[wsmorrison]

Some time ago, we discussed the additions and deletions Joshua Crane proposed to the 1st hole at The Old Course.  To review, I'll include a comparison of the two drawings published in January 1934 for the existing 1st hole (in Crane's era) and his proposed alterations and also add the drawings for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th holes.  What do you make of his suggested revisions?

Hole 1



Hole 2



Hole 3



Hole 4

[TEPaul]

"What do you make of his suggested revisions?"


Since I've never been on the course it's hard for me to understand the nuances of his recommendations.

Nevertheless, I hope others who know these holes well will comment on what they think Crane's recommended changes import. I wouldn't be quite so interested in Crane's suggested architectural changes to TOC if it weren't for the fact that Crane was labeled such a supporter of "penal" architecture by the likes of Behr and Mackenzie and perhaps even Bob Jones.

I see that Crane recommends the removal of a number of bunkers on a few of the holes that he might've considered to be too random or perhaps unfair. I notice he suggests on one drawing that a dip or swale in front of one green is 'unfair'. On the other hand he seems to tighten up the greenside bunkering on another hole or two. Is this an attempt on his part to create more of what he often referred to as "control?"

With these suggestions of Crane's to improve TOC I'm not too sure I'm seeing why he would be referred to by the likes of Behr, Mackenzie et al as a recommender of "penal" architecture.

Back in 1926 Crane essentially criticized the architecture of TOC in his mathematical ranking analysis listing it last and suggesting it was not the championship course that others thought it was. But with the suggested removal of a bunch of randomly placed bunkers on a few of those holes it looks to me like Crane was making the course easier than it was.

But I guess the most important question in light of the raging debate Crane had with Behr, Mackenzie et al over strategic vs penal architecture, is whether we think Crane's suggested changes made the course more strategic or more penal or perhaps neither? It's important to note that Behr and Mackenzie accused Crane of proposing "penal" architecture and being essentially an opponent of "strategic" architecture. Clearly, Crane did not see himself as that at all. He thought of himself as a proposer for the "improvement" of architecture but also for strategic architecture (he did say in print that he agreed with Behr's theory on "indirect tax" architecture (strategic architecture)) albeit with perhaps more "control", more "fairness" and also an arrangement that would apply more penalty to shots as they got progressively worse!

It is possible that Crane was a proponent of the liberal use of rough to create progressive penalty while at this particular time the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al were visualizing and perhaps beginning to experiment with a style of golf architecture that essentially did not use rough at all (ex. ANGC)! This might be very important to research further and understand better as it may've had more to do with their architectural disagreements at the time than we have heretofore realized.

Again, it seems to me with his suggested changes on those holes he was trying to remove random luck and make the course "fairer" as he was unquestionably wont to do in most of what he said about and wrote about architecture and golf.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for the pics, Wayne.

Other than his flattening of the "hollow" short left of the 2nd green, Crane is on solid architectural ground (as it were) with his changes.  Most involve removing many of the bunkers installed down the right hand side of the course by JL Low in the Post-Old Tom Morris era early in the 20th century.  They are ill-shaped, ill-placed and hardly relevant to the game, now or then, and should be cryit doon.

As we've previoously discussed, his 1st hole is a vast improvement, but nobody would ever have the balls (insensititvty?) to make that change.  Or any of his others, for that matter.....

Rich

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I too found it interesting that Crane's changes included the removal of "unfair" hollows and bunkers thus casting some doubt as to the penal label that was being directed at him by Behr and MacKenzie.  No doubt the first hole is more strategic if the changes Crane proposed were implemented.  The second hole would be easier for being less penal.  On the third hole he was removing some pot bunkers opening up another angle into the green.  I can't tell if he was going to change the green or not, the drawing is unclear.  The fourth hole he again indicates removal of all the small pot bunkers but wanted to close in the opening to the green with a flanking front bunker pretty much demanding an aerial approach to the green, odd on a relatively long hole. 

