. You are going to see infinitely more layups [on the 13th and 15th]. Hogan won many times laying up on those two holes. But he did it for a reason.
Q: He was not forced?
A: That's right. Big difference. He was not forced. It was his choice and I think that's the difference. Somebody knocks it just a foot in the rough now and they're going to be forced to lay up. Where before, if you had an inkling you could get home in two, you were going to go.
Q: So you believe the number of players with a chance to win has been reduced because of the changes?
A: I do. The length has a lot to do with that. Playing to those greens from a shorter position means so much. You hear people say that "they've played right into Tiger's hands." They have — in that it cuts down his number of competitors. There are not that many people who possess that combination of immense power and imaginative short game. There are not as many people he'll have to beat. And I'm not taking anything away from him. He's incredible. He may in fact be the best player who's ever played.
Q: The change in course setup philosophy in all of golf seems to have shifted to the famous Walter Hagen line about Oakland Hills in 1951, where he said the course was playing the players instead of the players playing the course.
A: You have a growing number of people interested in protecting scores, that's part of it. Take the Old Course, Royal Melbourne and Augusta National, places where the player was not dictated to, where there was a democratic nature to playing those courses. You were allowed more freedom to act. There was always a choice as to how to play shots. Now, even the PGA Tour courses look alike. Their setup is the same every week. They are set up like a U.S. Open course. In other words, the players are dictated to as to how to play them. That's the era we're in. It is a defense mechanism in trying to govern a target score. It's a reaction to what the equipment is doing and it has gotten us into this mess. Into a morass of sameness.