[TEPaul]

Bob:

You did a good thumbnail sketch there of penal vs strategic golf and architecture at least in the mind of Behr. (It ain't that easy trying to coalesce Behr down to easy sound bites is it? ).

The problem with Behr's writing, I guess, is just as he called for the premium of intelligence in golf perhaps even over  physical skill, his articles also call for a certain amount of intelligence, I'm sure, but there's no doubt they do call for a rather large amount of concentration.  

Behr's entire premise of the beauty and joy of strategic golf and architecture over penal architecture was it's call upon one's imagination and intelligence via architecture rather than a clearly visible arrangement of where to go and where not to go which is nothing more than a raw test of skill if one is not opposed by another human opponent, and which really doesn't call for much imagination (intelligence). To be the latter (without human opposition in the contest) simply is not the way of Nature (land and landforms)---not to mention the fact that natural landforms are not mobile to be offensive as is a human opponent vying for the same ball. A decent analogy of the way penal architecture is arranged would be to imagine someone having to hit tennis balls into the other side of a tennis court with no opponent on the other side.   (Behr actually mentioned that analogy)

Another explanation is his elaboraton of "indirect taxation" (strategic architecture) vs "direct taxation" (penal architecture).

[TEPaul]

"Why can't being out of position be the punishment?"

Sean:

Essentially, that is the essence of strategic architecture--eg being out of positon but not necessarily punished with the shot hit. Out of position to the strategic school means you are not necessarily paying a penalty on the shot hit (direct taxation) and are consequently not punished, just that you might be in a position to be more likely to pay a penalty on the next shot (indirect taxation). But that does not necessarily mean you ever will pay that penalty if you either play safish again or choose on your own to play a great shot and do play one. This the strategic school felt was generally more exhilerating to the golfer in that he would feel far more in control of his own destiny because he was imagining and selecting his own choices rather than understanding that what he had to do is just execute some completely obvious play or pay a direct penalty such as being in rough, a flanking bunker etc.

Behr didn't even look at hazards as areas that should make a golfer become consumed with penalty and punishment and be consequently intimidated. He felt hazards should be areas that made golfers feel a sense of courage.  

[BCrosby]

Sean -

TEP is correct.

I think you missed what I was trying to convey. Let me try to make it clearer.

What distinguishes penal from strategic is NOT that one penalizes bad shots and the other doesn't. They both do. OK so far?

The distinguishing feature of a penal course is that the penalties occur immediately. You miss a shot, you find yourself in the rough, a hazard or your ball is lost. There is an immediate, predictable, tight correlation between the shot and the punishment. It's one to one. Bad shot, bad result.

Strategic courses also have penalties but they are different in two respects. First, negotiating hazards on strategic courses is often optional. The player is not required to engage them. Hazards are setout so that misses may not be immediately punished. There is no tight correlation between misses and hazards. Think wide fairways. Think bail-out areas.

Second, strategic courses often make you pay for electing not to engage hazards (remember, that's a choice you do not have on a truly penal course) by leaving you with a harder next shot. In fact, avoiding hazards off the tee (again, not an option on a penal course) may force you to hit a follow-on shot that has penal aspects. But those penal aspects are the result of a choice (or a mistake of exectuion) you made back at the tee. You picked your poison, as it were. In any event, there is no tight correlation between a miss and a penalty.

On a penal course, you have no options. None. Every shot, if missed, is poison. Dealing with hazards is mandatory. That is what narrow fairways do to you.

Yes being out of position can be a penalty on a strategic course. But the penalty is "indirect" in the sense that there is no penalty for that shot itself. Being out of position is not the same thing as being in a hazard. You may find yourself in a place where the next shot is quite penal, however. You may even have reasonable (and on a good course, interesting) recovery opportunities that you don't have from a bunker or a pond or the rough. That's what wide fairways are all about.

The distinction between penal and strategic golf courses is not a distinction between courses that penalize shots and those that don't. Nor do penal and strategic courses amount to the same thing because both, at some level, penalize sub-optimal shots.

