Another Daily Behr

[BCrosby]

This is from a 1925 Bulletin of the USGA Green Section:

The Elongated Putting Green

For a maximum variety of play the putting green more or less approaching a circle in outline is, of course, to be preferred.  There is no reason, however, why every green on a course should be of such a type.  Considerable variation in the outline of the greens adds much charm to the landscape of the course.  In this way also the extent of the putting sward can be reduced on many of the greens, thus effecting a considerable saving in the expense of upkeep.  To provide for a long putt, one of the greens could well be constructed long a narrow, perhaps up to 60 yards in length.  Mr. Max H. Behr, of Pasadena, Calif., describes a green of this character.  "Only a perfectly placed drive gets the length of the green to play to," Mr. Behr writes; "and in proportion that the drive is sliced or pulled does the length of the green become smaller.  Furthermore, one of the most difficult and delightful shots to play in golf is a long run-up putt to the hole.  Why should golf be robbed of this shot because of that arbitrary principle that the size of a green should be in proportion to the length of the approach?"


I recall that the par 5 11th (?) at N. Berwick has an elongated green. I thought it was a wonderful feature that jazzed up the second shot on that hole.

An elongated green is a feature that adds interest, challenge, and strategy, all without adding hazards. The green would be no more expensive to maintain than any other green.

Note that Behr agrees with Doak about the folly of strict rules of "proportionality" in gca.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I agree that long and narrow greens aren't used enough.

Some of the best I know of are Riviera's #10, the 4th or so at RTJ's course on the Monterry Peninsula next to Cypress and I recently got reaquainted with another wonderful long and narrow one at Myopia---the 135 yard par 3 9th that might be one of the oldest holes in continuous use in America (app 115 years).

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Obviously I too think those sorts of greens are a good idea. They are rare on modern courses. They shouldn't be. On short par 4's or par 5's they would be a great feature. There aren't many being built, however.

But beyond that, what struck me about the little USGA piece is what it reveals about Behr.

He did a whole bunch of philosophizing at a pretty abstract level. His "Permanent Architecture" essays and all that.

But in other contexts Behr could be very concrete and hands-on. He had lots of interesting ideas about specific design features and specific holes. What I've been able to find (and it's only a tiny fraction of what he wrote) is almost always solid, imaginative, practical stuff. I've always been struck by that. It's pretty impressive.

(It's as if Immanuel Kant also wrote user instructions for coffee makers. )

That hands-on side of Behr is virtually unknown today. Largely because his pieces in various golf magazines in the '20's are so hard to find.  

Bob

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - thanks.

A question: would you say that there were inconsistencies between Behr's abstract philosophizing and his concrete advice?

I'm not sure that's clear, but I'm trying to find the right way to ask this. How about: do you think the practical and the theoretical were of one piece, and could be worked together effectively?

Thanks
Peter

By the way, nice line about Kant and the coffee-maker instructions. I used to have Hegel fix my car, but I had to let him go.
 

[Bill_McBride]

Long skinny greens are really tough whether approached straight on (very little margin for error sideways) or from an angle (much smaller landing area).  

A good example is a par 3 whose hole number I don't recall at Pa'a'ko Ridge between Santa Fe and Albuquerque NM.  The green is a full 80 yards long and has several tiers from back down to front.  As I recall, the tees were straight on so it was strictly a question of pullilng the right club and hitting it the right distance. (Geoff Childs' Sky Caddy a big help here   ); it would be a lot better hole if there were other tees offset from the center line axis so you had smaller targets.

That really is a cool concept.

[Rich Goodale]

The 5th at Dornoch pretty much matches Behr's description.  It is a very fine golf hole.

[James Bennett]

Well, would you consider a course designed by Max Behr to epitomise his philosophy?  What about Lakeside in Los Angeles, and in particular the #13 (I think) hole.

A slight dogleg left, played uphill and only about 300 yards long.  But, the green is about 30 yards deep and only about 10 yards wide - slightly raised with some bunkering.  Because of the slight dogleg in the hole, the green is set at perhaps 30 degrees to the line of the tee-shot.  That makes getting the full width of the green for your second shot very difficult.

James B

[James Bennett]

Lakeside's 13th is set out below in the next couple of photos.  The day I played, it was a front pin.  However, I was unaware of the front pin, and the nature of the green.  I hit a good shot for the yardage, straight over the pin but unfortunately from too far left in the fairway.  My result, past the pin, level with the middle of the green, and missed on the right, in a hidden bunker.  If I had hit my drive say 15 yards further on, or ten yards right at my length, I would have been looking up the green.