[TEPaul]

"I too found it interesting that Crane's changes included the removal of "unfair" hollows and bunkers thus casting some doubt as to the penal label that was being directed at him by Behr and MacKenzie."

Wayne:

In my opinion, there're all kinds of different ways of looking at this so-called Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate as well as various vantage points to look at it. The fact that it didn't seem to come off as well as it might have back then is certainly one of them. The reason for that could've been that it seemed to get very personal right off the bat.

Another way to look at it is to consider whether golf and golf architecture essentially went the way Crane was recommending with certain things and whether that was coincidental or whether it had something to do with Crane and/or the debate.

Bob Crosby will be very interested in those drawings but he's not around at the moment. After enduring about half a year of pestilence and tribulation from drought to tornados in Atlanta, he's in St. Croiux with his family eating fish and fruit, laying around in the sun and getting looped on rum and such.

[Karl Bernetich]

The holes don't seem to benefit from the softening to me.

I thought the use of the term "unfair" was interesting.  Unfair to whom ?
Seems a bit like, "My ball always ends up in there, so remove the [traps, swale, etc.]"  Are they strategic changes or are they there to serve the benefit of an individual "bad shot" ?

Sounds a bit like the story of the pine tree on the left-center of the 17th fairway about 195 yards from the tee, forcing a right-to-left shape off the tee.  Now know as The Eisenhower Pine.  Just cause Ike didn't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.

Also isn't there a story about Nicholas hitting a good drive on the fairway and being on a mound 3 time in a row at one of the Rota courses.  When he complained, he was told it would be remidied.  The next year there was a pot bunker in that location.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne - I had two opposing reactions. In picture/hole #4, my first thought on seeing Crane's extra and mirror image bunker was that it was like adding a line to square a box, as in a tennis court.  On the other hand, I’d just read Mackenzie's line about fairway bunkers dictating strategy, and being added where the most divots are -- which if I didn’t know better would've struck me as a line from Crane.  I don't know what to do with that.

One other thought: I’m not sure we can understand what Crane was really  thinking from looking at the details of his proposed changes to TOC. It seems to me we could debate the merits of specific changes forever; but we’d never find the answer as to why he couldn’t appreciate the value of what history and time and nature and men before him had wrought there at TOC, and how he could imagine that the science of Joshua Crane would right the great ills that he alone perceived.

In other words, if you begin with the assumption that TOC needs fixing, I'm sure you could find the fixes; but what in its uniqueness and loopy charm and variability was so in need of fixing? Why did Crane rank it dead last; why did he hate it? Did he think uniqueness and loopy charm and variability incompatible with the ideals of competition and with the theories of what makes a proper game? Was he right?

Peter   

[TEPaul]

“In other words, if you begin with the assumption that TOC needs fixing, I'm sure you could find the fixes; but what in its uniqueness and loopy charm and variability was so in need of fixing? Why did Crane rank it dead last; why did he hate it? Did he think uniqueness and loopy charm and variability incompatible with the ideals of competition and with the theories of what makes a proper game? Was he right?”

Peter:

Was he right is indeed the question.

However, for us to even begin to try to answer that question we have to be fairly sure what Crane really was proposing or thought he was proposing and also whether those who opposed him so strenuously back then understood what exactly he was proposing or even opposed him for the same reasons he made (or thought he made) with his mathematical proposal and architectural suggestions.

I think in many ways this debate over Crane’s mathematical ranking system for architecture and his recommendations that TOC needed to be architecturally improved is one whose specific points were never exactly joined and debated in this Crane vs Behr, MacKenzie, Jones et al or so-called Penal vs. Strategic debate.

So what was Crane proposing? I don’t think there’s any doubt he proposed that golf course architecture’s quality could be effectively submitted to mathematical or scientific analysis. He seemed to assume before he made his mathematical proposal that something like that was virtually a given and there was no reason why anyone would question that.

