[Rich Goodale]

Tom (et. al.)

You and others are missing one of Sean's (and my) points--those bunkers of Low's are not at all randomly placed, even "apparently" to anyone who has seen them.  They are ugly shallow little saucer shaped blobs that march in a row down the right hand side of the outward bound fairways, serving no purpose other than to penalize the slicer and add a teeny bit of doubt in the mind of the good player about going down the (usually) ideal line.  They are blind only because each and every one of the tee shots on holes 2-6 are blind.

On that issue, I think Crane was completely correct.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Richard:

Frankly, randomly placed or not has nothing to do with it.

This is an attempt to determine where the likes of Crane on one side of this debate and Behr and Mackenzie on the other side of the debate were coming from.

Mackenzie seems to defend the preservation of Low's bunkers and Crane doesn't.

I'm just trying to figure out what each of them felt penal OR strategic architecture was all about in their various minds. Maybe Crane was more of a strategic proponent with bunkering and maybe Behr/Mackenzie were more penal proponents with bunkering.

That's why I'm trying to produce some of the details of their various points in their articles in this so-called "debate".

But the fact remains, in the articles that were the meat of that debate both Behr AND Mackenzie were accusing Crane of being a proponent of "penal" golf and architecture. Were they right, were they wrong or were they misunderstanding one another for various reasons? One thing we do know and that was Crane was denying being proponent of penal architecture. In the strategic philosophy that Behr referred to as "indirect tax" architecture which he viewed as basically synonymous with strategic architecture Crane said he agreed with Behr.

Those are the questions here.

And, of course we do know that Behr, Mackenzie AND Jones were using TOC just the way it was as one of the best examples of "strategic" golf and architecture in the world! Obviously, Crane didn't agree with that if he called himself a proponent of strategic architecture and was also recommending these architectural changes to the course.

[Rich Goodale]

Comprende, Compadre

All I'm saying is that in respect to Low's bunkers, Crane is on the "Strategic" side of the debate and Mackenzie on the "Penal" one.  IMO.

Ricardo

[BCrosby]

Jeez. I get of the plane from St Croix, hook back up on the web and the first thing I find is a Crane thread? As Joshua might have said, not fair.

Lots to say. Will chime in later.

Bob

  

[TEPaul]

"All I'm saying is that in respect to Low's bunkers, Crane is on the "Strategic" side of the debate and Mackenzie on the "Penal" one.  IMO."

Well, Richard, that's your opinion. It doesn't seem to be the opinions of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones. I'm fairly sure you can see that. Why do you suppose that is?  How do you explain that if they were calling themselves proponents of strategic architecture and opponents of penal architecture?

[TEPaul]

"Jeez. I get of the plane from St Croix,"

Bob:

Are you still drunk on rum? If so get some rest first. Or, on second thought, have some hair of the dog and then jump right in here.

[TEPaul]

"However, as I am a direct descendant of the English King Ethelred The Unready, any moniker you choose is fine by me and my courtiers."


Really?

Well since Ehelred never was ready that must mean whomever that was that created your direct connection to Ethelred must have been adopted, so you aren't really related to him at all.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Old Eth (or "Grumps" as we call him in the family) sired 11 sprogs, so he must have been ready at least some of the time.......

Reichard the Decisive

[Sean_A]

Richard:

Frankly, randomly placed or not has nothing to do with it.

This is an attempt to determine where the likes of Crane on one side of this debate and Behr and Mackenzie on the other side of the debate were coming from.

Mackenzie seems to defend the preservation of Low's bunkers and Crane doesn't.

I'm just trying to figure out what each of them felt penal OR strategic architecture was all about in their various minds. Maybe Crane was more of a strategic proponent with bunkering and maybe Behr/Mackenzie were more penal proponents with bunkering.

That's why I'm trying to produce some of the details of their various points in their articles in this so-called "debate".

But the fact remains, in the articles that were the meat of that debate both Behr AND Mackenzie were accusing Crane of being a proponent of "penal" golf and architecture. Were they right, were they wrong or were they misunderstanding one another for various reasons? One thing we do know and that was Crane was denying being proponent of penal architecture. In the strategic philosophy that Behr referred to as "indirect tax" architecture which he viewed as basically synonymous with strategic architecture Crane said he agreed with Behr.

Those are the questions here.

And, of course we do know that Behr, Mackenzie AND Jones were using TOC just the way it was as one of the best examples of "strategic" golf and architecture in the world! Obviously, Crane didn't agree with that if he called himself a proponent of strategic architecture and was also recommending these architectural changes to the course.