The relevant distinction is how those penalties are imposed on the player. On penal courses it is a simple one to one correlation. Bad shot, go to jail. On strategic courses it is not one to one. The correlation is more subtle and far, far more interesting.

The fact that some courses/holes have both penal and strategic aspects (and many do) has no bearing whatsoever on the utility of the concepts.

Finally, your comment that "IMO all courses are strategic - strategy is just a sliding scale of choices," strikes me as a fairly silly exercise in draining the word "choice" of any meaning.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Sean:

The debate we are referring to on here---eg the debate between Crane on the one hand and MacKenzie on the other hand was a philosophical debate that was probably intended to be some reveiw or guide in a general sense for what golf architecture had become or should become.

There most cerainly are differences and distinctions in their two positions and when we discuss this subject it is probably up to us to define and highlight those distinctions in their two positions. But if for whatever reason you don't see those distinctions or differences I'd just recommend not getting into the subject at all.

As we have seen too often on this website it is never a great idea to generalize anything to such an extent that discussing it becomes meaningless or useless.

I've always felt we need to do a lot more on the "contrast" side of subjects we discuss on here in that old "compare and contrast" equation. The "Contrast" side is where those differences and distinctions are. The "compare" side is where their similarities lie.  

[TEPaul]

Bob:

To give Sean a real world example of the differences of penal vs strategic probably the best one to find would be the concept that was discussed and built for the 12th hole at Rustic Canyon.

That hole is an extreme example of strategic architecture if ever there was one because it simply removes all penal consequence on the tee shot by offering a huge wide fairway with nothing at all to punish any golfer on it. Any penalty on that hole is on and around the green and definitely not on the tee shot at hand. We all knew that many players would probably look at that hole and tee shot and come to the conclusion it was boring or bland with nothing much to do on it. In a real way that's true. But the concern was they may not understand the hole did have penal consequence, just not on the tee shot.

It was an attempt to create some real in your face "whole" hole strategies by removing all visual dictation and penalty on the tee shot. We just hoped after a while they would figure out that tee shot placement sure did have consequence depending where the day's pin was.

All I ever said to GeoffShac and Jim Wagner was that if they were going to do this on #12 that green sure had to have a ton of meaning and consequence depending on where one hit his tee shot. I've never seen it built but I hope it does that.

The concept was ultra strategic in the context of this particular discussion. Max Behr would've been proud of #12 Rustic, I think---eg a huge 80 yard wide fairway with nothing on it to penalize anyone directly on the tee shot. The subtle message to any golfer was just pay attention to what comes after the shot at hand.

We took to calling it "whole hole" strategy. Behr called it artistic or architectural "unity". It's just a way of getting away from golfers looking at problems and solutions solely in single shot increments that are dictated to them visually and otherwise (direct penalty) with no real regard to the problems and solutions and choices on the shots to come.

I reread a few of the Behr articles last night that were direct answers to Crane. They really are awesome.

Behr also mentioned that golf architecture being inherently static and immobile of necessity must at least attempt to trick or decieve a golfer when it made a call on his intelligence to use his intuition and experience to figure out for himself how to proceed.

I like that a lot. It dredges up military applications in a way which of course the land and the uses of the land were just completely paramount in.

But I just like that idea of architecture at least needing to attempt to decieve somehow just to force a golfer to pay attention to it. Penal architecture does none of that. It's supposed to be layed out and arranged in front of you as clear as day because it's only purpose is to make you completely aware that you MUST execute your shot with physical skill or pay an immediate penalty and be punished.

I like that military analogy to golf and architecture a lot in the context of strategy. In military philosophy, military science and military application all opposing forces were constantly trying to decieve each other in all kinds of ways all the time, and there's no question at all the land itself was super paramount in that deception.

I guess it probably happened although super rarely, when some military commander just sent his entire strategic plan to his enemy and said; Here I am Pal, if you think you can beat me just come right here in this defined fairway and give it a shot.  