Well, we certainly know that there were plenty back then who questioned that, particularly with TOC. That was at first and most vociferously questioned by Charles Ambrose of England and then Max Behr and Alister Mackenzie and also apparently Bob Jones. Unfortunately, that opposition by Ambrose and then Mackenzie and later by Behr in some real depth was taken by Crane as a personal attack and not an attack on his analytical mathematical and scientific proposal. So right off the bat, some of the specific issues of Crane’s architectural ideas were not exactly joined in debate or discussion.

Essentially Ambrose and Mackenzie responded that one’s impression of the quality of architecture could never be effectively submitted to strictly mathematical or scientific analysis simply because there is a good deal of emotion involved in why one likes, loves and respects a course and its architecture and emotion simply can’t be analyzed effectively by mathematics.

But I believe there were some specific points of difference between the two sides that do relate to some specifics of architecture and golf and that’s what we probably need to look at here to figure out if in some ways golf and architecture in the future followed the suggestions of Crane or the suggestions of those who opposed him in this so-called debate.

[TEPaul]

So what were those specific architectural differences or even differences in architectural philosophy between Crane on the one hand and Ambrose, Behr, Mackenzie, Jones on the other?

Were the specifics only with what most of us understand to be the differences in penal vs strategic architecture? I for one don't think so, or not in all the ways some of us assume penal and strategic architecture to be.

We can see from some of those drawings for architectural changes on TOC that some of Crane's suggestions actually look, to some of us, more like strategic architecture than the course was. Or should I say Crane's suggested changes look to some of us less like penal architecture than the course was?

After-all Crane did recommend the removal of numerous apparently randomly placed bunkers and that would seem to be less penal in nature, if for no other reason it would seem to give all golfers more room to play to and through.

In my opinion, the two largest and most significant differences of opinion on architecture between Crane on the one hand and the others on the other hand was with the issue of trying to minimize luck in golf and architecture (although that will always be a difficult issue to pin down and expose specific differences in architecture) and also the issue of rough in golf and architecture and the effective meaning of it in play.

I believe the latter----rough----is what Crane recommended if for no other reason than to create "progressive penalty"---eg the worse one missed a shot the more they should be penalized. This concept is one that the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al did not believe in and they said so.

I think the latter is basically proven when Crane mentioned in one of his articles that TOC was one of the few courses that made no distinction and basically had no distinction between fairway and rough and apparently for that reason, perhaps amongst others, the course did not have enough of what Crane called "control", an element he favored in golf and architecture.

It is probably Crane's ideas on more "control" in golf through such architectural elements as rough that led the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones to label Crane a supporter of "penal" architecture. I guess that would be logical because in their minds he was recommending the bracketing of fairways with rough to create "progressive penalty" for missed shots. That kind of thing certainly would (and has ) created more shot dictation and perhaps less options with width and more one-dimensional golf and less multi-optional strategies.

It seems fairly safe to say that those who considered themselves real "strategic" architecture proponents back then were only concerned with hazard features that penalized golfers for shots that were "nearly perfect but not quite perfect". For the rest of golfers, those particular "strategic" architecture proponents felt their missed shots were their own penalty due to their own lack of shot making quality as well as with simply being enough out of positon for the challenge of what came next. This is apparently the sole reason those particular "strategic" architecture proponents had come to believe that golf architecture should not really make use of rough! This is not conjecture on my part---they actually said this.

[Jon Wiggett]

I would also agree with Rich on the first hole changes except I don't see any advantage in widening the Swilcan Burn. From there on it seems to me he removes all the hazards down the right except by the green and many of the lesser bunker (famewise) between the more well known ones making the course from a hazard point of view more one dimensional. Of course the ground movement is so interesting that even with no bunkers TOC would be fun and testing to play.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

The supposed nature of the Mid-Surrey mounds popularized in the US by Tillinghast was to create progressive penalties.  Tillinghast wrote as much or more so than any other golf architect.  Do you know where he came down on the debates between Crane on the one hand and Ambrose, Behr, MacKenzie, Jones, etc on the other?  Seems to me, at least a portion of Crane's philosophy would have been supported by Tillinghast.

