Ben There, Hates That--Q&A WITH BEN CRENSHAW

« **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2003, 07:52:02 AM »

Thanks to Tommy for his great efforts in keeping us informed.

What a thoughtful, articulate man Ben Crenshaw is. While many on this site give Coore most of the design credit for C & C's outstanding work, I would venture to guess that Crenshaw is the artistic force behind the group, and Coore is more of the engineer/technician. In any event, there is some very obvious synergism going on as Sand Hills and Cuscowilla are among my favorite courses. Perhaps Ken Bakst would care to give us a glimpse of how the two talented gentlemen, Grenshaw and Coore, each contributed to his highly regarded Friar's Head.

« **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2003, 07:59:56 AM »

Quote

Excluding maybe C&C, I'm not sure there's an architect out there who would have turned down a proposal to supervise those changes.

I'll bet I can think of at least a few others who would have the integrity to turn the members down.

« **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2003, 08:04:43 AM »

The fact that guys are eagling 13 and 15 is excatly the point Crenshaw is making! Let's see how they do over the next three (or one) rounds. Why the sarcasm around Ryan Moore's and Jerry Kelly's eagles? It's exactly what Jones and MacK wanted. The same two could post 9's there tomorrow or this afternoon. I saw Tom Lehman posted a 7 on 13, Couples doubled 12, etc. The drama of this course is unbelievable, but the recent changes and removal of width, to Crenshaw's point, is removing the choices and drama from the course. Maybe not on all the holes, but several and mainly the par 4's.

The fact that many people have "touched" this course is not the relevant point. Some lengthening was inevitable, bit it's the narrowing and removal of lines of play and thus options, that is stripping the strategic vision of Jones and Mack. And Fazio did make the suggestions. It's in several articles where Fazio came up tree planting ideas and narrowing certain sections of the fairway via rough.

I'm not here to bash Fazio, but put simply, Fazio is a penal designer and likes to dictate the line of play. He essentially says, "here's the hole, play it my way, go for it." MacKenzie's idea was "here's the hole, go figure it out, there's more than one way to play it, play to your strength." It's really personal philosophy and ANGC has chosen the Fazio philosophy. The shame is that is was intended to be the ultimate strategic golf course on this side of the world, the St Andrew's of America if you will. Clearly it is evolving away from that ideal.

With that, no one can ever say that ANGC is not a worthy test. It still provides a lot of drama. It's just a much different test than it used to be.

« **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2003, 08:32:23 AM »

Who has done more to change ANGC, Maxwell or Faxio?

« **Reply #29 on:** April 11, 2003, 09:04:23 AM »

Tommy N:

Great stuff -- I long for the Augusta of old! The swash-buckling type flavor that made Sunday's final round a real treat will be nothing more than the "go-slow -- play it mostly safe at all times philosophy."

It's time the boys in Augusta started to listen to ole Ben!

Mike C:

When you ask about what would Jack do -- let's not forget that Jack had a direct hand on the updating of th e3rd hole and many thought the addition of the fairway bunkers on the left side were not in keeping with the original intent of the hole.

It's purely my opinion -- but I don't think would have followed the route that TF did -- as a competitor I just believe Jack would have been more aware of what made Augusta so great. The key word is "made" because the "new" model just isn't the same for me.

« **Reply #30 on:** April 11, 2003, 10:35:16 AM »

Don't thank me, Thank the guy who wrote it! I just hi-lighted, copied and pasted!:)

Cabell,
I will agree with George. I know a lot of architects that would have the integrity to decline, and not partake in such changes, just because it is Augusta National. There are in fact people out there that still do have that integrity.

« **Reply #31 on:** April 11, 2003, 11:07:39 AM »

Tommy and George,

Perhaps I should include Pete Dye, Palmer and Nicklaus, but there aren't a whole lot of other guys out there who have solidified their names in the golf course architecture business. I'd like to believe there are more guys out there with the integrity to turn it down, but it would certainly be very hard to pass up that type of exposure.

I'm not trying to knock on any of them, it would simply be bad business to turn it down. Look at the exposure Fazio has gotten at the last 2 Masters. 98% of the golfing world probably thinks it's great what they've done at Augusta or don't even really care.