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Of course most holes probably have some degree of penal and strategic architecture in them but that's not the point here. And also, sure, a great course probably does need a number of holes that are dramatically strategic and a few that are penal in a sense---the very thing some of those old architects like Crump or Flynn referred to as "shot testing" type holes. Frankly, the great PVGC is a perfect example of a course that has both extremely strategic AND extremely penal holes making up the entire 18.

I don't think architects like Behr and MacKenzie ever said they felt every hole on every golf course had to be dramatically strategic and none should be maybe one dimensional "shot testing" (basically penal), if for nothing else, at least variety.

But this is not the thing we should be splitting hairs over on here. The point is a classic strategic golf hole and its architectural arrangement can be about as different as night and day from a traditional one dimensional penal golf hole and its architectural arrangement.

That's the point of this dicussion, in my opinion. It's probably not a great idea that any golf course try to be one and nothing of the other. That apparently is pecisely what Joshua Crane was proposing with his mathematical formula for rating golf holes and golf courses.

In other words, how are they so different and why are they so different architecturally? And then the ultimate question is what purposes are they both trying to serve or do serve in golf?

Ultimately this subject may not be anywhere near as hair-splitting as you may think it is or suspect it is. When you start following the ultimate conclusions that both Crane on the one hand and Behr/MacKenzie on the other hand are getting at you will then see not only where this subject might have led golf but where in fact it did lead golf for a long time.

But the true irony here is that a rensaissance at least in one area of architecture is upon us and has been for 10-15 years and that fact can be proven by simply noting that there are a few architects out there today who have designed and built more truly strategic golf holes recently than have ever been designed and built before in golf architecture's entire history.

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Two fairways.

One is at Winged Foot at the US Open. You got about 15 yards of fairway bordered by 5 inch rough.

Another is the 14th at TOC. You got fairway left and right as far as the eye can see, interspersed with bunkers, walls, gorse and other things.

To say that you have a "choice" on both tees and therefore both holes are strategic... is to bring a rational discussion with you to a close.

I honestly don't know how to respond.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Don't worry about it Bobzee Wobzee. There are just some on here who obviously feel there is no point discussing two things unless they are all one way or all the other way.

Thankfully golf course architecture never came to that dire pass of lack of variety in the artform as a whole, and at either end of the spectrum. And the reason for that is the validity of my "Big World" theory---The BW theory would never allow that to happen anyway.

Perhaps the most important point of this discussion is there can be little doubt that in a real sense the USGA adopted the essential philosophy of penal architecture over truly strategic architecture in their US Open presentations in just about the last half century.

They certainly did that and in my opinion, they never did do an adequate job of informing the rest of American golf not to do what they do in an Open. That on-going ommission has caused some real structural problems in the last five or more decades with classic golf courses.

I'm optimistic, however, because having just spoken to a significant voice up there, that message seems to be about to change to a stentorian "Don't do what we do in US Opens, do what we say which is not to do what we do in US Opens."

And if we all get that far perhaps some day the USGA will just stop doing that altogether in their US Opens.

[T_MacWood]

That's the point of this dicussion, in my opinion. It's probably not a great idea that any golf course try to be one and nothing of the other. That apparently is pecisely what Joshua Crane was proposing with his mathematical formula for rating golf holes and golf courses.

 

He was? Where did you get that from? Crane's formula may have been a little goofy, but labeling him as someone who advocated penal golf courses is not accurate IMO. All these architects and critics appreciated a ballance between the two schools of thought....some leaned more to one direction than the other...but they understood them both. I'm not aware of a strict proponent or designer of penal golf architecture.

There were a couple debates within the debates. The Crane-MacKenzie was more about the quality of the Old course than penal vs strategic debate. The Old course debate is and was a long standing one...going back to the turn of the century, and it normally took the form of professional vs amateur (those two camps often argued about architectural issues). The amateurs were big fans of the Old course; the pros were not.

The other debate within the debate was American architecture vs British architecture. The common belief was that American golf architecture was more penal and British more strategic. The developing American dominance in championship golf was attributed to the fact that her courses were much more demanding.

[TEPaul]

"People shouldn't infer that one is better than the other.  All concepts are necessary to keep most players interested.  Which IMO should be the point."