[Garland Bayley]

For those not familiar with Crane's rating that would like to learn about it:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32246.0.html

I like the changes to the first hole, except that I don't like widening of the burn. Who does he think he is? RTJ at ANGC?

I see the addition of the greenside bunker on #4 as an attempt to increase the fairness of the hole. Why be penaized for going left,  but not right? He would make the entire approach penal.

[wsmorrison]

John,

The proposed widening of the burn and the altered orientation of the green to the line of play would favor a shot from the right hand side, closer to the OB.  The actual orientation of the green and the way the burn fronts the green does not demand nearly as strategic a tee shot.

[TEPaul]

Jon:

Actually a ton of "ground movement" on a golf course was apparently something else that Crane was not particularly crazy about and was apparently another reason the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al took him and his architecture suggestions to task for.

In a very general sense a guy like Crane was for increased "standardizations" in golf course architecture and his opponents definitely weren't----eg they obviously viewed such things as an unhealthy direction towards man-made concepts and for that reason felt they were "anti-natural".

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't the cryt of "unfair" oft heard from those who favor penal architecture?
Assuming they think that a nice str8 shot should always be rewarded?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I guess with his use and ideas on alpinization or Mid-Surrey mounding Tillinghast probably was in some ways a proponent of "progressive penalty" of the type Crane was recommending. But don't forget Tillinghast did that stuff pretty early on and perhaps 10-15 years or more before this debate took place.

Furthermore, there is a question of whose idea "Mid-Surrey" mounding was. Obviously J.H. Taylor thought he invented it as well as the concept of "progressive penalty" with it. You can read all about Taylor's feeling on that right here in the "In My Opinion" section in an article called "In Praise of the Ralph Miller Library".


"Isn't the cryt of "unfair" oft heard from those who favor penal architecture?
Assuming they think that a nice str8 shot should always be rewarded?"

Adam:

I guess that depends on what one means by "penal" architecture. If by that they mean architecture that progressively penalizes the degree to which a shot is missed, then yes, that would be an example of penal architecture. Apparently the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al felt that way about that kind of "progressive penalty" architecture and courses.

On the other hand, it's hard to know what you mean by these recent references to a "str8 shot". Even Crane said he believed in Behr's theory of "indirect tax" architecture which certainly meant most any shot had options between an aggressive high risk/reward option and one that didn't and all that within a fairway! 

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the whole point of analyzing these drawings of Crane's for TOC, as well as the other particulars in those articles that constituted this debate, is to figure out if Crane's ideas on golf and architecture really were penal in various ways or not. It seems to me they were in some ways and not in others and that's what we should be concentrated on here. In fairness to Crane that should probably be brought to light. That is not to say he wasn't proposing other things that would eventually be viewed as "penal" or probably more accurately less "strategic" than the type of "strategic" architecture his opponents were visualizing and recommending.

And don't forget about the whole issue of "standardizations" in golf and architecture----a general issue and debate that was going on at the time in a whole lot of things to do with golf such as its Rules and particularly its balls and equipment! In a general sense "standardizaions" are the product of the mathematical and scientific mind. At least in the opinions of the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al the direction of increased "standardizations" in golf and architecture was not a good thing at all. Obviously, to them, it was not natural or even "anti-Nature"----plus, and perhaps remarkably it was also pretty anti-traditional to golf. And most of those guys seemed to be very much into the things about golf and architecture that were its best traditions. The latter opinion included in spades some of the opinions of C.B. Macdonald with some of the things to do with golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

In my opinion, the whole point of analyzing these drawings of Crane's for TOC, as well as the other particulars in those articles that constituted this debate, is to figure out if Crane's ideas on golf and architecture really were penal in various ways or not. It seems to me they were in some ways and not in others and that's what we should be concentrated on here. In fairness to Crane that should probably be brought to light. That is not to say he wasn't proposing other things that would eventually be viewed as "penal" or probably more accurately less "strategic" than the type of "strategic" architecture his opponents were visualizing and recommending.

