Ben Crenshaw and Augusta National

[Russell Lo]

I was pondering Ben Crenshaw's two victories at Augusta National and wondered if it was just his putting prowess or his understanding of strategy, architecture and shot creativity that enabled his victories.

If you believe it is the latter, what specifically in his victories led you to believe this. (Please no comment on the fortunate Penick bounce out from the trees  .

RLO

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Russell,
I had the privilege of interviewing Ben this week for an article on Augusta and got some fascinating insights into the course. I think two things besides his obvious putting prowess helped him win (and assemble a ton of top-10's and two other near-wins). First, is his local knowledge. He has insights into breaks and using various features in ways I would guess few other players are aware of. It's still such a course of missing it in the right places and it requires local knowledge to do that.

Second, his ability to hit certain shots. You mention the so-called Penick kick on 14, but how many players in the field could (or can today?) hit the approach shot he followed it up with? An 8 iron carrying to the front and running up the contour. Both 5 and 14 greens were designed to be played this way, and virtually NO ONE tries these shots. And no matter how good they are, the aerial shots still don't work too well when the course is at all firm.

Local knowledge and creative shotmaking were two key Old Course ideas that Jones and MacKenzie managed to leave behind in spades (and which seem doomed in the current master plan that emphasizes the shallow notions of length and who can hit it the straightest).
Geoff

[Tom Doak]

It was primarily his great short game that made it possible for him to win at Augusta -- that and the fact the course didn't punish him as much as others for being a bit wild off the tee.  He also knew the course about as well as anyone, and local knowledge is a huge factor at Augusta.

Shotmaking ability also had something to do with it ... Ben was always a contender there when it rained, and I think that's because he knew how to hit the ball so it WOULDN'T spin back off the greens or away from the pins.

But don't look for him to contend again with all the changes ... Ben himself would tell you that.

[Bullthistle]

Russell,
I agree with Geoff.
I was fortunate enough to follow Ben for all 18 holes on that Sunday in 1995. The second shot he hit on 14 was as fine a golf shot as I have ever seen. If a shot was ever "feathered "
that was it.
BT

[Russell Lo]

Thank you gentlemen for your replies. An esteemed duo of replies, for sure. Nick Faldo also seems to be one that takes the time to really know what shots to hit and where to miss. I found his commentary at the Ryder Cup very interesting. Not only did he illustrate things we couldn't see on TV (where the players needed to land the ball in a 2-3 yd. circle), but also how a difficult set up for the better player may not necessarily be so for the average player. A notion that Augusta National seemed to follow and you, Tom seem to create very well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Russell Lo,

I wonder what Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Woods and other winners would say on why they won the tournament, and if it had anything to do with understanding the architecture.

It is one thing to understand local knowledge, that you must be below the pins, or in certain positions, but it is quite another matter to execute the shots to get you there.
To withstand the whithering pressure of winning a Major.
  
Perhaps we seek to romantically attribute winning at Augusta to ones understanding of architecture, when in fact, you can understand all you want about the subject, but if you can't putt a downhill sidehill 8 footer on glass, nothing will help you.
It's exceptional golf that wins at Augusta, not some hidden understanding of architecture and its applications at ANGC.

I'm not so sure that the Jedi Knights are the only ones capable of winning at Augusta.

I also don't remember, one winner, upon being presented his green jacket, and being interviewed, state that he won The Masters due to his superior understanding of architecture, and its applications at ANGC.

Nor do I ever remember anyone who didn't win, claim that was the reason.

Come on fellows, get a grip, even TEPaul didn't champion this one  

P.S. Incredible talent and a little luck helps.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Ineresting topic.

Given that Ben was an underachiever in professional golf (relative to his early form) I could argue that his interest in GCA might have been a drag on his career.  Maybe he just thought too much about what he was supposed to be doing, rather than just getting out there and doing it!  Like his possibly less talented compadre Kite.

Just wondering.......

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In my opinion, and I'm sure GeoffShac's too, what you just said on your last post about local knowledge and true understanding of not only the architecture of ANGC but the basic "design principles" and certainly the incredible nuances in the design of the course NOT being of much importance in winning is COMPLETELY UNTRUE and WRONG, again, in my opinion!!!!

That's the very point here and certainly with Crenshaw, Faldo, Nicklaus (probably at times past his prime and probably relying solely on unbelievable local knowledge of decision making) and some others like even Seve, Player etc is likely just the thing that put them those few shots to the better and into the winner's circle!