Sean:

Of course I know exactly what you mean and what you're getting at and I'm sure Bob Crosby does too.

I do not necessarily get any sense at all the the likes of Behr and Mackenzie who were truly concerned by what Crane was saying and proposing were advocating that there should be no "shot testing" holes on any great courses that basically offered no real choice by a player other than to one dimensionally execute a series of demand shots linked to one another architecturally or be penalized all along the way.

The point obviously concerning both of them was that was precisely what Joshua Crane WAS suggesting with his mathematical formula for quality of golf architecture---eg that all holes and courses should be that way to be good. Crane was suggesting that choice was not necessary in golf because the purpose golf and its architecture should serve was to simply determine who had the superior physical skill to execute the shot requirements of demanding one dimensional architectural arrangements.

I mean I should probably try to post a few of those responses to Crane by Behr. They really are classic.

Crane even pointed out that he was sorry to see his formula pan some of the holes in this world he enjoyed and enyoyed so very much.

Behr, in a gentlemanly way, asked him what possibly could a remark like that mean but that his entire mathematical system was completely upside down unless golf wanted to turn its pastime into something like a tennis court with no opponent on the other side and no representation of the joys of nature and her natural and choice inspiring randomness. Behr was legitimately asking Crane what logical sense could be made out of someone saying the accuracy of his formula panned golf holes he enjoyed so much?

Don't forget, there is one fundamental difference between golf and most all other ball and implement games---eg in golf the ball is not vied for by human opponents as it is in most all other I&B games. Crane may have overlooked that rather elementary fact about golf, in that he may've tried to turn golf architecture itself into something akin to a human opponent on the other side of a tennis court to isolate a golfer's skill for the purpose of testing it one dimensionally like hitting tennis balls into the other side of a court with nothing there other than a precisely defined arrangement of good and bad---reward or penalty on every shot due to precisely defined lines of "out" (penalty) or "in" (reward).  

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

Joshua Crane did not like the "penal" label, but there is not much quesion that he advocated something pretty close to the concepts we normally associate with that view.

His mathematical rating system was predicated on such views, in the sense that the measure of a golf course was how well it tested shots, punished bad shots, was predicatable, etc. Strategy was never mentioned and played no role in Cranes's course rankings. He even eschewed analyzing course by holes. He thought "holes" were too subjective a concept. Seriously.

I view the Crane debates about TOC with Mack and Behr as the thin crust on a much deeper debate about strategic v. penal design philosophies. They all undertood, I think, that much more was going on than a spat about TOC.

MacK and Behr certainly understood that big issues were at stake. That's why they did not feel Crane could go unrebutted and why they spilled so much ink doing so. Behr especially.

I don't get the sense that the debates about the relative merits of US vs. UK courses was a very big deal. I would note that no US course ever dislodged Muirfield and Gleneagles from the top of Crane's rankings.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Regarding your post #41, yes, and what's your point?

Again, we are the first to say that this philosophical debate between the likes of Mackenzie/Behr/Hunter vs Crane's mathematical formulae for quality in golf architecture does not have to be and probably was not just as black and white as some on this website may be trying to make it.

But that most certainly does not mean it wasn't important---very important to those debating the subject back then or today for that matter.

Which side of this subject do you suppose the USGA in their Open set-ups has landed on in the last half century?

Are you trying to say that's not important and enough related to this subject or that it hasn't gotten to that point yet where it's either black or white enough to discuss?  

[TEPaul]

"I view the Crane debates about TOC with Mack and Behr as the thin crust on a much deeper debate about strategic v. penal design philosophies.
MacK and Behr certainly understood that big issues were at stake. That's why they did not feel Crane could go unrebutted and why they spilled so much ink doing so. Behr especially."

Bob:

I could not agree with you more. The real irony here seems to be that now that we are into a real renaissance in architecture that Behr particularly will be no better understood today then he was back then. The man just had so much to say that was so deep, so fundamental and so important and so many just couldn't get it. It looks like the same is going to happen all over again.