If anything it's a bit of a knock on Fazio, because he certainly doesn't need the publicity.

« **Reply #32 on:** April 11, 2003, 05:39:47 PM »

Cabell -

I would say it depends on whether your statement is directly related to "supervising those changes" versus helping the members with their course. Sure, many would take on the task of consulting architect, but I don't think many of the architects who contribute to this site would simply implement the changes that the members' supposedly desire. I think they would have the integrity to either stick to Mac & Jones's principles & ideals or walk away.

« **Reply #33 on:** April 11, 2003, 07:48:28 PM »

I think much of the discussion on who would and who wouldn't consult with ANGC is purely speculation on the part of those engaging in the debate. But, to avoid speculation,
and to stick to the facts, I would unequivically state, that if I was called, I would consult.

If we eliminate any and all of the changes made by Fazio, who would draw your ire for their hand in altering ANGC ?
Is anyone going to tell me that this group perceives the Nicklaus changes in a positive vein

As Mdugger stated, many have had a hand in altering the golf course and while Fazio's changes are recent, he's not the sole architect/golfer responsible for changing the golf course, and that shouldn't be forgotten in your haste to blame him for everything.

« **Reply #34 on:** April 11, 2003, 08:16:56 PM »

Pat, You are correct. Nicklaus's work at Augusta--which was overseen by Bob Cupp has been knownas horrendous. The work of which I speak of is at the par 5, 13th, and from a past article on GolfWeb, Tom Watson asked Jack what he thought of that work on the Master's week after which it was done. (Around 82' or 83' from my memory) Jack's response was, he hadn't seen it, and Tom Weiskopf more or less asked him what his guys were thinking!

But the issue here is that Fazio and even more importantly--the Club have made these changes on how the entire course plays, specifically for the one week of the tournament. Rough; length; (Which was needed to protect par) the moving of bunkers; the raising of greens sites; FORESTATION; More FORESTATION; the moving of greens; etc, has not only changed how the golf course plays, but also has eliminated the back nine thrills that were associated with it, and which has in the past, made it the Major tournament that was probably a guarantee of being the most thrilling.

At one time, the changes at Augusta National were a well kept secret, and it even had a lot fot he pros guessing what tees had been either slightly moved or adjusted. To me, it doesn't even look like the same course I have come to know and love on television.

While there is little doubt in my mind that the changes will met popular approval of the people out there that love the game and don't really study golf architecture, let alone know who Dr. Alister MacKenzie was. Soon, Bobby Jones name will be a thing of the past, just like the 16 year old kid who doesn't know the name, John Lennon. History has shown us that unless we properly guard it/talk about it/protect it/study it, that it too will be very soon forgotten.

« **Reply #35 on:** April 12, 2003, 06:02:30 AM »

There's one more thing we can do Tommy, and that's continuing to support those designers who can differentiate between what makes golf enjoyable and not just what makes it percieved as tough.

PAt- Do you not see the difference between changing a feature and altering a design intent?

« **Reply #36 on:** April 12, 2003, 09:08:44 AM »

Tommy Naccarato,

I would strongly disagree with you on one of your conclusions.

That the changes to the back nine are the cause of the loss of back nine thrills. That's purely a function of random circumstances.

When Tiger won by a record margin, I believe it was prior to the Fazio changes, so you can't blame them.

Go hole by hole on the back and tell me if the changes are significant enough to substantively alter play, especially in light of the increasing distance those pros are hitting the ball.

# 10 slight tee or no change
# 11 slight tee or no change
# 12 NO change
# 13 slight tee lengthening
# 14 trees impede errant drives
# 15 Turbo boost removed by trees in ROUGH
# 16 NO change
# 17 slight tee lengthening
# 18 Tee lengthening

A first cut of rough has been added, BUT, the fairways are still wide.

Now if you think those changes are responsible for taking the thrill out of the back nine, we strongly disagree on their magnitude and impact.

Also remember, that Tiger tends to dominate his rivals, mentally taking them out of the game, and winning by margins of 8 shots is what takes the thrill out, not the architecture.
Dog tracks are capable of producing thrilling finishes, it's not the architecture, it's the random circumstances and Tiger's dominance.

« **Reply #37 on:** April 12, 2003, 10:13:05 AM »

Tom MacWood,

Had he not been in trees, what kind of shot would he have had ? Was he in the new trees, or the old trees ?

