Joshua Crane gets Mad…

[JMorgan]

JMorgan -

You got me. I do not have a quote saying Crane was not a knucklehead. I also don't have a quote saying that he was not the king of France. But I will keep looking.

Bob

I know, Bob.  Just busting you-know-what.

[JESII]

Thanks Bob, does it seem appropriate to you that his first run formula did not produce results that line up with his actual opinions of specific holes and courses?

And to follow up this very excellent question...is there any evidence of him modifying his formula at all? If so, how?

[Rich Goodale]

JM

What makes you think that MacKenzie and Behr were so intelligent (particularly in relation to Crane)?  As I understand it, MacK failed the final hurdle towards becoming a practising physician, and Behr can't demonstrably string together even one intelligible sentence at a time.

RG

[Peter Pallotta]

JM - good post there.

From my limited reading, it seems to me that both were true, i.e. Behr/MacK might've dismissed Crane's mathematical formulas and his scientific pretentions, but they could not and did not dismiss what he stood for architecturally-speaking and for the future of golf course architecture.

What else explains the passion/acrimony of the debate except for a sense shared by both sides that something fundamental was being debated, with mathematical formulas on the one hand and The Old Course on the other serving as flag-bearers/emblems of the schism.

I don't myself understand all of or exactly what Behr/MacK thought Crane represented, or vice-versa, but whenever I'm confused I assume that the principals themselves had a much better grasp of what was being fought over than I do today, almost 90 years later. In some ways, I think their debate went underground, so to speak; with Crane's side perhaps embedded into something as far-removed and innocuous as the ranking system Golf Digest uses.

But - Crane sure does seems to have been a driven and powerful advocate of/for the then "new school" of golf course architecture.

Peter

[JESII]

But - Crane sure does seems to have been a driven and powerful advocate of/for the then "new school" of golf course architecture.

Peter

That may be another thing I have missed...do we have any examples of how Crane wanted his formula to dictate a direction for golf course architecture? What did he want the "new school" to be?

[JMorgan]

JM

What makes you think that MacKenzie and Behr were so intelligent (particularly in relation to Crane)?  As I understand it, MacK failed the final hurdle towards becoming a practising physician, and Behr can't demonstrably string together even one intelligible sentence at a time.

RG

Rich, good point... I guess we'll never know ... and that's all I'm saying on that.  

[Peter Pallotta]

JES
this won't help you much, but it's the only thing I can come up with right now:

I've found dotted throughout Crane's writing (and swimming around the topic of his formulas etc) the primary goal of making golf a fairer and sterner test (with the penalty not only fitting but ALWAYS fitting the crime), and the idea that this could be achieved by determining objectively, for example, the ideal length of a golf hole/course and the ideal distances of bunkers/hazards from tees etc.

That's what I mean when I say that I'm often confused about exactly what the two sides were really, really getting at; my shorthand to myself is standardization vs randomness, but I know that's too simplistic.  

But I read Behr on other subjects (e.g. the mechanics of the golf swing, reports on championship tournaments, the dynamics of match play etc) and he seems to me so astute and clear that I can't believe that here he was just whistling dixie just because I myself am too dense (and far removed from the squabble) to get it.

Peter  

[Garland Bayley]

When you rule out Crane's system as not being scientific, you need to consider that at least some here (see quote from TEP below) believe he was attempting to use the scientific method of making a model, testing the results, and then refining the model.

...
It appears what he was hoping to promote was the discussion and debate of the details of his mathematical or scientific method or criteria, if you will. He seemed to want people to discuss his mathematical theory and improve upon it to create an even better mathematical test of the quality of architecture. Clearly Crane wanted to do all this to help improve golf architecture in the future.
...

[Garland Bayley]

Peter,

I thought the following was a rather astute observation. I don't think you can attribute any "new school" to Crane. I think Crane was simply engaged in an argument that has gone on from the beginnings of architectural evaluation and continues today.

...
A good example of one who may've been on both sides, somewhat depending on the naunces of the specific issues was probably Tillinghast or maybe even Flynn or Ross.