I think Behr made one very fundamental mis-assumption that basically supported everything he said and did on this entire subject of strategic vs penal golf and nature vs highly man-made and man-defined games, and that was his assumption that golfers really cared or where even intelligent enough to care about the things he proposed.

I keep telling GeoffShac that the mistake Behr ultimately may've made was to completely OVER-estimate the golfer in a general sense.

History seems to support that fact, but then again, how does one really explain this architectural renaissance we find ourselves in today?

[TEPaul]

"The other debate within the debate was American architecture vs British architecture. The common belief was that American golf architecture was more penal and British more strategic. The developing American dominance in championship golf was attributed to the fact that her courses were much more demanding."

Tom MacWood:

That's true too and a good point which was probably predicated on the fact that we were building golf courses over here many-fold faster back then than they were over there. Let's just say we had a massive competitive edge on the supply side to experiment architecturally in all kinds of ways. There is no question at all that we did exactly that far more than they did over there at the same time.

Add to that the fact that Americans did not have the history and traditions they did over there with golf and that Americans are naturally highly innovative anyway by nature, the very thing that USGA President R.H. Robertson said in his initial address that just about made Macdonald sick to his stomach.

"I think we should guard against being too much restricted and held down by precedent and tradition. I fear that is the fault of the game on the other side. Do not let us be afraid of innovations simply because they are innovations. Nothing can come to America and stay very long without being Americanized in character; and I hope this game will be no exception to this rule. I should like to see American golf."

And of course Joshua Crane was American. Was he innovating? Obviously he was.  

[T_MacWood]

Bob
How exactly did Crane's formula promote penal architecture? I don't believe he was a fan of OB or water hazards....the two most penal of penal hazards.

It was a goofy formula no doubt, with condition and upkeep (including cadies) being given equal weight with design and layout. Thats a bad idea to start.

Of the 1000 points he gives for design and layout, the areas of emphasis are Fairways-width and contour (250 pts), Greens-shape, size and contour (250 pts) and Visibility-tee shot 65, green shot 135 (200 pts).

The remaining pts go to traps (140), rough (80), tees (40), parallel holes (20) and distance from green to tee (10). With each hole being judged under this point system. When you include condition and upkeep, hazards (traps and rough) only make up 6% of the formula.

The result of this goofy formula:
1. Colt's redesigned Muirfield 86.5
2. Gleneagles 84.6
3. Prince's 83.8
4. Troon 83.0
5. NGLA 82.7
6. Merion 82.6
7. Sandwich 82.1
8. Hoylake 81.5
9. Pine Valley 80.9
10. Lido 80.7
11. Walton Heath 80.4
12. Sunningdale 80.1

St. Andrews comes in at 71.8. I suspect because it had too many indifferent holes, too many blind shots and blind hazards, no well defined rough, parallel fairways and poor condition.

Are Merion and the NGLA more penal than Pine Valley?

The US architecture vs UK architecture was a very big deal in the UK.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Rather than to try to carry this discussion to whether or not Merion and NGLA were more penal than PVGC to us today maybe the best thing to do on this thread or one dedicated to the debate Mackenzie and Behr had with Joshua Crane, is to perhaps try to understand better what MacKenzie and Behr's reasons and points were in debating Crane and his formula in the first place.

If their issue with him was UK architecture vs American architecture I suppose they would have said that. But Behr, particularly, in a few of his articles that were direct responses to Crane and his formula did not really mention that or concentrate on it.

He launched into a dissertation on the evolution and uses of the idea of penalty in golf and then penalty in architecture and how it was carried out as he saw the formula of Crane advocating it.

This is what we should look most carefully at, and not whether Merion or NGLA should be considered more penal than PVGC.

According to Bob Crosby it was at this time and perhaps by Behr that the use of the term "penal" architecture came into play.

Behr's point was that golf and particularly golf architecture should be enjoyable by making a call upon a golfer's experience, intuition and intelligence to be able to make choices of his own on how to play holes. He did not feel it was the best way to proceed in golf and architecture for some architect to virtually demand of a golfer how he should play golf holes or else get penalized and punished on practically every shot if he did not execute or mind his dictators.

