[D. Kilfara]

Oh, come on. You guys are being terribly unfair, even if there's a certain irony in Patrick being castigated for "not having been there" when that's precisely his complaint against the photographic analysis of golf courses...

ChrisB, do you think that any professional golfer could tell you the "optimum trajectory, curve and spin" of anything? Some professional golfers wouldn't even recognize that this is a phrase in the English language.

You do NOT have to "have been there" to be a good analyst of something! I'd have thought this was self-evident every time you listen to (fill in the blank with your least favorite ex-player-turned-commentator) open his mouth. Are there any baseball fans among you? Let's put it this way, then: if a sabermetric analyst carefully studies the vast bank of statistics available to him and concludes that managers employ the sacrifice bunt far too often (objective analysis does say that, for example, your odds are in favor of scoring about 1/3 of a run more per inning with a man on first and nobody out than you are with a man on second and one out), and then Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver speaks out about how wonderful the bunt is and that station-to-station baseball is the way to win championships, who do you believe? Personally, I believe the guy who's crunched the numbers. Morgan or McCarver may well be better equipped to tell me what's going through a batter's mind as he stands at the plate. But that does not automatically make them more qualified to talk about baseball strategy than, say, someone who actually studies trends and patterns in baseball statistics for a living.

We haven't crunched any numbers in this thread yet, so the parallel isn't exact. But I still believe that a general conclusion may be made: athletes are, by and large, a lot better at doing stuff really well than explaining why and how they do it really well. And even though Crenshaw may be able to explain why he thinks HE has done well, that doesn't automatically lead to accurate generalizations. I'm not saying that I'm an expert on the subject, but I have done some statistical analysis on who wins and finishes in the Top Ten at Augusta - I think it may have been published in Golf World magazine before the 1995 Masters (during my time interning at Golf Digest), but my memory is hazy on that score - so I have at least some understanding about the course which I'm guessing a guy like Crenshaw does not have (presuming that he hasn't done or read the same study himself).

(My point is not to trumpet my own knowledge, but simply to demonstrate a proof that it's possible for someone who "hasn't been there" to have more knowledge in some way than someone who has been there. And once you accept that conclusion, it must follow that it's at least possible to argue with Crenshaw's conclusions from a position of strength.)

My own gut feeling is that Crenshaw's advantage had more to do with being comfortable in his surroundings at Augusta National than with any architectural knowledge he had; as Pat says, there's only so much knowledge of the architecture that you need to play the course well, and that knowledge is readily available to any good golfer-caddie combination. It's not like there are any golfers which don't know that missing short on the 9th is a bad thing. It's how you use that knowledge which matters.

Cheers,
Darren

[corey miller]

Darren-statistics also lie .  Your example of baseball is skewed in favor of the big inning.  The question should be what are the chances of scoring one run in an inning because that is generally the goal when you sacrifice.  Your numbers are skewed by the "big inning" which is irrelevant when analyzing wheter a team should sacrifice in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game.

[TEPaul]

Darren:

You sort of sum up your point about this particular thread (does a golfer like Crenshaw have an advantage at ANGC because of superior local knowledge or a superior understanding of architecture) in your paragraph that starts and ends with parentheses, (My point is not to trumpet.....).

However, I can't see how that conclusion that statistics crunchers can have a better understanding of "some things" (as you say) than athletes in the competition (although probably true about "some things") pertains to the question of this thread, ie, Crenshaw's superior knowledge......

You can track who wins or finishes in the top ten year after year but how are you going to conclude what that means as to superior local knowledge etc, with number crunching? You aren't, plain and simple! Because ultimately a player's superior local knowledge etc is a subject judgement and evaluation by anyone else!

And it will probably always continue to be that way!

I've seen so many really top amateurs make really poor decisions probably because of their basic lack of understanding about architecture or nuances of it and although top pros are far more sophisticated about those things than most top amateurs, still their collective and general knowledge is not the same or at the same level as any other pro!