We may even find when we have finally hashed this entire issue out that what it was really over was something of a crossroads and perhaps a rift between the oncoming "championship" style golf and golf architecture definitely spawned in and led by America and American architects and the old world recreational amateur golf abroad and the courses over there that type of golf was played on---most all of which preceded American golf and architecture by quite a bit of time.

It just may be that 80 or so years later as much as things change they've really stayed the same.  

[JESII]

Does anyone know when Joshua Crane began playing golf?

[Peter Pallotta]

Garland

I don't know TE's exact views on the science behind Crane's scientific method, but as a rule of thumb I'd say that whenever TE's views on Crane/Behr are different than mine, stick with TE's.   That's MY rule of thumb, anyway

On the other hand, the "championship" school that TE mentions might not be so different from the the way I described Crane's primary goal, i.e. of making golf a fairer and sterner test, with the penalty not only fitting but ALWAYS fitting the crime.

Peter

[Peter Pallotta]

Jes
I think he took up the game late in life, in his 40s or even later (which meant he started in the mid-to-late 1910s or early 1920s). But then he apparently dedicated himself to it completely, because by the late 1920s he was doing very well in senior championships.

Peter

edit: Why do you ask?

[JESII]

It explains everything...Crane was a very young golfer in the mid-1920's when these debates were going on. When something is new and interesting it's only natural to dig in to see what makes it work.

The difference between this immature golfer and most other immature golfers was that he was at mid life and a very accomplished individual in athletic competition AND coaching (much greater analysis driven) and I believe was a graduate of Harvard and MIT. A little different than the "touchy - feely" analysis Bobby Jones might have made at the same golfing gestation. Jones would have been about 12!



This even further piques my interest into what may have been his next generation of the formula...and also where did he actually write that he was hoping to be the compass of golf and golf course architecture going forward with standardizations and the like?

[Peter Pallotta]

Maybe, JES.

But when Crane wrote his first rankings/methodology, he'd probably been golfing for about 10 years, which is about as long as I've been golfing. And like him, I too find it interesting to dig in to see what makes golf and golf course architecture work. I never went to Harvard or MIT, though, which maybe makes all the difference in the world.

Peter

[JESII]

Peter,

Without any comparison to you, I would say that it does (Harvard and MIT...it takes a certain type)...I also think his athletic background (including coaching) had alot to do with it.

With comparison to you, I would say...to each his own...and I'm with you. I think he looked at GCA the wrong way, but from the little that I've read, I think I'd like to talk to him about it.

Coming from a guy that doesn't see any point in continuing conversations that start out in total agreement.

[Peter Pallotta]

On your last point, JES - that's part of what makes it fun and interesting to go back and forth with you, on this and everything else.

On your other point, you're probably right that Harvard et al DOES make a difference; I don't think Joshua and I have much in common.  But I agree that he must've brought a lot to the table to get the reactions he did.

But mostly I was making a half-joking point that it would be just like a newbie to do some "serious thinking" for a few years and then come out swinging and strutting like as if he just might know better than all those old, so-called experts.

I fight that temptation everyday

Peter

[JMorgan]

Does anybody know what were Joshua Crane's connections to the Crane plumbing family, if any?

[BCrosby]

JMorgan -

I don't think Josh is connected with the plumbing Cranes from Chicago.

Bob

[TEPaul]

“Tom,
It is quite clear to me that when someone makes a statement like..."In fact, I am often myself disappointed in finding that certain courses or holes of which I am particularly fond do not rate as well as others which are not as attractive to me."...they have successfully separated their emotions from their analytical process. That's a good thing if someone is going to go through an analytical process.”

Sully:

If enjoyment and pleasure are the things to be sought in golf architecture and pleasure and enjoyment are dependent on feelings and emotions why would one want to analyze golf architecture without considering one’s emotions and feelings?  That was Behr’s point, and his point about Crane and his mathematical formula for rating architecture.



”The next generation of his formula is what I'd be interested in. He took a purely mathematical analysis to the first go 'round and realized he disagreed with the results...they did not support his personal opinions. This is where I think you and Behr are misreading him. You both criticize Crane for publishing a formula with the assumption that he created the formula with the sole intention of "backing into" his personal favorites at the expense of his least favorites.”