The first picture is from some 80 yards short of the green.  Spot the flag on the green behind (#11) for reference with the next photo.


The second picture is from the front of the green, showing the front pin and the narrow, elongated deep green.  The hidden bunker at the right middle can also be seen.


Some Behr still remains at Lakeside!

James B

[TEPaul]

"A question: would you say that there were inconsistencies between Behr's abstract philosophizing and his concrete advice?
I'm not sure that's clear, but I'm trying to find the right way to ask this. How about: do you think the practical and the theoretical were of one piece, and could be worked together effectively?"

Peter:

That's a good question. I guess it would help, though, if you cited a few examples of things he said that you think may have inconsistencies between the practical and the theoretical.

Over the years Behr wrote on all kinds of things to do with golf----eg architecture, the playing Rules, I&B rules or standards, the use of "penalty" in golf, the perceptions on artificiality or naturalness of the golfer and how it effected his sensibilities.

It seems like underlying most everything he wrote was his philosophy that golf should never lose its fundamental relationship with Nature----unlike other games that necessarily depended on standardized and highly defined playing fields for the purpose of isolating and highlighting human skill when a ball is vied for by human opponents.

Some of his articles use the interesting techniques of both a priori and a posteriori reasoning to go from one premise to the next to come to some final conclusion.

For my part, I've tried to always analyze whether those various premises really do connect well to one another. If they don't, then it would seem some of his premises and certainly his conclusions would almost have to be flawed somehow.

And since he was making numerous recommendations in these articles it certainly helps such as us that we have the benefit of the ensuing years (hindsight) to analyze whether what he said was logical or legitimate and if for whatever reason it didn't happen we can see the reasons why things didn't happen as he recommended or hoped for better than he could.

But I think I may know why you ask if there were some inconsistencies in his theories vs some of his specific recommendations on architecture.

I bet you're wonder how a guy could promote truly strategic golf and at the same time appear to promote difficulty---eg "testing" or "shot testing".

I don't think there are inconsistencies in what he said in that vein for these reasons:

"Strategic" golf (and architecture) to a guy like Behr was essentially a thought provoking excercise---he believed that strategic golf should evoke intelligent thought and then intelligent action based on a golfer's experience via his understanding of himself and his physical capabilities given various choices of things to try with shots. That kind of golf and architecture necessarily contained various choices (options) that were in some form of balance or unity thereby making decisions less than obvious.

The flip side of that was either outright brawn with no regard to consequences or else a series of holes whose architectural arrangments were such that it was patently obvious what one must do skill-wise and failing that obvious test--get penalized.

The reason I say I don't think he was inconsistent regarding difficulty and his philosophy on strategic golf is because I think Behr had a somewhat more realistic understanding of how a golfer should apply the currency of golf---strokes---to these excercises.

In other words, one could play safe strategically but the clear expectation was that in doing so he would be paying for it in perhaps a single stroke.

I think today, far too many, and too many on here look at strategic golf and architecture as essentially multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal (probably the green) in the same amount of strokes.

Why have we come to look at golf more that way than a man like Behr and his era did? Probably because over the years we've been saddled with some standardizations such as GIR, PAR and the like as things to measure what we do against. I think these kinds of things have become the perception of too many golfers---their expectations, in other words. The fact that we today have so many more teeing areas than they did in his time only exacerbates this perception or expectation.

I don't think Behr labored under those unrealities (or realities) back then as much as we do today.

And for those reasons I don't think he was inconsistent on things like difficulty and strategic golf.

There have been some threads recently in which a recommendation has been made that perhaps architecture should try again to make more golfers play from the same tees and accomodate them in design so they could find ways to continue playing holes and avoid hazard features. Clearly this was more what Behr knew and was looking at than we do today.

Essentially we have designed in multiple distance handicap accomodations for golfers with many more tees. In Behr's world that physical distance handicap was just something golfers had to deal with in their strategic decision making hole after hole via the currency of strokes. In other words, golfers understood better back then that even if you took all the obstacle features out of all holes there was no way anyway they could get to the final destination (perhaps the green) in the same few strokes as say the scratchman could.



 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - a wonderful post, thanks very much. I really do  appreciate the generosity in sharing so fully.

You're right about why I was asking the question; but I don't have any examples of inconsistencies to offer, in part because I've been assuming that you and others wouldn't rate Behr so highly if there WERE those inconsistencies between his theory and practice.