If he hit his second through that wide wet fairway

?
He must have hit a BAD shot.
Should he play with immunity ?

There are tons of trees that have been there for decades, since the begining,
If he hits a bad tee shot into those trees should he not suffer the consequences on those holes

?

# 15 fairway has plenty of room. And those turbo mounds were not part of the original design that you love so much.
The trees take the turbo mounds out of play. And remember, it was never AM or RTJ's intent to have turbo mounds boosting tee shots hit into the right rough on that hole.

Have you been to the golf course and seen how wide the fairways are ? Can you unequivically determine where and how far in the rough has come on each hole ? And whether or not it is contrary to the original design intent.

Can you unequivically state that AM and RTJ wanted players to hit the ball in the right rough on # 15 without consequence.
The original hole only measured 485 yards, downhill and the mounds that produce the turbo-boost were added in 1969,
and lowered in 1998 because the PROS were FLYING them.
Having trees replace the mounds, which were IN THE ROUGH isn't the big deal that you and others seem to think.

Perhaps if you actually saw the hole your opinion, and the basis for that opinion might be enlightened and altered.

If you and Tommy want to complain about something, complain about the change to the 9th and 18th greens, done before Fazio's involvement.

« **Reply #38 on:** April 12, 2003, 11:42:41 AM »

Mr. Mucci,

You use the word "slight" in describing the back nine changes, interview with Mr. Crenshaw seems to say that he feels the changes are not slight. Do you think he's wrong to be saying what he's saying?

KK

« **Reply #39 on:** April 12, 2003, 01:27:12 PM »

I can't agree more with everyone else's evaluation of Crenshaw's comments - I passionately agree with every word Crenshaw said. Alas, I fear that his voice is not likely to be heard by the ears that matter...

With regards to drama at The Masters - drama is a function of two separate and barely related phenomena: a) the performance of every player in the field (which fluctuates wildly from week to week), and b) the architecture/pin positions of the golf course being played. In any given week, a) has rather more to do with the amount of drama than b) - the architecture facilitates the drama, but it does not by any means dictate it. The "new" Augusta may be marginally less prone to drama than the "old" Augusta, but ultimately, if one guy (esp. Tiger) plays significantly better than everyone else, you're going to wind up with a dull, drama-free tournament regardless of what course you're talking about.

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #40 on:** April 12, 2003, 01:48:44 PM »

Kevin Keeley,

Excluding the "rough" issue and trees on # 14, yes.

I think the tee extension at # 13 makes it a far, far better hole, returning its play to the days of old.

Greg Norman, a fairly long driver hit 4-iron into # 18 the year he hit it right and lost. Nicklaus was hitting 5-irons in there.

Recently, guys were hitting SAND-wedges.

Guys used to go at # 13 and # 15 with 3-woods, recently its wedges, 9 and 8 irons. I want to see a return to L O N G approaches on those holes.

Almost every hole at ANGC has been lengthened over the years and I agree with lengthening the course at specific holes. I would not want to see # 12 and # 16 lengthened beyond their current length.

Ricky Barnes, a college amateur is AVERAGING 286 yards on his drives on a golf course soaked by rain for a few days.
What does that tell you ?

Tell me exactly what changes Crenshaw indicated were MAJOR

« **Reply #41 on:** April 12, 2003, 03:33:42 PM »

Tom MacWood,

On # 15, I just saw Mickelson punch an iron from 195 yards from under the trees on the right, to green high.

# 13 is playing far more challenging, with many who opt to go for the green ending up in the creek, just like the old days.
Hopefully 8-9-iron second shot approaches are things of the past. Drama has been returned to the hole vis a vis the lengthening of the tee, and I'm sure that wet conditions are playing a role as well.

As I'm watching, birdies and eagles on the back nine are flying in flocks

All under wet, tightened and lengthened conditions.

I would describe the golf I've witnessed this afternoon as
DRAMATIC AND THRILLING, how would you describe what you've seen ?

Tiger seems poised to pounce,
I hope the drama and thrills continue tomorrow.

« **Reply #42 on:** April 12, 2003, 04:04:39 PM »

Pat
What's the thrill in seeing Tiger chip out from the trees?