Of course all winners have to execute their shots well to win that week but the fine-line decisions they need to make always considering the architecture and design principles of the course BEFORE executing their shots is a good deal of what winning is all about, MOST PARTICULARLY on a golf course that still possesses so much nuancy architecture as ANGC does!

I have no doubt at all that there may be numerous pros year after year who may hit more "technically" good or impressive shots than the winners do in the Masters but simply don't make the correct DECISIONS, and certainly nowhere near as many good and correct decisions because they do NOT understand the golf course as well as those mentioned do--and that very much does mean its architecture!

The fact that you can't see the obviousness of that fact at this point is completely beyond me!! It's even more ironic since you just made a joke about the fact that even I would never say something like this!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're starting to take this to a ridiculous level, but that's okay, it's part of the fun, the fantasy and the lunacy of this site.

Do you think that Tiger Wood's victory by, what was it, 12 shots, and record under par scoring had anything to do with some incredible understanding of the architecture at ANGC, architecture that many, including Geoff Shackelford, have said is not remotely close to what MacKenzie put into the ground in the early thirties.  Architecture that is the result of the tinkering of about a dozen chefs over the years ?
Tiger Woods, I believe, never hit more than a 7-iron into any par 4, and I don't believe he had a single three putt.
Maybe his GOLFING talent had just a little something to do with his win, rather than the inner, subtle secrets of the architecture at ANGC.
 
ANGC isn't that subtle, complicated or mysterious.

Until recently, it had wide fairways, with a prefered tee shot position.  The pros try to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible, leaving them the most advantageous putt, in taking into consideration, the contouring of the greens.  Then, they try to make those putts, without three putting.  It is that simple.
Execution, not mental masturbation wins at ANGC.

But, since there are those who think I don't get it.

Explain to me/us the hidden secrets of architecture on each hole.  Give us insight into the architectural secrets, hidden for decades, and only possessed by the winners of this tournament.  Tell us, tell me what the runner's up and balance of the field don't seem to know.  Tell us how all those other PGA TOUR players, for decades, who didn't win,
just didn't get it.

[A_Clay_Man]

To me the obvious answer is his putting. But, I will also say that his attitude and demeanor, as a person, is why he is so liked.

That was clearly reflected on 15 when the gallery stopped his ball from going into the pond, long.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,

Perhaps you can write an In My Opinion piece on one of the subjects you referred to?

"Why Augusta isn't Subtle Or Mysterious," or "Execution Not Masturbation Wins At Augusta."

I'd be happy to share any of them with Ben for his thoughts. I'm sure they'd be fascinating reads.

Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

I'm more fascinated by the alleged story that he was contemplating going for the green in two on a par 5, looked into the gallery, and out of all the faces, saw Billy Joe Patton, and being a history buff, recalled Billy Joe's fate when he went for the green years earlier, and decided to play safe, and went on to win the tournament.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think you have to be a student of architecture to be a very good player but you do have to know how to relate a courses' architecture to your game and secondly, to your game plan, if you want to win.
It's all about going low. If you know the course architecturally you have a better understanding of when and when not to go for the brass ring. It becomes especially important to know what shots are available to you when you stray from your intended plan. Knowing the architecture, understanding the design implications as they relate to you and possessing local knowledge encompass what a player needs to formulate a game plan which frees up the mind to focus on execution.
Throw in a little luck and the understanding of certain signs (Billy Joe Patton) related to personal destiny and it becomes clear to me that nothing is unrelated in golf.    

[Andy Hodson]

Pat:

At the risk of being the lone voice agreeing with you (at least in recent weeks), I do have to say I agree with you on this one.

I will concede that a player who does not know, or respect, the intricacies of Augusta, will never win The Masters. But no matter how much knowledge of GCA, and specifically, the GCA of Augusta one has, if he continually leaves downhill putts, short sides himself when missing a green,or jumpstarts his first putts 8 feet by, he will not win...or even come close. It still takes execution.

Otherwise Fuzzy couldn't have won it his first start there.
And Jack would have won every Memorial played.

[Tom Doak]

Pat,

I did not mean to diminish the importance of talent, but there is a great roster of talented players that never won at Augusta.

To win there you have to play position golf (Hogan, Nicklaus, Faldo), or have an unreal short game (Demaret, Ballesteros, Crenshaw) to save pars any time you get out of position.  Ben knew about both ... as Geoff says, he knew where to miss, and when he did miss he had the ability to make up for it.  He didn't just win there twice, he was in the top five or ten a bunch of times, which gave him one hell of a lot better record at Augusta than anywhere else.