Behr's conception of lines of charm (line of instinct) in man-made architecture was clearly innovative and he was no supporter at all of flanking lines of rough. He didn't really like the use of rough at all.

Have you really read Behr's two articles that are virtual responses to Crane and his formula?

They are:

1.The Dilemma in Golf Architecture (Strategies that Lead vs Penalties that Punish)

2. Golf Architecture (An Interesting Repy to the Penal School of Golf)

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

Crane's rankings measured two main categories.

The first was condtioning and aesthetics. He thought pretty was better than ugly. His view of conditioning was revealing. He cared about it because it made courses play more predicatably. As oppposed to "raw" links courses. (As you note, he gave some points for the caddy program. )

The other main category was physical features on the course. This is where the controversy arose. The standard for measurement was their effectiveness in testing shots and whether they yielded arbitrary results. Did they present a challenge and were they "fair"? (How he put numbers on that belies the "objective" status of his rankings, but that is where he wantd to go.) Crane liked water hazards. See his discussion of the 16th at PV. He liked the lake up next to the green. And he liked forced carries. As for OB, I don't think even penal designers see it as a favorite feature. Both Muirfield (Crane's favorite) and TOC (Crane's least favorite) have roughly equal amounts of it.  

Crane wanted golf courses be more like neutral venues (like tennis courts are in tennis) where you get down to testing ball striking skills. Golf for him was a series of physical examinations. That's what the bulk of his rating numbers got at. Could you hit it straight and long? And the central question that Crane thought golf courses ought to ask was whether they tested that ability under predictable, repeatable conditions. To the extent golf designs didn't test shots or offered ways to avoid hazards, they were deficient.

MacK, Behr, MacD, Hunter and others understood early on that you can't serve those sorts of goals and build the strategic courses they wanted to build. Worse, those sorts of ideas assumed a view of the game that they thought totally missed the mark. Even worse, Crane was starting to dominate the popular golf press in the mid-20's and gaining a following.

But again, what made the debate so bitter was not a spat about TOC or the silliness of Crane's ranking system. What got them going was that Crane, in justifying his rankings, ended up articulating a sophisticated theory of penal design that did not co-exist well with the kind of courses the strategic school wanted to build.

Bob

P.S. Given the silliness of Crane's ranking system, I won't even venture a guess as to why Merion and NGLA came out slightly ahead of PV. Conditioning and aesthetics may have had a role. It seems to me not impossible that he would find both to be sterner tests than PV. But who knows. Their rankings are pretty close.





 

[TEPaul]

Bob.you know it's just too damn bad for Crane he was born so early. If he'd been born 50 or so years later he probably would've been as accomplished as some of these golf magazine raters and rankers. Do you know how Crane felt about turtle soup or where that fit into his mathematical formula for architectural quality?

[T_MacWood]

Bob
Aesthetics? He devoted 30 pts out a total of 2000 pts to Surroundings - 1.5%.   Caddies - 50 pts - were worth more in his mind.

Under condition and upkeep the quality of the turf (and sand) and drainage are the all important criteria. He was very big on drainage.

I agree fairness was the undercurrent of his architectural opinion. That is one of the main reasons the Old course didn't fair well under his formula. He didn't care for blindness, he did not like OB and water hazards. In his opinion it was unfair that the man who barely missed his target would face the ultimate penalty. Hardly the thoughts of a penalogist (sorry, that sounds dirty).

The reason he down-graded PV was because he felt trees were not a proper hazard...he was evidently from the CB Macdonald school of architecture. He was also very critical of the vegetation in the bunkers....again unfair, too penal.

Crane was dominating the popular press?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Have you read those Behr articles I mentioned above that are responses to Crane and his mathematical formula and theories?

[T_MacWood]

I have. Crane's formula is idiotic...all these formulas are idiotic. Courses like the Old course break every convention of good golf architecture and are therefore beyond any standard formula.