It's certainly my subjective feeling that a golfer like Crenshaw possessed superior local knowledge of ANGC and probably architecture generally and even if that was 1%-2% better than those coming down the stretch with him, that's still an advantage in my mind and one that may have helped put him in the winner's circle.

Also, if any competitor at ANGC failed to appreciate something as basic as the front of #9 I really doubt he'd be in the Masters in the first place!

Certainly, Crenshaw has always been a magnificent putter but his explanation of 'taking the highest possible line on every putt' when he won one of his Masters shows me not only a great imagination but one likely aided by his superior local knowledge of not only ANGC but architecture!

[D. Kilfara]

Corey - fair enough, but I was just using the bunting illustration as an example. I could make the same baseball-related point with any number of other sabermetric analyses. (In any event, unless you're in a late-innings situation and one run has the same value as a big inning, the point is still valid - and it's one which the two World Series managers would have been better off considering. But my point was to highlight the general, not argue about the specific.)

Tom Paul - as long as you're talking about a 1% advantage (roughly 2.8 shots over the course of 72 holes), I can agree with your conclusion. That's the equivalent of saying that Crenshaw started every Masters with a three-shot lead over other players who didn't have his experience. I can just about buy that. Of course, three shots is almost nothing over 72 holes, and if your swing/short game/putting stroke isn't working for you, it effectively does equal nothing. More importantly, if your swing/short game/putting stroke *is* in working order, you're very likely to overcome this 1% deficiency very quickly. I mean, it's not like Crenshaw is the only person to ever make a long putt on the 10th green at Augusta, is it?

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Garlin,

I've won every time I played there !

ChrisB,

I can only answer the questions you posed in the context of my own game.  

I can't answer it on hypothetical, yet undefined spin rates, trajectory and flight patterns, and other ridiculous criteria.

You should also know, that knowing the ideal approach, and executing the ideal approach are light years apart.

A.  Because I've played it four times
B   Yes

It is the very bunch of guys you reference, who have never played ANGC who are making these definitive statements about the architecture and playability of the golf course.
Don't you find that..... unfactual ?

Question # 1
Is so  sophomoric. and, you forgot to tell me which first cut, the left side or the right side, it does make a big difference.
Question # 2
Another ridiculous question.
What is the moisture content in the green ?
What is the barometric pressure
What is the wind direction
What is the velocity of the wind
What is the temperature.
Question # 3
YES
Question # 4
Depends, if I cut it or draw it, float it or hit it with high rpm's.
Question # 5
Where is the pin, and how many feet is it from my ball.

Chris, you can't be serious.

TEPaul,

Did you ever hear of the story of the dream that Crenshaw had the night before the start of a Masters that he won ?

Supposedly, Dr MacKenzie appeared in the dream and explained how he designed every hole to be played, ideally,

Ben woke from the dream, made some notes, and then went back to sleep, whereupon he had another dream.  In this dream, about a dozen architects appeared and described how they had changed all the holes that MacKenzie had designed.

Ben woke up, erased all his notes and went back to sleep again.  

Fellas, like Ben, you're all dreaming.

[D. Kilfara]

Oh, and I should recant my attempt to bring golfing statistics into this thread. They don't really apply as such. But that still doesn't change my belief that Ben Crenshaw is not necessarily the most qualified person to put into words why Ben Crenshaw won the Masters twice. He might be, but a journalist who has covered the Masters for 30 years or a respected golfing historian or a swing doctor or a sports psychologist may well be able to better analyze his play from an impartial perspective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren Kilfara,

Is it then your position, that Crenshaw's ability to ananlyze the Bobby Jones, Robert Trent Jones, Fazio, Nicklaus, Hogan, Roberts, Schoo, Sarazen, Dudley, Smith, Maxwell, Nelson, Finger, Harrison, architecture at ANGC had little to do with his play and victories ?  

