Books by Max Behr??

[Michael Moore]

Max Behr's name has been coming up frequently in the past month. I am greatly enamored of his prose style, as evidenced by "The Ball Problem". Now Mr. Paul is promising us an excerpt that will "absolutely blow everyone's mind".

Where can I get my hands on his writings? Did he publish any books? My research has once again been fruitless.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Michael,

He did not publish a book, but he did write many, many articles on all aspects of golf. And in particular the rules and golf architecture. I've compiled a book of his writings, but I don't know if its quite ready for publication. I'd like to get a few more of his essays on architecture so that it is a more complete representation.

There is also a pretty good chance he either wrote a book, or more likely, compiled his favorite essays, because the late Pete Jones came across a reference from Donald Ross that he had received and enjoyed reading a manuscript on golf design by Max Behr. But that collection has never turned up and his family has no knowledge of it (or of his extensive golf writings!).

Geoff

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Shackelford -

Thanks for the quick and impressive response. I'll be sure to purchase a copy whenever you decide to start the presses.

[BCrosby]

Geoff -

Are you saying that Behr's family didn't know about ANY of his golf writings? Were they also unaware that he was a golf course architect?

Amazing. Was he ashamed of his profession or was it something he didn't think worth bringing up at the dinner table?

Bob

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bob, Of course Geoff knows much more about Max then I, but, I too have come to appreicate this great man more then ever simply from his writings. He is without doubt, one of the GREAT unsung and under-appreciated heroes of the game.

Once again, If there are certain people that think Golf was only happening on the East Coast during the Golden Age, then they haven't studied what existed out here in SoCal that n longer exists. Behr, MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Bell for all intensive purposes should be considered the California School of golf course design, and it is ashame that most none of it exists anymore--including the current defamation of Riviera; the timeless destruction of Bel Air; and even the "restored LACC."

Today, I spoke with an old school chum who is a superintendent of a Max Behr course. We both shrugged our heads in disbelief of how there is NOTHING remaining at his course, and all of the others that represent what Max Behr was thinking and writing about. It has, just like all of the other GREAT SoCal clubs that disappeared from either Depression or Development, quickly gone by the wayside.

We now have a spectacular acheivement in reclaiming this testimony to golf in its natural setting, as well as following the wise words of Max Behr, all thanks to Rustic Canyon and its protectors--Hanse, Shackelford and Wagner. Unfortunately, even with the lack of being able to get a tee time and the phenominal success of the course, no one is looking to build another one, and that my friends is the sad shame of it all.

[BCrosby]

Tommy -

I share your respect for Behr. All I know about him are a couple of routings of his NLE courses from Wexler's book and clips of his articles here and there. But his designs are fascinating. As an example, he seemed to like setting tees at an angle to the fairway. Reminded me of Foxy at Royal Dornoch. It still strikes me as a simple way to introduce more strategy to a hole. I don't know why archies don't do it more often.

The point of my post was a simple sociological one. It's amazing that Behr's family knew so little about his work. I was wondering out loud why that might be and at the same time trying to provoke Geoff into telling us what he knows. I'm still hoping he will.

Bob

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'll see if I can nudge him.

GEOFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Bob,

I've been in touch with his grandson who sent me a family album put together by Behr's daughter. It's an awkward, huge book, but I did get some scans out of it and digitally photographed each page involving Behr. They knew he was a golf architect, but the extent of his writing was a surprise. His influence on architecture and MacKenzie in particular came as a surprise as well.

I still know little about him, but with the Ralph Miller collection available again I hope to dig up his writings from the 40s that Ron Whitten mentioned him The Architects of Golf, and to piece together whatever else I can. This will be put into an article for Neil Crafter and the AuSGCA's Journal, with an emphasis on his influence on MacKenzie (and I believe Bobby Jones/Augusta National too).