I think Behr mischaracterizes Crane as the dark knight of penal golf architecture. If you read his analysis of courses like Pine Valley, Lido, NGLA, Chiberta....the guy actually was a pretty good judge, very bright and observant. They probably had more in common than they would admit. Crane disliked parallel hazards, back and forth holes, blind hazards, long walks between green and tee; he loved diagonal hazards and firm and fast conditions, wind and seaside golf. In fact if he ever got around to rating Cypress Point or Lakeside I believe he would have rated both very highly....assuming they were in good condition and the caddies were up to snuff. IMO he was vilified for one reason....his rating of St. Andrews. That was the real reason for the heated exchange.

Crane was fascinating guy. And it appears he dropped his rating system not long after he came up with it. Perhaps living at St. Andrews altered his thinking. He also lived at Ridgemont Cottage, Sunnigndale for a time. That was the home the founder of Sunningdale built just prior to building the golf course. My impression (from the Spirit of StA) is that once MacKenzie got to know Crane...he actually liked and respected him.

[TEPaul]

Jeeesus Christ, talk about diversion or triviality. Mackenzie may've actually liked Crane?? What has that got to do with the price of eggs? What has that got to do with this subject or discussion? Apparently Behr and Mackenzie apparently spent something like two weeks with Crane at St. Andrews. That doesn't exactly sound like they didn't like the guy. And that certainly doesn't mean they agreed with him either. If you like someone do you automatially have to agree with him? If you don't like someone should you automatically disagree with him?  

The next thing we know Joshua Crane was some secret agent of the all powerful Arts and Crafts Movement and a major influence on MacKenzie/Behr/Bob Jones golf architecture even if they may not have been remotely aware of it.

Tom MacW:

What do you suppose Behr was writing about then when he responded to Crane? You think he mischaracterized him?? You actually think Behr wrote those incredibly in depth articles on strategic and penal schools of architecture in which he mentioned Crane, his ideas, his very questions about golf architecture because he felt Crane ranked TOC too low? Crane admitted himself he actually enjoyed many of the holes or courses he ranked sort of low. And you still think Behr mischaracterized him?

If you think Crane's theories were all that idiotic or taken back then as all that idiotic then obviously you and Behr are poles apart philosophically.

Furthermore, it doesn't exactly sound like you have read those two articles of Behr's on Crane and penal vs strategic architecture. If you have them then give me the first and last word of both of those articles to prove you have read them. And if you do give me that and still maintain what you just did I truly will be very surprised.

[T_MacWood]

The first article 'The' and 'inheritance', I'm not sure I have the second one. Have you read any of Crane's articles?

The reason I think he is mischaracterized is because he was IMO a good and intelligent judge of golf architecture. For example it was his opinion that the Redan and Alps at the NGLA were actually improvements upon the originals but the replicated Eden fell short of the original at St. Andrews. This is an opinion shared by many astute judges today. To try to paint Crane as the antiChrist of golf architecture is ignorant.

His formula sucked but he knew golf architecture and appreciated strategic design.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

First of all, nobody is trying to paint Joshua Crane as some antichrist. We haven't said anything like that and either did Behr and MacKenzie et al, and I wish you could somehow learn not to say dumb and incendiary crap like that as well.

Behr and MacKenzie appear to have actually been friends of Crane. After-all they did say they spent a fortnight in St Andrews with him debating this very subject, and even if they appeared to be not that gentle with his mathematical formula and his theory for it, at least they seemed (from their writing) to be adequately gentlemanly towards him personally. Apparently none of them seemed to take criticism of ideas as personally directed as you seem to.  

Obviously Behr and Mackenzie felt the gist of Crane's theory of trying to reduce golf and architecture to some mathematical formula of quality was dangerous to the very soul, spirit and essence of golf itself, and dangerous to the golfer himself and to golf architecture.

I hope we can regenerate that debate on here, and that's what I think I will try to do (with some preliminary prep-work such as getting what Crane and Behr and MacKenzie et al wrote about this on this website). And I hope we won't get bogged down in the pettiness of having to spend a week establishing what the precise definition of words and terms are or precisely why that debate was joined in the first place during that fortnight in St. Andrews in the 1920s. I hope we can get to what it was they were really concerned about for the future of golf and golf architecture.