[D. Kilfara]

Darren Kilfara,

Is it then your position, that Crenshaw's ability to ananlyze the Bobby Jones, Robert Trent Jones, Fazio, Nicklaus, Hogan, Roberts, Schoo, Sarazen, Dudley, Smith, Maxwell, Nelson, Finger, Harrison, architecture at ANGC had little to do with his play and victories ?  

Insofar as I understand your grammar, spelling and punctuation...yes.  

Maybe it's better put this way: Seve Ballesteros won twice at Augusta for the same reasons, by and large, that Crenshaw won twice. He wasn't as good a putter, maybe, and might have been a marginally better-ball striker. But because the course didn't punishment their wayward driving too severely, they were able to shape shots and use their imagination to great effect, and when things went awry their short games were usually able to bail them out. Does Seve know anything about architecture? One would certainly think he knows rather less than Ben does. Does he know anything in particular about Augusta's architecture which would have set himself apart from the field? You'd have to ask him to know for sure, but it seems to me that instinct always meant more to Seve than knowledge. Seve knew the course fit his game, and that made him comfortable with its unique challenges. The architecture as such probably never entered his mind.

Cheers,
Darren

[CHrisB]

I can only answer the questions you posed in the context of my own game.  

I can't answer it on hypothetical, yet undefined spin rates, trajectory and flight patterns, and other ridiculous criteria.

Question # 1
Is so  sophomoric. and, you forgot to tell me which first cut, the left side or the right side, it does make a big difference.
Question # 2
Another ridiculous question.
What is the moisture content in the green ?
What is the barometric pressure
What is the wind direction
What is the velocity of the wind
What is the temperature.
Question # 3
YES
Question # 4
Depends, if I cut it or draw it, float it or hit it with high rpm's.
Question # 5
Where is the pin, and how many feet is it from my ball.

Chris, you can't be serious.

Exactly!!  I'm not serious.  Posing those questions was simply turning your questions around to illustrate how ridiculous they were!  Asking a bunch of guys on a website who have never even seen ANGC to give you insight possessed only by the winners of the Masters is about as silly as asking you the questions I did.  They are questions that cannot be answered!

I agree with you strongly about the importance of execution, and the knowledge base that PGA Tour players probably have about ANGC even before they ever get there, but not to the point where I believe that execution is essentially all that matters (although on Tour it does seen that way sometimes).

And I don't want to believe that after playing the course only 4 times (and never in the Masters) that you can conclusively state that there are no architectural subtleties, intricacies or mystery at ANGC!  Not when people who have played the course for decades, under tournament conditions, have said otherwise!  

It reminds me a little of Bobby Jones at St. Andrews--at first he snubbed the course because he didn't understand it, but then the more he went there and got to know the course, the more he saw and the more he learned.  It probably takes well over 4 noncompetitive rounds to pick up on the subtleties of any course as intricate and mysterious as ANGC or TOC.

I hope I get the chance to find out for myself!

My point in a nutshell--I respect your knowledge of GCA because you've demonstrated an expertise for it, but if I want to know what it takes to win the Masters or about the intricacies, subtleties, or mystery of ANGC I think I should listen to those who really know!

[TEPaul]

A journalist (even a very good one) can understand how and why a Masters winner like a Crenshaw or Nicklaus won the tournament and what he knows about local knowledge and the nuances of the architecture of the golf course and how that would be of advantage to them better than those players can and how that might have contributed to their victories better than they can?!

I really don't think so!!

To do that the journalist would have to have as much or more local knowledge of the course and the nuances of the architecture than they would, wouldn't he?

There may even be some journalists who think they know those things better than the players involved and maybe they even try to indicate that in their commentary and columns but I never bought that and I doubt I'm ever gonna!