Do you think the rough and trees added to the course in the last few years are in keeping with the original vision of the golf course?

It will be dramatic and thrilling, just like the US Open.

« **Reply #43 on:** April 12, 2003, 04:25:14 PM »

Tom MacWood,

When Tiger, or any player hits it 50 yards off line, they don't deserve optimum conditions.

Did you see how wide the 15th fairway was ?

Are you going to equate fairways 18-26 yards wide to the fairways at ANGC ?

The fact that you can't admit that today's play was interesting, dramatic and thrilling tells me that your bias is pervasive within, and prevents you from believing what your eyes tell you, prefering instead to dwell in the fantasy world of 1932-1934 which was eradicated long before Fazio set foot on the property.

You prefer to curse the darkness, I don't.

I enjoyed watching the Masters today.

« **Reply #44 on:** April 12, 2003, 04:46:41 PM »

Mr. Mucci,

So yes, you do disagree with Crenshaw. Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. I'm not really qualified to comment on the changes in the way that a Masters veteran like you or Crenshaw can.

KK

« **Reply #45 on:** April 12, 2003, 05:11:25 PM »

Tom MacWood,

I specifically referenced the 15th hole which you brought up.

I don't think the tree planting is as pervasive and invasive as you do.

I don't like it on # 14, but on # 15 I don't find it as objectionable as most.

I believe that someone posted that the rough doesn't exist for the members outside of the transition into and out of the Masters.

The fairways are still relatively wide.

I think that you have to examine the golf course in its Masters set-up in a different light today.

Golf balls go straighter, Drivers and Irons hit the ball straighter.

I wonder if we looked at the original width in the context of the relationship of the shot pattern of balls circa 1934 through 1985 to the width in relation to the shot pattern of balls today, whether narrowing the fairways isn't in the interest of preserving the relative strategy originally intended ?

Think about it.

« **Reply #46 on:** April 12, 2003, 05:48:55 PM »

With all due respect to all of the architects.....

Someone needs to take over from Fazio and return ANGC to its earlier state.

Seve would have never won a major on a track like it is today.

Golf in Europe would have been a second class sport.

The Ryder Cup would still be contended in relative obscurity.

We now have another assembly line major.

Jerry

« **Reply #47 on:** April 12, 2003, 07:06:15 PM »

Patrick, I'm talking to you.......

You say tomato, I say to-mato,
you say tomato , I say to-mato,
tomato,
tom-ato,
tomato,
tom-ato,
That's what Augusta's all about.....

Hootie says narrow fairways,
Tommy Fazio say OK,
Hootie says more trees,
Now we don't have any wild Sundays,
Hootie,
Tommy,
Hootie,
Tommy,
Thats the way to screw the whole course up........

I feel so good about singing, I think I'll talk to Sam Giancana about paying that redneck a visit! Maybe I'll bang that Burke dame also! You know, just slap her around a bit!

Sammy Davis, Get me another scotch!

« **Reply #48 on:** April 12, 2003, 08:01:24 PM »

Guys,

As much as I am not a fan of the most recent changes at ANGC (i.e. lengthening, rough, bunker reposition, etc.) I have to say that the DRAMA still exists at the Masters. Plus, look at the players at the top of the leaderboard. Maggert, Toms, Weir, Price, Olazabal, not exactly the posterchildren for length. It proves that the green complexes are still challenging enough to bring the course managers, shortgame experts, gamblers, and deadly putters to the forefront.

I wish I were wrong and I could scream about the changes ruining the tournament but I just can't do it.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #49 on:** April 13, 2003, 07:20:07 AM »

Isn't Jeff Maggert the new "Scott Simpson", the veritable poster-child for success on US Open type setups??

Looking at the overall scoring, it certainly seems to resemble a US Open more than the Masters tournaments of memory.

News:

Lou_Duran

George Pazin

Jamie_Duffner

SPDB

Matt_Ward

Tommy_Naccarato

ChasLawler

George Pazin

Patrick_Mucci

Tommy_Naccarato

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Kevin_Keeley

Darren_Kilfara

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

Kevin_Keeley

Patrick_Mucci

noonan

Frank_Sinatra

Jeff Fortson

Mike_Cirba

An Error Has Occurred!