Oh, and Tom MacWood will be pleased to know, several of the interior shots of his New York home feature Stickley style furniture and his New York home (Denobehr) was built OVER a river! And it is definitely in the arts and crafts style...
Geoff

[TEPaul]

Maybe the architecture of some of the so-called "California School" or the "Monterrey School" has been somewhat lost or corrupted by time and tide, but the writing of some of those that were part of that scene certainly still survives and in my opinion the world of golf architecture may have never seen anything like it before or since. And maybe we never will again.

The depth of thought of a few of them is impressive but Max Behr is on a level that is completely incomparable, in my mind.

Sure, his style of writing was bizarre, complex, maybe even sort of tortured, but the meaning is all there if you spent enough time on it.

Not only the meaning but Behr looked deeper into the essence of golf than anyone ever did--golf from its very roots--golf in how it truly effects the psyche of man. If that's not enough Behr was as prescient and futuristic as Stendhal. He got right to the quick of many things to do with golf 1000 times more than anyone else ever did. I'm not talking about great writing like a Charles Darwin, I'm talking about right to the quick of things to do with golf--the very bare essence!

Of course Behr will always have his detractors probably because of the way he wrote, not what he wrote. Rich Goodale might call him a crackpot or a dilletante--he has before and he may again.

But Behr was definitely anything but that. He definitely went deeper into all things to do with golf and maybe even architecture than anyone ever did. Eerily some of what he wrote about golf 75 years ago is as fresh as today in its essence and even some of its specific problems.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, I would like to add that most of the reason why these courses are not around anymore is specifically because of the Great Depression.

It is my opinion, or at least my viewpoint, that out west, the Depression was so greatly felt, it was still early enough, almost too perfectly early enough, that leisurely activities went out the door at the onset of the Great Depression. Probably the only thing that carried the economy in LA was the Motion Picture Industry, Oil and Agriculture. Back then we were big on growing oranges and lettuce. People had to eat; People had to drive; and they also needed cheap entertainment. It didn't cost $10.00 for a movie ticket. It cost $.10.

Through Daniel Wexler's excellent book, I have been fortunate to learn even more about our missing legacies to the Game. There were many courses that were spared because of precise timing and the generousity of certain members that weren't totally destroyed by the fall. Redlands CC and Hacienda GC are an example of two clubs that were literally saved on the steps of the courthouse the day that they were set to be declared insoluble. Both saved by one specific member from each club.

It is ashame that clubs like Pasadena, Midwick, San Pedro, Lake Norconian, St. Andrews by the Sea, Hollywood, El Caballero, Sunset Fields and way too many others, don't exist in this Southland anymore. Golf would be a million times better for it.

[ForkaB]

TEP

If we're lucky, Geoff's indefatigable research will uncover the long lost archives of the NLE "Dilletante's Digest--Arts & Crafts for the Select Few"" that were lost in that tragic kiln explosion so many years ago.   As I understand it, one of the many pieces that Behr wrote for that magzine was entitled:  "CONGU--the only way forward for American golf."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoff
I was surprised to find Max Behr was among a small group that played in the first private competition at the NGLA (or at least one of the first). A young Behr is part of a group photo that includes Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, Emmet and others.

[TEPaul]

"If we're lucky, Geoff's indefatigable research will uncover the long lost archives of the NLE "Dilletante's Digest--Arts & Crafts for the Select Few"" that were lost in that tragic kiln explosion so many years ago.   As I understand it, one of the many pieces that Behr wrote for that magzine was entitled:  "CONGU--the only way forward for American golf." "

Rich:

Not surprisingly, 'as you understand it' is once again wrong. Behr actually proposed his own handicapping system that considering it was pre-computer looks remarkably effective. It was based far more on individual hole consideration in match play which of course is the way it should be. They obviously did not take his advice, even though, as even you have agreed, they probably should have. You do endorse hole by hole consideration as a more effective way of handicapping match play don't you?