Two examples:

1.  When you see Greg Norman or Davis Love hit it above the hole on #9, that's an automatic bogey for them.  Ben always seems to roll it down there to two feet, like gravity doesn't apply to him.

2.  When he hit the Eisenhower tree on 17 one year, and had a four-wood to go into the green needing a three to tie for the lead, Ben knew where to hit the ball to give himself a chance for a three.  (Actually, he should have just hit it in the front bunker and tried to hole it from there, but he would never do that!)

I saw Tiger Woods set the scoring record in 1996.  He didn't three putt once in 72 holes, but he was so "on" that week he only put himself on the wrong side of the hole three or four times out of 72!!!  I think he's got the course figured out as well as anyone, which combined with his talent, is truly demoralizing to the rest of the field.

[CHrisB]

I think the guys who do the best in the Masters are those who are able to accurately process the information they need (and eliminate what they don't need) at the right time.  So players like Crenshaw, Nicklaus, Woods, Watson, etc. not only (1) know exactly how the conditions (firmness, wind, wetness, lie, break, etc.) are going to effect a certain shot, but just as importantly (2) they are calm and calculating enough to remember that information when it counts the most.

Examples/Counterexamples:  

Nicklaus on #17 in 1986: "we read the putt and Jackie thought it was left to right and then I remembered Rae's Creek was to the left, so I played it almost straight."

Nicklaus on #15 in 1986: "I was reading the putt and remembered that I had the same putt in 1975, and that it broke about 8 inches."

Woods in 2002 when they played it down and picked up mud all day long: "when the mud is on the right, it goes left, and vice versa", and "I try to make more arm swings in conditions like this to gain as much control as I can."  Meanwhile, Vijay Singh is flying it all oer the yard and complaining about the mud-balls.

Woods on #15 in 2002:  greens are soft, water front, so makes an arm swing to take the spin off of it and it stops tight.  Vijay hits full spinning shots and dumps 2 in the water.

Woods in 2002: sticks to game plan.  Ernie Els tells himself all week that he will not try to cut the corner on #13, but in contention the last day, he can't help himself and hits it in the creek left.  Afterward, he admits he knew it was wrong as soon as he did it.

Scott Hoch, one of the fastest players in the game, takes absolutely FOREVER on his <2-footer to win in 1989.  He got out of his routine and lost.  Same for Greg Norman in 1996; he said that he would stand over the ball and wait to feel comfortable before taking it back.  It got to the point where he could never get comfortable so he never committed on when to pull the trigger.  Out of his routine, he lost.


How much of this is due to the architecture?  Not all of it, obviously, but the severe playing conditions bring out all of the subtleties of ANGC and they combine to force the players to take in the right information at the right time, make the right choices and then execute.  

I'm sure that if the conditions at ANGC were easy (soft/slow greens), then some of the strategy would be lost, the greatness of the architecture would be obscured somewhat, and it would be more of a talent/putting contest.

[D. Kilfara]

Patrick, I'm with you. (Is that a first?)   Mostly with you, anyway. I think you're reading a pro-Crenshaw GCA bias into some of the posts which I don't think is there, but the nub of your gist is spot on.

Many golf courses slightly favor golfers with particular skills; or rather, a better way of putting it would be to say that many golf courses will expose certain weaknesses more than others. A predominantly long course favors the long hitter; a predominantly tight course favors the straight hitter; a course with difficult green complexes may favor the precision iron player or the guy with the good short game and putting touch. Augusta National has never punished wayward driving anything like as much as, say, the typical US Open course, so the longer/wilder hitter may have a slight advantage relative to his ability on other courses, just as the player who naturally draws the ball may also have a slight advantage in relative terms because of the number of shots which favor a right-to-left trajectory, and the guy with great feel for the greens (e.g. Crenshaw) will have a slight advantage in being able to scramble. And someone with a creative mind (e.g. Crenshaw again, or Ballesteros) that is capable of taking advantage of the uniqueness of the terrain at ANGC relative to the average Tour course may occasionally discover a way to play a shot which others might not feel comfortable hitting - but that sort of advantage normally comes into play only after you hit a bad shot, and if you hit too many bad shots, you aren't going to win anyway.