[D. Kilfara]

Tom, rather than seizing upon one small segment of my three most recent posts on the subject and pounding it into the ground, how would you answer my point about Crenshaw vs. Ballesteros?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

This post isn't about what it takes to win The Masters,
It's about alleging that Crenshaw's superior, inner knowledge of architecture was instrumental in his wins and high finishes at ANGC, to the exclusion, that that knowledge was not possessed by anyone who didn't win.

Name me five players who have won, who have claimed that there are architectural subtleties, intricacies and mysteries that the non-winners don't see, with respect to the golf course, and that their ability to see what others can't propelled them to victory at ANGC.
If you could provide the exact quote it would be helpful.

I hate to burst your bubble, but, it's about playing golf, not an enlightened ability to analyze architecture that the rest of the field doesn't possess, that wins The Masters.

This is one of the silliest contentions I've ever heard with respect to PGA TOUR players winning or not winning at ANGC.

Do you think it was Venturi's inability to understand architecture, when he lost at ANGC as an amateur playing in the tournament for the first time, or nerves, three putts and perhaps the controversy related to his pairing in the last round ?

How about Weiskopf and Miller, I thought they were golf course architects, how come they didn't win ?
What architectural subtleties, intricacies and mysteries did they miss.

Could you also describe for me, some of those subtleties, intricacies and mysteries that the BEST GOLFERS IN THE WORLD AND PGA TOUR players don't get, despite their having played the course year after year ?  Thanks.

TEPaul,

Did I also hear you claim that Ben didn't use the bridge when he walked across Rae's Creek ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're the one who's being preposterous! No one said other players competing in the Master did NOT possess knowledge of the architecture at all, only that a player like Crenshaw (and in my opinion Nicklaus and probably many other winners) probably possessed a superior knowledge of it than others in the field did!

There's no reason to produce quotes for you since for many years tons of players, certainly winners have said EXPERIENCE is a key ingredient in winning the Masters! To me experience means local knowledge and a real understanding of the playing field--ie the golf course's architecture!

Darren:

You might be very surprised at Seve's knowledge of the nuances of architecture certainly including ANGC. Anyone with that kind of shot making imagination could hardly do without that, in my opinion!

And what's this about taking some small point or yours and pounding it into the ground? I went to what I thought was an assumption of yours and what I thought your conclusion was, and then wrote a post answering what my opinion of that assumption and conclusion was!

Good Lord! Sometimes it seems people don't even want others to answer them unless there's agreement!

Obviously you and I don't necessarily agree on this! So what?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Is it your claim that these factors are only present at ANGC ?
That USOPEN sites don't have the same requirements
That PGA sites don't have the same requirements
That The British Open sites don't have the same requirements
That any PGA Tour stop doesn't have the same requirements ?

Crenshaw was a talented PGA TOUR player with an exceptional short game, even by Tour standards, especially his putting.

I think his playing ability, far, far, far, more than his analysis of architecture was responsible for his success.

Why hasn't anyone pointed out the subtleties, intricacies and mysteries of the architecture at ANGC ?

[CHrisB]

Name me five players who have won, who have claimed that there are architectural subtleties, intricacies and mysteries that the non-winners don't see, with respect to the golf course, and that their ability to see what others can't propelled them to victory at ANGC. If you could provide the exact quote it would be helpful.
.
.
.
Do you think it was Venturi's inability to understand architecture, when he lost at ANGC as an amateur playing in the tournament for the first time, or nerves, three putts and perhaps the controversy related to his pairing in the last round ?

How about Weiskopf and Miller, I thought they were golf course architects, how come they didn't win ?
What architectural subtleties, intricacies and mysteries did they miss.

Could you also describe for me, some of those subtleties, intricacies and mysteries that the BEST GOLFERS IN THE WORLD AND PGA TOUR players don't get, despite their having played the course year after year ?  Thanks.

Patrick,
Again, I can't answer those questions because I have never played ANGC and I have never played in the Masters.  It sounds like you need to ask Venturi, Weiskopf, and Miller (among others) those questions and see what they say.  Although I'm reminded of Weiskopf's quote in 1986: "If I knew that I would have won this tournament!"  I also can't name 5 players and provide quotes as you requested.  However, just because I can't give you an answer to your questions does not mean that no one can.