They were certainly passionate and voluminous in their responses, certainly Behr was. So, it seems it must have had a bit more to do with something than just that Crane's formula had ranked TOC fourteenth (even to Crane's own apparent disappointment ).

While it's somewhat interesting to know that Crane stayed in some cottage at Sunningdale in the heart of that great burgeoning region of English Arts and Crafts power and influence, that really does seem pretty trivial to a debate on which road golf and architecture might turn down in the future which of course we now have the great benefit of analyzing because their future is our past and history.

That somewhat stillborn debate back then just could've been for the heart and soul and essence of what golf and its architecture is, or was, or perhaps should be. That appears to be what MacKenzie and certainly Behr thought and felt at that point in the 1920s.

I, for one, would like to regenerate that subject and that debate, and what it was really about. I know Bob Crosby would too, and probably GeoffShac and TommyN. Others in the damnedest places, some high places in golf today, say they would too.

Get ready TommyN, if you have management responsibilities on here, this may be your time.

This could be the best thread and discussion GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has ever had and the one who will appreciate it most just may be our leader, Ran Morrisett. He told me so himself.  

I hope we can somehow get the raw material of the debaters on here in the next couple of days.

I think I'll call the thread; "A fortnight in St Andrews"......(that may've been the philosophical crossroads in the future of golf in the 20th century)

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

Crane dominated the airways in the mid-20's in the sense that he had articles in - I'm guessing here  - about every other issue of the American GI from '25 through '27. There was no other commentator on gca that came close to the frequency of his appearances.

If you add articles by others either supporting or rebutting Crane, you have a guy in the spotlight. (I've not had a chance to look at some of The Field, the AG or the British GI issues during that period. I would think that the debates Crane stirred up appeared at times in those and other mags too.)

Combine those bully pulpits with a design philosophy that contradicted the goals and methods of much of the stategic school, you have a pretty good rumble on your hands. That is certainly how Behr and MacKenzie saw it at the time. They felt they had no choice but to take Crane on. He was a threat to what they held near and dear.

I guess it's possible that Behr and MacK got it all wrong. But I don't think so. Early on Crane was clearly a theorist of penal architecture. MacK and Behr saw that and responded. There's just no real debate that they thought his ideas were inconsistent with the strategic principles they favored. You don't spill that much blood and ink on a someone who was not a threat.

Crane did, however, stop talking about his ranking system by '27 and started doing "Great Course" reviews - many of which are pretty good. There are any number of slants you can give to that. I think it's an indication of a retreat on his part. He gave up commenting on architectural principles generally and focused on less controversial reviews of specific courses.

I do think - and this is informed speculation on my part - that his meeting with MacK, Behr and probably Jones and Darwin at St A's in '27 was a turning point for Crane. I think it was also a turning point for Jones (he did a 180 degree flip on TOC) and for gca in the Golden Age. You get books being written from then until the end of the decade which are structured around a rebuttal of theories Crane had  espoused. That is the heart of the books by Thomas, MacD, Hunter, MacK and everythig Behr wrote.

However you want to make Crane out to be a middle of the road, reasonable guy, that is not how he was seen by the greatest architects, commentators and golfer of the Golden Age. Yes it's possible he got a bad rap sometimes. But in all essential ways I think the radicalism of his ranking system and his justifications for it were there for all to see. Did he tone it down later? Yes.

But remember, the threat posed by Crane did not end when he got out of the business of defending his rating system. He had spawned a following by the mid -20's which eventually became much more of a threat than Crane himself. It was the USGA. The USGA's views of gca are in many respects Crane's progeny. They still - 80 years on - talk as if they are reading from the Crane playbook.

The debate goes on.

Bob

P.S. If you want a little snippet of Crane in action, look at his "Ideal Holes" piece. There he thought the 16th at PV could be improved in several ways. Some weren't bad ideas. But note he didn't like the fact that the wide fairways on the 16th gave weaker players a way to play around the hole's bunkers.          

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()