Tom

I still believe the "debate" is somewhat contrived.  It seems to me that whether likes the bunkering down the right (and some left) or not, all the characters involved are still advocating strategic principles because the safe routes to the left are always available. 

There can be no question that Crane's #1 is more strategic then what exists - though it isn't clear to me that the others didn't agree with Crane.

Crane seems to advocate recreating the 2nd as it was for the 1900 Open except for the filling in of the hollow.  This shouldn't seem the least bit outrageous, though I am not sure the hole is made any better near the green.

Crane seems to be advocating recreating the 3rd fairway (like the 1900 Open) and adding a bunker short of the green to make players play out toward the whins for the best angle in.  Not sure this is necessary as there is a hump there already, but these changes don't strike me as outrageous either. 

The 4th seems to be a radical change.  I am not sure why Crane would want to open the fairway a bit, but close down the approach with the added bunker.  One would think that in keeping with the philosophy of creating some space that Crane wouldn't add a greenside bunker.  I don't get the idea here. 

The net result for me is that Crane doesn't strike me as some sort of madman with penal ideas which would ruin TOC.  His ideas seem to be wanting to get back to what made TOC the strategic masterpiece it became known for in the last quarter of the 19th century.  The thing is, these holes are a bit of a mixed lot anyway, they are the weak point of TOC.  I am not surprised Crane had a good look at them with an aim for improvement. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I still believe the "debate" is somewhat contrived.  It seems to me that whether likes the bunkering down the right (and some left) or not, all the characters involved are still advocating strategic principles because the safe routes to the left are always available."


Sean:

Contrived?

I doubt that, although it may not have been that much about such things as the architectural arrangement of bunkers.  But something about Crane's mathematical and scientific ranking of golf courses as well as some of his proposals about how to improve architecture (or golf) very much set off a number of people pretty vociferously, that's for sure. At first blush it may've been mostly to do with what appeared to be his dissing of the quality of TOC but the eventual debate or the writing it inspired on the the subject of architecture had a lot more to do things other than just that.

[Sean_A]

"Tom
I still believe the "debate" is somewhat contrived.  It seems to me that whether likes the bunkering down the right (and some left) or not, all the characters involved are still advocating strategic principles because the safe routes to the left are always available."


Sean:

Contrived?

I doubt that, although it may not have been that much about such things as the architectural arrangement of bunkers.  But something about Crane's mathematical and scientific ranking of golf courses very much set off a number of people pretty vociferously, that's for sure. At first blush it may've been mostly to do with what appeared to be his dissing of the quality of TOC but the eventual debate or the writing it inspired on the the subject of architecture had a lot more to do than just with that.

Tom

I use the word contrived in context with the TOC discussion.  There doesn't seem to be a disagreement about the style of course they would like TOC to be.  The disagreement strikes me as more about the details of how best to achieve what the ideal TOC should be.

I don't know much about the rest of the debate, but I get the sense Crane is not so far out there.  He made an attempt to codify what is good, bad and indifferent about courses.  It may have been folly, but much like Finegan, he seems to be couching his remarks within the understanding that the courses he ranks are all good courses and worthy of some praise.  Perhaps it outraged the boys that he didn't place TOC on top, but that is no crime in my book.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

And don't forget, these recommended changes Crane was proposing for TOC were offered by him about 8-9 years after this debate first occured. I suppose it is possible that by 1934 they all thought more alike regarding some of the arrangements of golf course architecture.

I feel the primary issue may not have been that much about bunkers but about the use and extent of something like rough and the ability of it (or some other penal element) to create this idea of "progressive penalty" for missed shots. There's little question that anyone could make a logical case that is another form of "penal" architecture. Is that the element that the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al were most concerned about?

And again, if TOC had all those George Low bunkers or whatever (some of which Crane might have recommended removing) and little distinction elsewhere between fairway and rough then it's also logical to assume that there were more strategies of avoiding those bunkers because there would've been more room to avoid them.

Crane did mention in a 1926 article that TOC was one of the few courses that made no real distinction between fairway and rough. That appeared to be a criticism on his part.


"Perhaps it outraged the boys that he didn't place TOC on top, but that is no crime in my book."

Sean:

While we are interested in your opinion about TOC it's probably more important to first understand what their opinions back then were since that is the time of this debate. However, both back then and today it seems to me that a rather large number of people probably feel it IS a crime to touch TOC too much!  

[Sean_A]

"Perhaps it outraged the boys that he didn't place TOC on top, but that is no crime in my book."