Either you can ask those who know or continue to form your own opinion without first-hand information (facts?).

However, if you still want to play the game of lobbing questions back and forth, can you name five players who have won, who have claimed that there are NO architectural subtleties, intricacies and mysteries that the non-winners don't see, with respect to the golf course, and that it was their execution alone that propelled them to victory at ANGC. If you could provide the exact quote it would be helpful. (silly, isn't it?)

Was Crenshaw's superior, inner knowledge of architecture instrumental in his wins and high finishes at ANGC?  Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.  I'm just not so ready to say "no way" as easily as you are.  In fact, I'm willing to believe "maybe so" until the right people start saying otherwise left and right.  

Look at Olazabal's recovery shot on #17 in 1999 (a low running mid-iron from behind a tree that threaded the gap and finished on the back of the green).  I'm guessing that (1) his superior, inner knowledge of the architecture of the 17th hole helped him decide which shot would work, and (2) armed with that knowledge, he was comfortable enough to execute the shot as planned.

But again, these are guesses because I haven't talked to JMO about it.

[CHrisB]

Why hasn't anyone pointed out the subtleties, intricacies and mysteries of the architecture at ANGC ?

Because you are asking the wrong people.

[D. Kilfara]

Tom - I guess I just don't understand why you can't see the logic of my and Patrick's arguments on this subject. We're stating and restating what we believe to be self-evident truths in the hope that one of our analogies resonates with you. Rather than attack the logic underpinning my assumptions, you're attacking the specific examples and analogies. I'd be happy for you to disagree with some of my variations if you'd only look at and accept the truth of the theme.

I'll try two more variations - maybe one of them will click with you:

--When a tour pro stands in the fairway, analyzing a shot under tournament conditions and deciding how to hit it, what do you think goes through his mind? (You're a pretty accomplished amateur, from what I understand, so maybe you'll have a sense of what goes into the answer to that.) If he's like most golfers, and has his wits about him, he analyzes the obstacles in his path to the pin and figures out a strategy which maximizes his chances of minimizing those obstacles. Period. It's not like he stops to wonder what MacKenzie's modus operandi was when designing the course, or what Fazio was thinking when he moved the tees 30 yards further away from the green, or anything like that. He looks and sees trees, bunkers, slopes, maybe water hazards, decides how close to each of these he wants to flirt, and then tries to execute his shot. How does Crenshaw's thought process on this score differ from anyone else's? What does he see that nobody else sees? It can't be that much, can it?

--Crenshaw won only two majors, both at Augusta. But he played majors on other classic courses, right? If your contention is correct, isn't it intuitive to think that he would have had good records at other courses with potentially confusing architecture? In particular, how come his record in the British Open was particularly poor? I'd have thought he would have done rather better in the Open than he did if you were right.

Patrick, on the occasions I find myself getting annoyed at you in this DG, it's usually for being both obtuse in your logic and overly aggressive/intimidating in the style of your rhetoric. At the moment, in this thread, I find your logic to be crystal clear. If you could only try to catch more flies with honey, so to speak, and not be so confrontational, posts like Nathan's wouldn't necessarily come flying out of the woodwork, and people like Tom might be better persuaded. My opinion only, of course, but maybe there's more than one way to skin the GCA cat...

Cheers,
Darren

(By the way, it was Hart Huffines who started the Greens Committee thread, not Nathan. Still not sure why some people think your surname starts with an "N", though.)

[Nathan_Huffhines]

Mr. Kilfara I can assure you that my name is Nathan Huffhines, and today I registered for the site for the first time since reading about Golf Club Atlas in Sports Illustrated.

I don't know who Hart Huffhines is, and I'm not even sure he is a relative.

