Ben Crenshaw and Augusta National

[TEPaul]

Darren;

I really can't imagine what the matter is with you on this particular thread!

I'm not in the slightest bit agitated on this topic. I can't even remember ever getting agitated on this discussion group except when one or two people clearly insulted me, in my opinion. That kind of thing I try to deal with offline though.

If I say things to you like "get over it" or "so what?" does that really upset you? Is that what you think is "agitated" or blatantly condemning you?

You're obviously a very bright guy and I feel that way about you but if you tell me things I don't necessarily agree with and then follow it up with remarks like you're "amazed" I can't understand them, then I start to think things like you might have too high an opinion of your own opinions or you must have an unusually thin skin.

I do understand what you're saying Darren! I just don't necessarily agree with it!

This is a discussion group where that has and will happen all the time! Don't get upset simply because someone doesnt see something the same way you do just because you want them to!

[George Pazin]

Darren -

The thing that I find most interesting about your argument is that, if you piece together a few of your posts, it would seem to me you make a good argument for Ben's architectural knowledge being a key factor in his win!

You point out that his knowledge may account for a mere 1% of his advantage & therefore only 2.7 shots a tourney.

Well, didn't Ben beat DLIII by 2 shots in '95?

All the crystal clear logic in the world won't help you if your premise is wrong!

I don't think anyone is trying to say that Ben's architectural knowledge is THE reason that he won, simply that it might have aided his superior play. After all, going back to DLIII again, didn't he shoot the lowest score of any non-winner to that point (I think recently surpassed by DD & PM in '01)? Maybe Penick's ghost helped Ben, maybe it was Ben's architectural knowledge, maybe it was just dumb luck...it's all speculation our part. And I do mean everyone's - yours, Pat's, TP's, Geoff's, Russell Lo's, mine, etc. I think that's the point that ChrisB is trying to make to Patrick, seemingly to no avail.

As far as siding with Patrick goes, just stick to your opinion in the face of all contrary logic & you'll fit in just fine.

P.S. Don't think the exclamation points in my or TP's posts means we're agitated - think of it as a few friends sitting around, having a beer & getting into a passionate debate over their favorite sport!!

[D. Kilfara]

Tom - I suppose I am fairly thin-skinned. But it's also possible that the way you make your posts is subject to misinterpretation. All of those exclamation points connote, to me, a sense of outrage, like you're shouting at me. If you're not trying to convey that impression, then why all of the exclamation points?

Of course I understand that people won't always see eye-to-eye. I still think you're wrong on this subject; I was "amazed" that you disagreed with me because I believed my position to be self-evident. Obviously, what's self-evident to me isn't self-evident to you. This seems to happen all the time on this board - e.g. when what's self-evident to Patrick isn't self-evident to you, and vice versa, which leads to all sorts of mudslinging and frustration. The wise thing to do is walk away from such discussions, rather than continuing to escalate them until everybody gets annoyed. So that's what I'm going to do. If you must have the last word, go ahead and have it - I'll read it but won't respond further.

Cheers,
Darren

[D. Kilfara]

George - when you use lots of exclamation points but insert the odd smiley here and there, it's a lot easier to tell that you're not agitated but rather engaging in passionate-but-friendly banter, locker-room style. I haven't gotten that sense from Tom heretofore. But I'll happily accept that I was wrong if indeed I am!

My point about "2.7 shots" has to do with how you break down his entire week. Crenshaw took 274 shots in 1995 over 72 holes. A thorough accounting of those 274 shots (if such an accounting were possible) might determine that he might have shot 277 without his advantageous local knowledge, all else being equal. But all else being equal, he might have shot 295 if his swing wasn't working, 285 if his putting stroke was off, and so on. You can say that it was the three shots' worth of local knowledge that won Crenshaw the tournament - but couldn't you equally (and perhaps more accurately) say that his swing or his putting stroke won it for him?

This year, Crenshaw shot 81-78-159 in the Masters and missed the cut. He started 70-67-137 in 1995. In fact, in the 12 rounds he's played in the Masters since 1995, he's shot (in order) 77-74-75-73-74-80-83-72-74-79-79-76-81-78. It's not like he's forgotten all of the local knowledge he's acquired over the years; rather, he simply hasn't played very well. When he won the tournament, he did play very well. You can play well, not know the course and still win the Masters; the reverse is not true. Of course it helps to know the golf course, but such knowledge is not determinant. That, in a nutshell, is my argument. The end. I think you agree with that, don't you? (I believe that Tom thinks that such knowledge is determinant, hence my disagreements with him.)