Sean:

While we are interested in your opinion about TOC it's probably more important to first understand what their opinions back then were since that is the time of this debate. However, both back then and today it seems to me that a rather large number of people probably feel it IS a crime to touch TOC too much! 

Which is why I can't understand why there would be so much fuss over Crane's suggestions - many of which were to try to bring the course back to what it was like at the turn of the century before.  The 1st is a glaring exception to this, but I can see where Crane's conception of the 1st is much more in keeping with the rest of the course than what is there today.  Afterall, the 1st was created by shifting the burn - its not as if its a natural beauty.

Ciao 

[TEPaul]

"Which is why I can't understand why there would be so much fuss over Crane's suggestions for TOC?"

Sean:

This is why timelines are needed. If these drawings and recommendations Crane produced were in 1934 who has proven or even suggested there was much fuss over THESE Crane suggestions?

Again, much of the written debate between Crane vs Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al may've taken place some years before this. Perhaps Crane had even become influenced by Behr, Mackenzie, Jones' ideas on architectural arrangements by 1934! 

One of the things I think this subject of Crane's suggestions for TOC needs is to know whether Crane made some text recommendations that we have not seen with these drawings. If there is some text from him that originaly accompanied his drawings and he said something like a lot more rough should be used and the fairways should be narrowed substantially, THEN I could see where there may've been some real issues with the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al.

[Sean_A]

"Which is why I can't understand why there would be so much fuss over Crane's suggestions for TOC?"

Sean:

This is why timelines are needed. If these drawings and recommendations Crane produced were in 1934 who has proven or even suggested there was much fuss over THESE Crane suggestions?

Tom

I think I misunderstood the situation.  I thought Crane had made the suggestions concerning TOC based on the reasons he rated the course fairly low compared to the likes of Dr Mac etc. 

"Again, much of the written debate between Crane vs Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al may've taken place some years before this. Perhaps Crane had even become influenced by Behr, Mackenzie, Jones' ideas on architectural arrangements by 1934!  "

It could also be that your crowd were influenced a bit by Crane!  I am sure that by the 1930s many people would have been against changing TOC a lot, but I don't think Crane was suggesting anything radical or non-TOC if you like.  But it must also be remembered that since Crane's comments, TOC has been lengthened by ~700 yards.  So far as I know, one bunker was filled in on the 15th.  The 14th has a radical new tee changing the angle of the drive.  These changes are nothing when compared to the time period of say 1875 to Crane's comments.  In fact, the biggest change in recent years (if we discount maintenance) has really been the yardage and it can be argued that this has had a minimal impact.  Could it be that in reality, Crane was defending TOC and arguing for the course to be go back to its roots - when it was first acknowledged as a masterpiece - much like folks on this site do when discussing renovations of old clubs? 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Could it be that in reality, Crane was defending TOC and arguing for the course to be go back to its roots - when it was first acknowledged as a masterpiece - much like folks on this site do when discussing renovations of old clubs?"


Sean:

Good question but it's not for me to comment on since I don't know TOC. It would've been interesting to hear the comments on Crane's recommended changes for TOC in those drawings above from the participants in the debate in the 1920s but as Bob Crosby pointed out yesterday when they were done in 1934 Mackenzie was dead, Jones was out of the game and the magazines used in those debates were out of business or close to it so there seems to have been no comment from Max Behr who lived until the 1950s.

But I'm still trying to figure out whether there was any correlation between Crane's apparent recommendation of using rough to create "control" in golf via architecture (and Behr/Mackenzie and Jones's radical idea not to use it) and the way golf and architecture eventually went in the future with the general use and maintenance of rough and much narrower fairways generally.

To me the deal is to see not just what they were arguing about back in the 1920s but also if golf and architecture picked up on something either said or proposed, or if what happened in the future was merely coincidental. But even if it was coincidental it could still say a lot about how golfers generally feel about the things those guys were arguing about in that interesting debate in the 1920s.

But since we've basically labeled this debate "penal vs strategic architecture" (as did the Behr, Mackenzie side) it is important to determine if there really were specific and actual penal or strategic elements in it, at least in how some of understand "penal" and "strategic" today.

I do admit, however, that even in Behr's own writing on the whole "penal vs strategic" thing in golf and architecture, a certain amount of it was sort of philosophical or even a state of mind, if you know what I mean. Behr's own article entitled "The Nature of Penalty" really was sort of a "glass half empty/glass half full" kind of thing----eg it really was a matter of how any golfer looked at the same thing such as a dangerous bunker or hazard--ie as something that inspired him to challenge it (glass half full) or something that intimidated him and minimized that spirit of temptation and challenge (glass half empty).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()