If you don't mind, I'll continue to use the surname my paternal grandparents suggested to my parents back in 1948. Thank you.

[D. Kilfara]

Nathan, welcome! I'm not picking on you, honest - check the complete list of threads on the website, and you'll notice that the thread called "Greens Committees" was started by Hart Huffines. (Note that his surname and yours are similar but not identical.) Please don't be so agitated...

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

Darren:

My God, you find it incredible, do you, when someone does not accept or agree with 'the truth of your theme'? (if truth isn't the word you used I'll correct it). Your 'theme' and the truth of it seems to be necessary in your mind to then prove your conclusions about some of the questions on this thread. When someone apparently doesn't agree with your assumptions (theme) and doesn't then agree with your conclusions, you seem amazed!

I don't know what to make of that other than you're awfully sure of yourself, aren't you?

You seem to make a few assumptions I really doubt I agree with. You've said you think all that "local knowledge" is, is a golfer feeling comfortable! That sounds to me like an "assumption" that becomes part of the logic of a conclusion you seem to be drawing here about a golfer like Ben Crenshaw and whether or not he has a superior knowledge of things like the architectural nuances of ANGC compared to other competitors.

I don't happen to agree with that Darren! I think local knowledge, among other things, is having a superior knowledge of the nuances of a golf course and its architecture and potentially a lot more than that!

I realize that you might not think the same way I do about that but no matter really. I don't believe all golfers in a competition look at a hole and see the same trees bunkers etc (your point) in the same way.

The fact that they don't constitutes a difference in local knowledge and an greater or lesser understanding of the architecture of a course like ANGC and the nuances of it!

If the both of us go back through this thread and reread what we have said to each other I think either of us can see that we simply don't seem to agree on this subject!

So don't bother looking for other things that might "resonate" with me!

I believe I know exactly what you're saying and exactly how you're saying it and I just don't agree with it! And if you really are as surprised by that as you appear to be--well, I'm very sorry--that's just too bad!

Whether or not you happen to agree with Pat Mucci on this subject, when, as you said, you might not have earlier on other things makes virtually no difference to me at all! What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Are you and Pat Mucci the type of people who actually believe that if someone does not agree with you they must be somehow mentally deficient--idiots somehow?

From your last post to me it sounds a bit like you are! As for Pat Mucci and his posts--well, that's an entirely different matter!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
Please re-read your first post on this thread. No one, no one at this juncture attributed Crenshaw's winning to his , and only his, supernatural understanding of the architecture( I don't think anyone has yet).
Here is the crux of what they said:
 
Geoff S: "First, local knowledge, .....second, shot making ability.
Tom D: Short game... shotmaking ability
Bullthistle: Shotmaking ability
Russell Lo: Shotmaking ability

I'll bring your post here so you won't need to go back. Here is what you said:

"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".

You may consider that reply "reasonable" but at this point in the thread you are saying that everyone else should "get a grip", and that you don't win by having a "superior knowledge" of the architecture. Patrick, you were the only one saying that!!! It seems to me that you were more interested in starting a "cerebrawl" on your way to the "clandestination" of your choice then just adding your opinion.  

[D. Kilfara]

Tom,

I *am* amazed that you can't see the truth of what I'm saying, because it seems pretty self-evident to me - I don't feel like I'm making any sort of logical reach. But if you can't, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. (I'm happy to do that if all else fails.)

Before I say anything else, though...please realize that I'm trying my very best not to keep the tone elevated and not degenerate into personal attacks on anyone. There's no need to swear, is there? I'm only trying to reason with you in my best debate society style. If that doesn't work, then it doesn't work. OK?