Cheers,
Darren

[George Pazin]

Darren -

That all makes perfect sense to me. My point is simply that if his knowledge got him 2.7 strokes in '95, it certainly helped him win. Was it the sole factor? Certainly not. Was it the primary factor? Still probably no - as you pointed out, ball striking & putting still are the biggest factor by far. May it have been the one tiny little element that pushed him over the top? Quite possibly. To read Patrick's posts, you would think it had zero impact, but, then again, Patrick likes to extreme-ize other people's opinions almost as much as I do.

How about Ben Crenshaw versus Rick Hartman?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Could someone explain how local knowledge at ANGC is more important than local knowledge at a US Open Site ?

With the frequency of play at ANGC compared to the frequency of play at US Open sites, it would seem that the unfamiliarity of the US OPEN sites would present a stronger argument for the importance of local knowledge.  

It would seem to me, that a tournament, held at the same site for 70 years, together with the comprehensive television, magazine, radio and printed media exposure given to that golf course would result in redefining local knowledge as common knowledge.

What secrets are left, what local knowledge exists, what architectural features remain a mystery, that haven't been published, televised and talked about for decades by the media, fans, the caddies and the competitors ?

Can anybody answer that question ?  

If you can't, then why are you arguing that understanding the architecture and local knowledge are so important at ANGC ?

Jim Kennedy,

Russell lo, in his initial post alluded to Ben's understanding of architecture as one of the reasons that enabled his victories.
If you'll reread his first sentence, you'll see it.

I found that hypohtesis preposterous, and chose to list Nicklaus, Player and Woods, golfers who have had some success at The Masters, and queried if their understanding of architecture had anything to do with their victories, rather than their pure playing talent.

When a course is not easily accessable it sometimes develops an aura, a mystique, and myths are easily created.

For over two years, on this site, I've heard well regarded individuals take the course to task, claiming that none of the original MacKenzie architecture remains.  For over two years I've heard many complaints on how the course is now inferior.
Some making these statements have never played the course.
I chose to list some of the parties involved in some of the architectural changes at ANGC.  It's a pretty long list.
I also asked what Ben needed to understand about the changes those individuals made, that others didn't get.

It is also no secret that Ben Crenshaw is one of the idols of this site.

I viewed the hypothesis as a wishful fantasy.

I indicated my feelings with respect to the hypothesis, based on having seen The Masters on TV for the last 40 years, having read about it for the same amount of time, discussing it with individuals who have played in The Masters, and with the benefit of having played the course four times.

If you feel otherwise, come forward and present your case.

Darren Kilfara,

It's my fault, I should have warned you.

TEPaul gets a little sensitive at any mention, no matter how remote or indirect, of either of the C&C tandem.

Even when ordering beer or melons, you must be very careful not to blurt out the wrong names    

P.S.  I feel that it was Ben Crenshaw's talents as a player and
       a competitor that enabled him to win, not the notion that
       he understood architecture so well, or better than his
       competitors.

P.S.S.   Why did he play so well in college ?

[Tim Weiman]

Guys,

Maybe we should put Ben Crenshaw aside for a moment and think about our own experiences playing golf.

Like most folks, my golf game goes in streaks. Sometimes I can play a decent game. More often than not other commitments interfere with playing and my game goes to hell. Living in Cleveland doesn’t help. I’m lucky to play bogey golf come March.

That aside, there is little doubt in my mind that “local knowledge” helps a great deal whether I’m playing near my handicap or coming out of winter and my game sucks. The local knowledge helps me “connect the dots”, avoid big mistakes and shoot the best I’m capable of playing that day.

For me a good example is going over to Ballybunion in January and playing the Cashen. Today I can’t strike the ball nearly as well as I could fifteen years ago when I fell in love with the place. But, I’m also far more able to manage my way around the golf course. My accumulated knowledge of the course makes playing the course far easier than when I was a better player.

I understand the pros “play a different game”. I saw that up close this summer with Lee Janzen at Waterville. Still, I’m inclined to think local knowledge does help even at the professional level. How much? I have no idea, but something in the half to one stroke a round doesn’t sound unreasonable.