There's also a less tangible advantage inherent for someone who feels comfortable playing a golf course because he likes it or feels it plays into his hands - as may have been the case for Crenshaw at ANGC - relative to someone who never feels comfortable to settle down there - as was definitely the case for Trevino at ANGC. But the cumulative effect of all of these advantages is very slight. What are we really talking about - maybe 3-4 shots over 72 holes, if that? (It's a bit like giving course ratings to the same course from two different sets of tees - if a course is 74.0 from the back and 72.0 from the member's tees, you're talking about a difference of 1/9th of a shot on every hole, but at which specific holes do the fractions ultimately add up to a whole shot? It's rarely obvious.) All else being equal, victory is all down to the guy who plays the best - that includes course management - during the four days, just like it is every week on Tour, including the majors. There's more pressure on golfers during the majors, but the principle is the same.

As architecture buffs, we of GCA would probably like to believe that architectural knowledge = golfing power. But a big hitter with no brains - I'm thinking Couples in 1992 at the moment - can do just fine at Augusta if skill, form and a bit of luck are on his side. On the flip side, all the local knowledge in the world hasn't helped Crenshaw at Augusta in the last few years, because his skills are clearly on the wane. Some Masters tournaments are won by the best golfer in the world; some produce sudden-death playoffs between Craig Stadler and Dan Pohl. That's just the way golf works.

Cheers,
Darren

(P.S. for Tom Doak - I'd have thought picking on Norman isn't terribly fair, considering his superlative record at the Masters for a non-winner. I did a project once where I tracked every Top 10 finish in Masters history and awarded points in the same manner that the baseball writers use on their ballots for the MVP award - 20 points for 1st, 15 for 2nd, then 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 down to 10th place. I don't remember the exact figures, but I think Norman finished as the best golfer who never actually won the Masters - just ahead of Weiskopf - and was in the top 10 or 15 overall. Interesting to compare his history with Faldo's - Faldo had three wins but almost no top tens otherwise!)

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I don't see that I'm taking anything to a ridiculous level. The level of my remarks are pretty basic really. They are that I agree with GeoffShac and with Crenshaw that real knowledge of ANGC is very important to winning the Masters (at least that appears to be Crenshaw's feeling about the golf course in the Masters)!

I certainly can't take you through any of the hole by hole intricacies of ANGC because I've never laid eyes on the place in person! All I've ever seen of it is years of watching the Masters on TV.

If you're looking for that kind of hole by hole analysis of the intricacies of the Masters perhaps Ben Crenshaw is the one you should be asking and on whose opinion you should be depending, not mine! I think he's played the course a few times!

As for Tiger Woods and his impression of the intricacies of ANGC, you should ask him too, not me. With the opinion you seem to have about the importance of really good knowledge of the course and it's architecture and what that means to doing well there I feel you'd be very surprised by what he would say about that!

Oh, I forgot! Jack Nicklaus! Of course he's never made a single remark about the importance of knowing the intricacies of ANGC to doing well on that course!

Yeah, Right!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What intricacies ?

Tom Doak,

I mentioned the need for position play at ANGC.  If I can figure that out, I would think that the greatest players in the world can figure that out, but execution under tremendous pressure is another matter.

Knowing where to miss it, and having the ability to miss it there, when you've miss hit your shot is a matter of tendencies and luck.  Golfers are usually not capable of predicting how they will miss their shot, when they are taking dead aim on the pin or a specific location.  
A miss by its nature is upredictable.

Trying to hit a wedge below the hole on # 3 is apparent to everyone, but if you can't control your wedge into the green, it's doubtful that you can control your miss hit.

Crenshaw's legendary putting and short game, rather then his architectual knowledge, would seem to be a distinct advantage, since every golfer is going to miss greens, and even if they hit them, their work is far from done.

Local knowledge is important, but it's not a well kept secret at ANGC.

My recollection is that I never heard him make any mention of his superior knowledge related to architecture on the occassions he was puting on the green jacket or commenting on his play at ANGC over the years.

Could it simply be that he just flat out outplayed everybody that week ?

Darren Kilfara,

I wasn't trying to insert Bbbbbb, (I can't say it)
I was just trying to debunk this theory.
Crenshaw's distinguished playing record speaks for itself

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
C'mon, you know what is implied when someone says "they know where to miss it". It has nothing to do with hitting a clinker.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Don't you think that every PGA Tour player knows the same thing, and where they need to miss it, or is that playing tactic a well kept secret ?

This isn't brain surgery, it's competitive golf on a golf course that everyone sees every year since they were two years old.
I'm sure there are note books or crib sheets on the golf course, not to mention a tournament experienced caddie or two.

[D. Kilfara]

My computer just ate the longer response I was going to make, but I again agree with Patrick. All pros have greater or lesser course management skills, which has a lot to do with "knowing where to miss it". (You take half a club more at #9, you aim slightly further to the right on #11 than you need to, and so on.) In my lifetime, a rookie has won the Masters(Zoeller/1979), as have several golfers with much more talent than course management abilities (e.g. Woosie/1991 and Couples/1992).