TE- It seems to me that this is getting to the heart of it, and that "eventually be viewed as" is maybe the most important concept of all.  That is, the very language we now have and use all the time -- i.e. penal and strategic -- wasn't PART of the Crane-Behr debate, it was BORN OF that debate.

And two things come out of that i) I have to watch my own tendency to work backwards and to project onto Behr or Crane modern day ideas and ideals about architcture and ii) the fact that these 'modern day ideas and ideals about architecture' owe their existence precisely to the Crane-Behr debate is what makes that debate so fundamentally important.

But when I try to keep that all in my head, I find it harder than ever to really understand what Crane was trying to say and to get at. (The same applies to Behr for the matter, but since I like him better I make more allowances.)  All I know is that Crane disliked TOC the way it was, and the way it was seemed just fine to experts like Jones and MacKenzie. What was up?

You want to know my simplistic answer? I think Crane was a moralist disguised as a sportsman.  (PS - And I think that Behr was a metaphysician disguised as an architect.)     

Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

John,

The proposed widening of the burn and the altered orientation of the green to the line of play would favor a shot from the right hand side, closer to the OB.  The actual orientation of the green and the way the burn fronts the green does not demand nearly as strategic a tee shot.

Wayne,

no matter how I look at it I fail to see how widening the burn adds to the strategy. It would however, look completely out of place.

[TEPaul]

"All I know is that Crane disliked TOC the way it was, and the way it was seemed just fine to experts like Jones and MacKenzie. What was up?"

Peter:

You know what----Crane liked TOC very much---he said so and he actually wrote that during this debate.

WELL, Mackenzie and definitely Behr really took him to task for that and in a classic debate context probably utterly annihilated with Crane's own words Crane's point and his mathematical analysis for what one should view as quality architecture.

Behr said:

"He started by establishing an ideal intellectual equivalent for the various parts of a golf hole. To each of these he assigned a certain mathematical importance in a total of a thousand. Now in applying his measuring rod he had to dissolve the union that produced living form. That he was conscious of
something wrong in his brutal dissection of life is shown in his own remark: "I am myself disappointed in finding that certain courses and holes of which I am particularly fond do not rate as well as others which are not so attractive to me." This is an astounding admission. It doubtless shows an intuitive appreciation of form, but no confidence in intuitive judgement. It is as if in the midst of enjoyment one were to poison the experience by questioning whether after all one should be enyoying himself."

[Peter Pallotta]

TE - thanks very much. If I'd ever seen that quote I'd somehow forgotten it.  That's fascinating -- that Crane could like TOC but feel compelled to rank it last seems a triumph of formula over feeling; and that Behr would pick up on exactly that - though with more precise and even sophisticated language - is amazing .  "....an intuitive appreciation of form, but no confidence in intuitive judgement..."  So, THOSE were the stakes he thought were involved. Wonderful stuff!

Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter:

In a real way, at least with their defense of TOC, and perhaps even golf courses and holes and golf architecture generally, Behr and Mackenzie were both defending as well as using that old cliche that some courses and holes and architecture simply pass, for whatever reasons, generally perhaps emotional reasons, what is called the "Test of Time."

Architecture that is believed to have passed that "Test of Time" is believed to be architecture that has come to be respected or even loved, for whatever the reasons, by most everyone. One of their points with Crane and his mathematical analysis, particularly after he himself said he felt dissappointed that some of the courses and holes he loved the most had failed his mathematical and scientific test, was that this kind of architecture does not need to be submitted to some cold and emotionless mathematical and scientific test or it might defeat its very purpose (that it is capable of creating emotionally connected respect and enjoyment) and probably corrupt it.

[Sean_A]

What is really interesting about these drawings are the omissions of the safe plays left.  Low installed right side bunkering as a substitute for the crap that used to be there, but in a much more random fashion.  The only areas shown are the tiger lines, all the rabbit lines are ignored.  Furthermore, these revisions seem to take issue with Low's specific ideas of bunkering (which occurred some 30 years before this article) rather than any sort of grand debate about penal VS strategic design or if anything, Crane is on the side of strategic as far as TOC is concerned .  Clearly, the the lines of play being altered generally opens up play down the "risky" alleys - or encourages risk taking - the essence of what makes strategic design effective. 