As for Augusta and local knowledge, maybe the best example did not involve a player who won. Maybe it was Nicklaus beating Tiger in 1998. Was Jack really better at 57-58 years old than Tiger? Did Nicklaus’ knowledge of Augusta really have nothing to do with his top ten finish?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I think I've explained my position in reply #12.
Here's what Tiger had to say in an interview he gave at this past Masters:
Q. You're obviously extremely analytical about the golf course, slopes and terrain and all that. When you are watching tapes and looking at the game, besides looking at swings of classical players, are you looking at history of design evolution, change in character of architecture, as well, as part of your preparation?

TIGER WOODS: You know, you used to be able to watch a videotape over three or four years from the current year you're playing the tournament and actually get a read on how the golf course might be playing, some of the breaks you might see on the greens. But they have changed the greens it seems like every year. There's all new greens. Now there's more trees they plant here or there that I don't think that the fans or maybe you guys are picking up. But they plant one or two here at different angles and all of a sudden they start growing up and blocking shots.
They have changed this golf course so much in the last three or four years, that you really can't go back and look at it.

Q. But generally, with other courses as well?

TIGER WOODS: As far as analyzing architecture? Yeah.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Which greens were changed, and how were they cnanged ?

Until Tiger won, the golf course has been relatively static for many, many years.  ANGC's recent changes have even been labeled "Tiger Proofing" the golf course.

What changes took place when Ben was winning ?
I believe you will find that very few, if any, architectural changes took place during his reign.

[TEPaul]

Darren:

Sorry if you think I'm 'shooting' at you. Nothing of the kind. I didn't realize I was using exclamation points or so many of them. I'd be glad to not do that anymore--I don't mean anything by them really--I hadn't noticed I did that. Maybe I have a tone to my posts I'm not aware of! I sort of fire off posts thinking about them only as I write them, for some reason I believe I think better that way--I've never really reread them carefully insofar as what the actual tone is but apparenty I should start doing more of that!

I have a bit of a hard time fully understanding your feeling of being 'amazed' if someone doesn't agree with what you think is self-evident. I suppose I think my opinions are fairly evident too, otherwise I wouldn't write them on here. But if someone doesn't see it the way I do I hardly give it a second thought! Difference of opinion about golf architecture I think is a good thing actually, to a certain degree.

And I never thought of this before but do some contributors think a thread, a discussion on some topic should attempt to arrive at a consensus of opinion at some point? A form of agreement ultimately?

I never thought of this discussion group like that! Maybe you do and maybe I should start thinking like that! The thought never really crossed my mind before. I'm just into expressing my opinions, responding to others why I might agree or not agree, maybe just adding thoughts and ideas and so on until things (the thread) just ends of their own accord!

I'm definitely not looking to have the last word in any thread either, just trying to participate in a discussion whether or not I agree with someone or they with me.

TP

PS. Darren, I think you already realize this but more than a simple majority of the time Pat Mucci is being facetious!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
You asked:
"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".

I supplied Woods answers to interview questions that touched upon his understanding of the architecture.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Did Tiger make those comments after his first win, a win that set scoring records and margins, which resulted in changes to the golf course, or after his second win, when the golf course had undergone many architectural changes in an effort to resist Tiger's scoring.

You know the difference, just like you indicated that I knew the difference with mis-hit shots.

Let's stop beating around the bush.

Do you think Crenshaw won because of his unique or special understanding of architecture ?

Do you think non-winners haven't won due to their failure to understand the architecture ?

[CHrisB]

Let's stop beating around the bush.

Do you think Crenshaw won because of his unique or special understanding of architecture ?

Do you think non-winners haven't won due to their failure to understand the architecture ?

Here are my answers to the two questions:

1. Until Crenshaw and/or other Masters champions tell me otherwise, I will continue to think that Crenshaw's understanding of the architecture of ANGC contributed to his winning there.  The contribution may have been relatively small, and would have been useless if he played poorly, but even if it made 1 or 2 shots difference over 72 holes, then it contributed to his one-shot win in 1995.  Likewise, Nicklaus' 1-shot win in 1986 was most probably aided by his superior knowledge of ANGC.

2. In many cases, no.  In some cases, possibly.  Possibly Duval in 2001, when he misread putts on the finishing holes ( esp. 18 ); I'm calling them misreads because he said he hit good putts.  Possibly Lehman in 1994.  There are probably many more cases of talented guys who never get into contention because they don't understand ANGC as much as they could.