"Course knowledge" is, in my opinion, no more than a euphemism for being comfortable with the challenges of a unique golf course and having the right mindset to take them on. Over the course of 72 holes, Crenshaw might make one or two more putts than the field because he does know the greens better than anyone else, and he might save one or two shots more than the field through superlative course management skills, but if you've seen his golf swing lately, you'll know that he needs a heck of a lot more than that. That's not meant as a cheap shot against a golfer I really like, but rather an assertion that ability will win out over knowledge at least 90% of the time. Crenshaw was a great putter, a fine ball-striker and a gutty competitor in his prime; those skills had much more to do with his victories at the Masters than any "knowledge" he possessed about the course's architectural intricacies.

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim_Kennedy]

Darren,
A player cannot be the best If he doesn't understand what is in front of him. He doesn't need to know who built it, why it's built as it is or where the ideas for the holes came from but he better know how to put into use course knowledge and course management, all parts of the architectural equation.
Skill is the given. You won't hear yourself being introduced on the first tee without it.

Patrick,
See above.  

[CHrisB]

ANGC isn't that subtle, complicated or mysterious.
.
.
.
Local knowledge is important, but it's not a well kept secret at ANGC.
.
.
.
Explain to me/us the hidden secrets of architecture on each hole.  Give us insight into the architectural secrets, hidden for decades, and only possessed by the winners of this tournament.  Tell us, tell me what the runner's up and balance of the field don't seem to know.

Pat,
To your first quote, I say, how do you know that if you've never played in the Masters tournament?

Regarding your second quote, would you then contend then that Tom Watson and Matt Kuchar possess the same amount of knowledge of ANGC?

To your third quote, I'm confused...  You want someone on this site to give you insight only possessed by winners of this tournament.  I don't think anyone on this site has won the Masters!

If you really want to know about the intricacies of Augusta National, why would you challenge a bunch of guys who have never played in the Masters (and most of whom have never even seen the course) to give you the answers?  Wouldn't you want to talk to actual winners of the Masters?

Let's turn the question around--if Augusta National isn't that subtle, complicated or mysterious, please explain to us, hole-by-hole, the obvious strategy to take.  If you don't want to do that, please tell us the answers to these questions:
1. What is the optimum trajectory, curve and spin to get the ball close to the back right pin on #5 with a 6-iron from the first cut.
2. On #14, if you hit a high spinning wedge, how close does it have to land to the hump to stay close to the far right pin, and how many feet will it drift to the right after starting to roll?
3. On #16, would you be able to point out, from the tee, the exact point on the green where the ball will stay on the top level and not roll down to the lower level?
4. After laying up on #15, how much spin does the downslope take off of your wedge approach?
5. If you are putting on #17 and Rae's Creek is directly to your left as you putt, how many inches will you have to factor in to your break?

My guess is that this is not standard knowledge, but knowledge gained from many trips around the course.  But obviously I don't know, because I've never played in the Masters.

If such course knowledge is worth 1-2 shots a round, or 1-2 shots a tournament, it is not enough on its own to win you the tournament, but it gives you a head start, and can make the difference down the stretch.

In the end, who should I believe about what it takes to win the Masters--a few guys on a golf course architecture website who have never played in the Masters, or guys who actually have?  I'm going to believe what I've heard from the guys who have played and won there--it's a tough course to learn, one with subtleties, intricacies, and mystery.

Anticipating the next questions--I don't know what they are, because I've never won the Masters or played in the Masters.  You really would have to ask those who have.  And I'm not prepared to do the research to provide you with quotes directly related to the ANGC architecture from past winners or losers.  I'll just say I know what is generally believed about the course.

[TEPaul]

ChrisB:

Yours is a completely logical post with completely logical questions to those who seem to know what it takes to win the Masters although they've never been close to competing in the Masters!

I'm gonna take the word of those that have competed in the Masters and those who have won.

It sounds to me like Shackelford is implying from his interview with Crenshaw that Crenshaw feels local knowledge and understanding of the architecture of the course is a real plus to winning!

So I'm going with Crenshaw's opinion and that means if he feels it is a plus or even if he feels it isn't a plus. It's pretty clear to me with what Shackelford is saying on this thread that Crenshaw thinks it is a real plus! So, I'm going with Crenshaw's opinions, not those on here who've never played in the tournament, because Crenshaw has for years and won twice!