What do you mean? I’ve never assumed Crane published his mathematical formula with the intention of backing into his personal favorites at the expense of his least favorites. Behr didn’t either. So where did you get that idea?  Crane said he was disappointed to find that his mathematical formula low rated some courses and holes that he was particularly fond of and high rated some holes and courses that were not attractive to him. Behr merely said he thought that was a remarkable statement and asked if that was the case then what did Crane think was right---his mathematical formula or his feelings?

Furthermore, I don't know that there was any next generation of Crane's mathematical formula for testing the quality of architecture. Crane may've hoped that by promoting his formula and thereby having others discuss and analyze it that would help to perfect his mathematical formula (and ultimately to help improve golf course architecture) but I'm not aware that happened. Clearly Behr's point was that trying to use a mathematical formula for testing the quality of architecture should not be done, that it is of no real value, and that basically emotions and feelings are what's of value in determining what one thinks of the quality of particular architecture.  



”Based on what I have read (only what's come on here), I think the fruitcakes dismissed him too soon. I think Crane could well come to learn that there really is value in uncertainty.”

Value in uncertainty? What do you mean by that ? Do you mean there is value in trusting one’s emotions about golf architecture without understanding why? Or do you mean there is value in trusting a mathematical formula for testing the quality of architecture without understanding why? Or do you mean there is value in not understanding what you feel and what you think?  

[TEPaul]

Thanks for that photo of Crane and his 15" putter, Rich. Sully has lately taken to calling me and Bob Crosby and Behr and Mackenzie and Jones et al fruitcakes for questioning the validity of Crane's proposal of a mathematical formula for testing the quality of golf archtitecture.

After considering Crane and his 15" putter I wonder who Sully thinks is a fruitcake now?

I wonder where Crane kept that putter when playing golf. Do you think he kept it in his pocket? Do you think a Harvard and MIT education was able to make Crane smart enough to figure out it may not take him all that long to develop a bad back putting like that?

[JESII]

Let's get something very clear...I have never and would never call Bob Crosby a fruitcake!!



As to "value in uncertainty" means randomness is good on a golf course. He wrote about trying to eliminate that because he thought a round of golf would be more pleasurable if it did not have luck or fairness play as significant a role as they do.



p.s. I wasn't able to see the photo of Crane with his 15 incher so we'll just have to use his Court-Tennis resume as validation of his non-fruitcakedness...

[TEPaul]

"As to "value in uncertainty" means randomness is good on a golf course. He wrote about trying to eliminate that because he thought a round of golf would be more pleasurable if it did not have luck or fairness play as significant a role as they do."

Sully:

If Crane was proposing that luck be minimized in golf via architecture and that greater fairness be achieved, and it appears he certainly was doing that---it was a large part of the theme of his mathematical or scientific framework---then what is it that makes you think he was interested in promoting the "value of uncertainty"---eg more randomness etc in golf and architecture?


What are you into these days, the theory of "Contrary Opinion"?

[JESII]

Tom,

I hear our good friend Richard Goodale is making two visits to these shores in the next 9 months...that has me so excited I feel like arguing with you...


Has you opinion, or your views of golf and golf course architecture changed over the last 10 years? 20 years? Do you feel you have evolved, or where you spit out with the exact same opinions you have today?

Seriously.

[JESII]

By the way Tom, in the "Ideal Course" list Crane published, with suggested changes...did you notice his recommendation for #1 at Pine Valley?   Do you think we can gang up on Pat Mucci and his regular suggestion that they eliminate all of the trees on the property "like it was in XXXX..."? That would be fun...

[TEPaul]

"Has you opinion, or your views of golf and golf course architecture changed over the last 10 years? 20 years? Do you feel you have evolved, or where you spit out with the exact same opinions you have today?"


Sully:

As Mrs. Grundy might say in her English class, would you mind cleaning up those sentences and representing them to me?

If so, I'll consider answering you.