Very rarely does the tournament ever get decided at the end because of one player's advantage in local knowledge over another player.  But I still believe until the right people tell me otherwise that when the tournament starts, players like Watson, Nicklaus, Floyd, Faldo, Norman, Woods, Ballesteros, Crenshaw, and others had a head start because of their knowledge of the course.

Of course, superior play can make the smaller factor of local knowledge irrelevant, like Woods in 1997.  But those with inferior knowledge of the course have to play just that much better to win.

Again, this is all speculation because I havent talked to any of them about this issue, and no one without first-hand knowledge can ever really know.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It would be very nice to know what any of those players mentioned think about the question on this topic. It's really for them to answer, isn't it, not us? They're the ones who compete, win and lose in the Masters--not us!

That's why, in a way, this thread (re the title) is about Ben Crenshaw, his feeling about this apparently (and other things) in an interview with GeoffShac. Perhaps we will find out what his opinions are on this subject and then all of us can agree or disagree with him, instead of each other!

Perhaps, Pat, you and I should either stop or tone down considerably this game playing we do with each other practically every day! You and I know each other well but it appears our antics stir some people into a frenzy far too often for the general good of the site.

So I'll tone it down if you will or if you want to.

Except for the Hartman statement. I plan to force you to stop beating around the bush and admit that statement is undeniably not true (not that Hartman didn't say it but it's preposterous given the known facts). I want an answer--I want an admission that you are WRONG and I want it NOW!!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
here are some words from Ben Crenshaw going into the '96 Masters:  

''This golf course and this particular style of architecture leads to great tournaments. With no rough, the reachable par 5's and the nature of the greens, it is a direct antithesis of what is entirely predictable. It was built to depict some of those conditions you have at St. Andrews".
''The power of these greens has everyone thinking. They are so undulating and so different in contour and texture that you don't always have the same putts on the same line from year to year. There are some holes where I don't think I've ever had the same putt twice''.

In answer to your first question:
Earlier I said that "You won't hear your name being called on the first tee if you don't have the skills". I don't think his knowledge alone won him two Masters, along with solid non-winning performances, but it surely didn't hurt.
  
In answer to your second question:
The Masters doesn't produce many first time winners or young winners. This would lead me to believe that the course has many features that a younger player may not pick up on as well as his seasoned brethren. I refer you back to Crenshaw's remarks(above) as regards the greens. I also think the aura of the event, the pressure, the gag factor, whatever, keeps those non-winners out of the winner's circle.    

**I am modifying this post to add one more observation. Ben Crenshaw's remark "it is a direct antithesis of what is entirely predictable" is in direct opposition to what many players have a steady diet of, predictable courses. This is probably another facet of Augusta a Pro should be aware of if he wants to be serious in a quest for a green jacket.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JIm Kennedy,

One of my points was that others have claimed that there have been so many alterations to the golf course, by so many different individuals, that it bears little resemblence to its initial architecture and connection to St Andrews or St Elsewhere.

The US Open, British Open and PGA don't favor first time winners either.  I think it relates to the magnitude of the event, and the events special conditions.

That which you quote Crenshaw on is nothing that any other
PGA TOUR pro isn't aware of.  If you go to ANGC and play it a half a dozen times, you too will learn its local knowledge quickly.

With respect to putts and break, Crenshaw was known as a superior putter, and with that would come the talent of properly reading break.  As you know, green speeds, moisture and other factors enter into break and the reading of same, that was one of his talents.

You, Chris and others are free to feel that his unique or special understanding or architecture contributed to his wins,
I don't share that view, and I certainly don't share the view that those who are non-winners are such because they didn't possess that unique or special understanding of architecture.

Greg Normans loss, when he blew a 4-iron wide right, or Larry Mize's chip in, had nothing to do with understanding architecture, it had to do with executing shots.

But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is still wrong.

TEPaul,

Most on this site don't understand our unique and special relationship, and that we can bash each other unmercifully, while remaining good friends.  I think some understand our relationship isn't what it seems, unfortunately others don't see that, and post in a similar fashion, without the underlying respect and feelings we have for one another.

Now this is the type of local knowledge and understanding of architectural discussions on GCA that they need to acquire  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

In your last post I think you should hit the "modify" button and end it with 'TEPaul is still wrong' and delete the rest!