Lots of eye-openers for me here. I think the most striking was the way you phrased the following:

"The reason I say I don't think he was inconsistent regarding difficulty and his philosophy on strategic golf is because I think Behr had a somewhat more realistic understanding of how a golfer should apply the currency of golf---strokes---to these excercises. In other words, one could play safe strategically but the clear expectation was that in doing so he would be paying for it in perhaps a single stroke. I think today, far too many, and too many on here look at strategic golf and architecture as essentially multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal (probably the green) in the same amount of strokes."

Good stuff. Thanks.
Peter



 

[TEPaul]

"but I don't have any examples of inconsistencies to offer, in part because I've been assuming that you and others wouldn't rate Behr so highly if there WERE those inconsistencies between his theory and practice."

Peter:

Believe me, I'm not trying to glorify Behr or what he wrote in the face of inconsistencies or despite them. With someone who wrote as deep as he did or tried to do my natural inclination is to try even harder to look for inconsistencies in his philosophies, his logic and certainly in his conclusiions. The reason I say that is because I value what he said (as I understand it) so much.

But again, if one admires Behr and what he wrote as much as I do one really does need to analyze very carefully why some things didn't turn out as he recommended and as he hoped they would.

Was it just the way of golf and the golfer or was Behr fundamentally wrong about some of the things he said and recommended?

It is both the benefit of Behr and the benefit of hindsight for us that we should keep trying to figure this out.

Who knows what might happen in future time via someone? Isn't it true to say that Vincent Van Gogh hardly sold a painting in his lifetime?  

[Jim_Coleman]

   Bel Air #11, except one NEVER has a shot at the full length of the green.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Agreed about the 5th at Dornoch. I hadn't thought of that hole. Likewise the 6th at Seminole. The narrowness of the green is one of the reasons it is such a good hole.

James -

Thanks for the pics. That hole looks to be exactly what Behr was talking about. In fact, I'll bet it was designed at the same time his USGA "Elongated Green" article appeared. Both in 1925 or so. So he may have had it in mind when he wrote the above snippet. I have played very little golf in CA, but I hope that changes soon. Lakeside - post-Behr warts and all - is at the top of my list.

From what I can tell, the 13th is a wonderful example of how narrowness alone can create lots of strategy with a minimum of hazards. With the extra added bonus of low construction and maintenance costs.

Tom/Peter -

As noted, strategic golf design is NOT that everyone ought to have easy routes to the green.

There is this false notion about that penal designs are about hard courses and that strategic designs are about easy courses. That's wrong about both schools of gca.

Nor was that Behr's view either.

As for inconsistencies between his specific design suggestions and his philosophical views, I haven't run across any real screamers. But, as noted, there is a lot of the day to day Behr still entombed in back issues of defunct golf periodicals that were obscure even in their day.

Which is another reason to see courses like Lakeside and Rancho Santa Fe and get a sense of what he actually put in the ground. If there is much Behr left in those courses.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Peter:

If you want to see what may appear to be an inconsistency from Behr there is this series of articles complete with drawings of a green on a particular landform from Behr compared to drawings on the same landform by an English architect.

At that point Behr was promoting what he felt was the most durable shape in Nature for golf architecture---eg basically the convex angle rather than the concave. Behr basically felt the concave angle was more likely to get torn up by water and drainage where the convex angle would naturally withstand that.

The English writer (Ambrose) basically admitted that was perhaps true but the series of Behr's convex angles in his green drawing Ambrose and the architect he picked to do comparison drawings to Behr's felt that Behr's green certainly didn't look very natural, at least to the English way of looking at the subject at that time.

Frankly, I think I'd tend to agree with Ambrose and that English architect.  

[James Bennett]

James -

Thanks for the pics. That hole looks to be exactly what Behr was talking about. In fact, I'll bet it was designed at the same time his USGA "Elongated Green" article appeared. Both in 1925 or so. So he may have had it in mind when he wrote the above snippet. I have played very little golf in CA, but I hope that changes soon. Lakeside - post-Behr warts and all - is at the top of my list.

From what I can tell, the 13th is a wonderful example of how narrowness alone can create lots of strategy with a minimum of hazards. With the extra added bonus of low construction and maintenance costs.

Bob

Bob

my pleasure, and thanks to my hosts for that day.  Lakeside (a Max Behr design) opened in 1924, which fits your story above.  My cap from Lakeside records this detail.

James B