Anyway, let me correct you on one point: I never said that all local knowledge = a golfer being comfortable. My point is that within the context of touring professionals who get to play at Augusta every year, few pros can use local knowledge to their advantage because most pros have access to the same local knowledge. It's not like me going to your home course (or vice versa) and trying to play you head-to-head with full handicaps, where the guy with the home-field advantage is likely to win. I'm sure Crenshaw has some minute local knowledge advantage which may or may not be worth a shot or two at some point in any given week. (It's hard to quantify such minute advantages.) But Fuzzy Zoeller won the Masters in 1979 as a rookie and presumably had less local knowledge than anyone, so the advantage of local knowledge cannot by itself determine who will win the Masters. That's my first point. Do you agree or disagree?

Re: Jim Kennedy's most recent post, you might define "shotmaking" as the ability to *use* local knowledge to your advantage rather than simply possessing that knowledge. Ultimately, this is my second (and more important) point: all the local knowledge in the world doesn't make a difference if you lack the skills to use it effectively. Would you agree or disagree with that statement? Crenshaw hasn't done well at Augusta in the years since 1995 because his swing has been in terminal decline, not because he's lost the ability to think his way around the golf course. Other golfers have overcome their relative lack of local knowledge to win the Masters with the help of other superlative skills.

Re: the British Open, I myself should make a correction, in that upon further review Ben's record in the Open is actually pretty good. He has had two top-four finishes at Muirfield (1980 and 1987), finished third at St.Andrews in 1978, tied for second at Lytham in 1979, tied for eighth at Royal St. George's in 1981, and tied for fifth at Turnberry in 1977. But in a way, doesn't all of this strengthen the argument in favor of Crenshaw's shotmaking skills and against local knowledge as a determining factor? Ben was good on courses which required shotmaking skills, period - whether he'd played the courses in question once or a hundred times doesn't seem to be an issue. (Ben also held the lead on the final day and finished tied for sixth at Shinnecock in 1986, in conditions and on a course which placed a true premium on shotmaking, for what that's worth.)

Anyway, I think I'm closer to your point of view than you might think. But if you disagree with my two points, above, then I'm afraid we have nothing further to productively talk about on this subject (accent on the word "productively"), as I've already spent far more time trying to demonstrate a relatively minor thesis of mine than I really wanted to.

Cheers,
Darren

[DMoriarty]

But Fuzzy Zoeller won the Masters in 1979 as a rookie and presumably had less local knowledge than anyone, so the advantage of local knowledge cannot by itself determine who will win the Masters. That's my first point. Do you agree or disagree?

Darren,

Wasn't Fuzzy's victory (23 years ago) the last time a first time player won the Masters?  I think he may be one of only 3 to do so.  He may be the exception that proves the rule.

Also, once upon a time, didnt the Masters require players use Augusta's caddies?  If this was the case the year Fuzzy won, and if he put all his faith in his caddie, he may have had more local knowledge that it would first appear.

[TEPaul]

Darren:

Because a golfer won the Masters 23 years ago who you think did not have enough "local knowledge" proves that it's not important at ANGC then fine--that's obviously the way you think about these kinds of things!

I don't happen to agree. I think superior knowledge of ANGC is one of the most important factors of the golf tournament and winning it. I've been watching that tournament for decades and that's always been the feeling about the tournament expressed by many of the competitors.

And you said it was your gut feeling that Crenshaw's local knowledge was really only his feeling comfortable in his surroundings!

I'm only reading what you wrote not reading your mind. I don't think I agree with that, what ever that really means--I think Crenshaw's local knowledge is his superior understanding of the golf course and the nuances of the architecture. I think Crenshaw just happens to be a golfer who is like that!

If you "are" amazed that I can't seem to see the truth in what you're trying to say because it's so self evident to you--then fine--be amazed! I see exactly what you're saying and I doubt I agree whether you're amazed or not!

Just get over it!

[D. Kilfara]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother...this thread hasn't been any fun for me at all. Fine, Tom - let's agree to disagree, OK?

(Really, I don't see why you have to blatantly condemn me and get so agitated. You just wrote a post with six paragraphs, five of which ended with exclamation points. There are more polite ways of disagreeing with me, aren't there?)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()