I think unmerciful bashing on here (particular of you) is  a wonderful thing and more of it should be done! As for GCA's  contributors getting all bent out of shape about such things--well, I say let them figure it out for themselves!

And on Ben and a superior local knowledge factor at ANGC and the Masters you're just dead wrong in your opinion.

Crenshaw actually has a statistically provable 2.1398% "architecural knowledge superiority" factor over anyone else in the field and that factor was directly responsible for both his wins!

Ben is far too nice a guy to admit it (although I'm not) and the FACT is that Ben feels; "If you can't outexecute these animals at least outthink the dolts"!

But anyway that's far too sophisticated a concept for you to understand or admit!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I learn something new every day.

Now, reading greens requires a degree in architecture,
and without it, the PGA TOUR pro can't putt.

I just wish someone would point out some of the unique or special local knowledge needed to win The Masters.

The real fact is: there is none.  
This is called the Yancy syndrome.
As a club that golfers rarely play, the media have created this mystique about each hole, how golfers must study for months in advance of the tournament if they are to have any chance at winning.  This began when Bert Yancy created a plaster of paris model of ANGC in his basement.  He would then study it, to learn the inner secrets of the architecture of those twenty or so guys who altered the golf course.  The media picked up on this and the rest is history.  ANGC is one of the most straigth forward golf courses in the world.  Wide fairways with prefered landing zones that enabled players to hit the prefered shot below the hole.  The course is so bland, so devoid of subtlety that the media had to create interest to improve their ratings, and as such came up with the local knowledge factor, the mystery and intricacy of the golf course, when none actually exists.  I'm surprised that you chose to perpetuate this hoax.

P.S.  when does local knowledge become common knowledge ?

[Ken_Cotner]

I've been holding this in for a couple days and I can't take it anymore!

Local knowledge is NOT the same as understanding architecture!!!  Local knowledge will help Ben (or any experienced player at ANGC); understanding architecture makes zero difference!!!

(I actually just wanted to use a bunch of exclamation marks and do some bashing   )

Ken

[Mike_Cirba]

Can I get in here and bash someone?  

It sounds like fun, and since I'm in a foul and ornery mood because I had to cancel out on playing this Wed. at one of my favorite courses because of a unexpected situation at work, I think you're ALL WRONG!!!

And, I have the FACTS to prove it!!!

Actually, I really don't but I needed to get something...anything...off my chest at the moment so I thought I'd start here.  

It's just my opinion, and I'm NEVER WRONG!    

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Cirba:

Your place in my pantheon of heroes is in serious jeopardy, and I know how important that is to you.  

There's work, and then there's work.

You better have a good explanation for missing out on wicker baskets.  The jury stands waiting....

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

The bottom line is that I didn't feel I had enough "local knowledge" to win there.  After being in two of Macdonald & Co's bunkers at Rolling Green Sunday, I realized I had clearly met my match and finally realized that I could never hope to even begin to understand them.  

Sort of like Trevino at ANGC.  

No...sometimes, priorities have to be taken care of, sad to say.  

[THuckaby2]

You return to my pantheon.  Well said, my friend.

And yes, this is sad.  I am bummed for you.  But I feel confident a return chance to prove your lack of understanding will emerge soon enough.

TH

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Go ahead and bash away! It's become something of Golfclubatlas posting protocol to bash Pat Mucci. That's what I would advise for you.

You don't even have to explain why he's wrong on an issue, just start your post;

"Let me preface my post by saying that Pat Mucci's opinion on this issue must be wrong (although I'm not sure yet what it will be) but here's my opinion."

Don't ever think about bashing me though unless you want to watch your back for the rest of your life.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Now I have to watch for you??!!  My neck is already sore from constantly looking behind me and I always sit facing the door in any restaurant or public watering hole.  

Do I have to drive to northern Jersey and form an alliance with Mucci??  

For the record, I think the reason that Crenshaw and other veterans tended to do well historically at ANGC is simply the fact that the course prior to 1999 did require a lot of local knowledge and knowing where to miss, what chances were worth taking to what hole locations, and how to recover from miscues.  The fact that the par fives were reachable by aging tour stars and not just limber-backs also helped.  I think recent changes to the course will likely make it more like any other tour event, favoring the long and longest and who has the hot putter.