The additional bunkering was part of an overall plan to toughen the course for the '05 & '10 Opens,  including an extra 200 yards.  Many felt the course had become too wide and the rubber core ball made the course play a bit short.  While I believe most folks centered their arguments around TOC changing to suit the best players, I wonder if Crane wasn't thinking more of the competent rather than excellent player. 

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

Gee is no one going to at least comment on the merits of the changes?  I'm kind of intrigued by his suggested change for the 1st hole.  That's a sort of a contrived hole with the burn anyway, so I wouldn't object to changing the path of the burn though I don't like the idea you'd have to mess with the green itself.

Not sure about that bunker in the rear.  It does make it much more desireable to play to the right off the tee, but I'd hate to think how many foursomes of tourists would hit it into that bunker, then blast it out into the burn, drop behind the burn and skull back into the trap, lather rinse repeat, all while I was waiting in the fairway!

As for the other two changes, all I can say is thank god no one let him go forward with these terrible and awful plans.  I wonder what he has in mind for 18, and if Shivas will like it?

[TEPaul]

"Furthermore, these revisions seem to take issue with Low's specific ideas of bunkering (which occurred some 30 years before this article) rather than any sort of grand debate about penal VS strategic design or if anything, Crane is on the side of strategic as far as TOC is concerned .  Clearly, the the lines of play being altered generally opens up play down the "risky" alleys - or encourages risk taking - the essence of what makes strategic design effective."


Sean:

I think you're right in your foregoing statement and it shows one of the reasons it's so hard to categorize the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate into one that is simply about penal vs strategic architecture or architectural arrangements.

Crane did not think of himself at all as one who proposed penal architecture. The penal tag was one Behr and Mackenzie applied to him and his proposal, and again, that may've had much more to do with the fact that he was proposing "progressive penalty" for shots badly missed and probably with the liberal use of rough, not necessarily more bunkering, or even less bunkering.

And here in these Old Course drawings of Crane's he's recommending the removal of a lot of apparently randomly placed bunkers, perhaps bunkers placed there by Low.

In Mackenzie's first written answer (1926) to Crane's mathematical rating proposal (which took place about 8-9 years BEFORE Crane did these drawing (1934)) Mackenzie defended the architecture and architectural philosophy of Low that "no bunker is misplaced". Was Mackenzie defending what he felt was the strategic bunker arrangement of TOC or was he just defending Low's philosophy of "no bunker is misplaced", or both, because Low put those bunkers on TOC about 30 years previous?

So here we have Behr and Mackenzie calling Crane a proposer of penal architecture while 8-9 years later (1934) Crane is recommending less bunkers rather than more bunkers.

So what is going on here with this penal vs. strategic debate? Does strategic architecture require more bunkers rather than less or perhaps more bunkers randomly placed in the minds of Behr and Mackenzie or does the penal issue they had with Crane involve something else such as Crane's philosophy of the much more liberal use of rough which effectively accomplishes Crane's ideas on "progressive penalty", a concept and philosophy that Behr and Mackenzie and Jones did not like and did not endorse and very much said so?

We just can't overlook the fact that at this time Behr, Mackenzie and Jones were essentially proposing the radical idea that rough should not be a part of highly strategic golf architecture. The fact that Crane was proposing the liberal use of rough to accomplish "progressive penalty" just may be the primary reason those guys were labeling him a proposer of penal architecture!

We should also be mindful of the fact that the "old" concept of "penal" architecture (19th and some very early 20th century) when most courses had perpindicular fairway encompassing cross bunkers or "cop" bunkers was another style and philosophy of "penal" architecture (steeplechase architecture) that none of these architects on either side of this Crane/Behr, Mackenzie penal vs strategic debate had any use for at all. When this debate took place that style and type of "penal" architecture was long since out of favor with most everyone as being totally "anit-strategic".

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()