[ForkaB]

TEP

Posting over here is on a hole-by-hole basis, and always has been.  Of course, you already knew that (since I've told you before), as I'm sure did Maxie.

To be less flippant, I do wonder about why or how hole-by-hole posting would make a damned bit of difference to match-play or stroke-play handicaps.  I've heard you say this before and I've never been able to grasp what you and/or Behr were thinking.  Could you maybe give a concrete example of how and why this might work?

[BCrosby]

Tom/Geoff -

My first impression of Behr - based solely on a couple of exerpts from his writing - was that he was some sort of wild fringe figure. Given his dense, impenetrable prose I had dismissed him as the Martin Heidegger of golf course architecture. A quasi-nut case on the edge. (That's probably not fair to Heidegger, btw.)

It turns out I was totally wrong. He knew and was respected by everyone of his era. Behr's thoughts on gca seemed to matter to his contemporaries.

I hope that Geoff will dig into these connections. As part of the digging, I hope he will indulge us with some reasoned speculation about who influenced whom, how, why and when.

And when you finish with that, it would be great if you could untangle Behr's *^(+#* prose.

And could you have all that to us by, say, lunch?

Bob    

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

Behr was unquestionably a very fine player. He was also an East Coast guy who moved West to California to "start a new life" according to the "Golden Age of Golf Design" after his wife died in 1918 leaving him somewhat heartbroken.

The thing I find most fascinating about Behr (other than his ideas on architecture), at this point, is his attempt and his ability to define what "nature's balance" in the 'sport' (as opposed to game) of golf should (or must) be!

The lengths he went to and the areas he delved into in this attempt are remarkable and most interesting. Certainly his ideas on man's inherent relationship to Nature (as opposed to man's relationship to man) and the importance of preserving that relationship in golf. Also the very fine balance of the rules of golf to that "natural balance" as well as the necessary relationship of golf's balls and impliments in protecting that fine balance to fully highlight man's "skill" in playing the sport.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You said:

"To be less flippant, I do wonder about why or how hole-by-hole posting would make a damned bit of difference to match-play or stroke-play handicaps.  I've heard you say this before and I've never been able to grasp what you and/or Behr were thinking.  Could you maybe give a concrete example of how and why this might work?"

Rich:

Yes, I'll try (a bit later).

I certainly don't want to be flippant either, but at this point I can't believe you don't see that there is at least some  importance of hole by hole consideration to match play golf. Call it posting, call it consideration, whatever, but to understand what Behr is talking about in this vein is to begin to understand just how different the two forms of golf really are from one another, or should be.

And to understand how important it is to keep the two forms of golf distinct from one another is to begin to understand a great deal of what Behr felt the necessary "balances" of golf should or must be to a number of other things. Particularly the sport's relationship to Nature, to balls and impliments, and in the relationship of the rules of golf to the sport of golf.

He even attempts to go further and explain man's inherent interrelationship to Nature vs his relationship to man (in how he views architecture).

In his attempt to do this he comes very close to explaining what the essence of the sport of golf really is or should be, in my opinion.

When I have more time I'll try to type out here a piece of one article that explains his ideas regarding the rules of golf and the sport of golf (match play). Some of his other ideas on other things are are included in the Miller/Shackelford book "The Art of Golf Design".

[TEPaul]

"And when you finish with that, it would be great if you could untangle Behr's *^(+#* prose."

Bob;

I talked to Geoff Shackelford not too long ago about attempting to do just that. It's hard following the thread of his logic because his prose is so labyrinthian, but I think we're getting close to following that thread and the logic, points and conclusions too. I feel I'm real close but one has to be very careful. I think his logic, his points and conclusions look remarkably pure but it seems really ironic if they are that many may not have paid attention to his ideas simply because they couldn't understand his writing style!

[Dan Kelly]

Which reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's assessment of his alter-ego, Kilgore Trout: "Kilgore Trout's unpopularity was deserved. His prose was frightful. Only his ideas were good.''