[Jim_Kennedy]

The silliness at the bottom of Crane's position stands out when you think of the near impossibility of constructing golf courses that would necessarily be similar to one another, outside of using a 'formula' for greens, placement of hazards and length and number of holes. What Mac and Behr knew (and I'm sure it wasn't lost on others) was that you won't get the individual human being out for a few hours to slap around a little white ball unless you offer him/her a different look, or at least the potential for a different look, every time out. They understood that golf is not just about winning or losing, it's about the playing. Taken to the extreme, Crane's view would have created an America dotted with golf courses that would almost meet Olympic standards of sameness.

Which is why I honestly don't place much stock on the 'vying for a common ball' premise. I think it's more akin to the different mindset of the cross-country runner vs. the track enthusiast, the enduro rider vs. the moto-crosser, the back-country skier from the lift rider, i.e. they are looking for variety as part of the test in the sport they play.     

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Those are some good and important observations of yours in that post above.

I think the actual Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates, particularly the way Bob Crosby presented it or perhaps even improved on the explaining of the fundamental subject matter of it, is not so much about some debate between those three men only. I think we need to understand that all of them----Crane, Behr and Mackenzie were all highly educated, intelligent and thoughtful men----perhaps all some form of "renaissance" man.

I think we need to appreciate that to men like Behr and Mackenze, and a number of others who weighed in on that debate on their side, just felt that a mathematical (formulaic and standardized) system of analyzing golf architecture was just not a good road to turn down, perhaps not because of Crane himself but in how others in the future might apply it and use it or misuse it.

It just may be the supreme irony of all that in fact this very idea of trying to establish more and greater fairness in golf (Crane's motivation), this idea of "competitive equity or equitableness"----eg "Equitable Architecture" from a greater application of CP&P (Bob's terms) that was part and parcel of Crane's system was the road that golf and architecture generally did travel down in the future after that debate and that they are still largely traveling down both in fact with courses on the ground as well as with a philosophical goal.

Crane did not invent this idea or philosophy as Bob very clearly pointed out; he only articulated it best with and via his system----or so the likes of Behr and Mackenzie et al thought or feared. On top of that it is pretty undeniable to accurately conclude that his idea, this idea of much greater fairness in golf and GCA is pretty much a natural instinct amongst most golfers, unless and until they begin to truly appreciate the distinction such as Behr made for why it fundamenatally should never be this way for golf or its architecture.

[TEPaul]

“Which is why I honestly don't place much stock on the 'vying for a common ball' premise. I think it's more akin to the different mindset of the cross-country runner vs. the track enthusiast, the enduro rider vs. the moto-crosser, the back-country skier from the lift rider, i.e. they are looking for variety as part of the test in the sport they play.”


The reason I feel the "common ball not vied for in golf" distinction compared to all other stick and ball games where a common ball is vied for is probably a good and useful one is it simply serves as a better or closer analogy than if one uses as some analogy to golf other sports or games such as fishing or shooting or mountain climbing or enduro running or whatever none of which uses or contemplates a ball or a stick and ball as the fundamental tools of the sport or game itself.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Why I say that is because I think it's more about the variety found in these other types of sports that makes golf so attractive. Stick and ball games are necessarily played on fields or courts because the object is not to lose the ball, although in baseball you like to lose one over the outfield fence once in a while.

When we were kids we played football on an open stretch of unruly, obstacle laden ground that had a tremendous pitch from one end to the other. One of the objects of the game was to get to be the team that was playing downhill, not up. No first downs, no yardage markers, no refs.
In the winter we played hockey on a swamp in which hillocks of frozen earth poked themselves up through the ice. It was like skating on a bumper pool table. Heaven help you if you got knocked on your tail and went sliding into one of theose hillocks. No rules, no ljnes.
Same in the summer, stickball in the street or if we could put together enough guys, off to the park we went. The game in the street was my favorite, more scrambling.   

So that's my point, variety of surface and a more adventuresome playing field are the elements found in golf that are lacking in many other sports, not just stick and ball games.   

[Mac Plumart]

Jim...

that one of the true beauties of the game of golf, right.  As you say, "variety of surface and a more adventuresome playing field"  Take that away (or minimize it) and it looses it appeal. 

I've played a few courses that had flat fairways, flat greens, all fairways were open to the right to favor the slice, UGH...boring.  But heck, I lit up the scorecard and had a few of my best rounds ever on these types of courses.  But I don't want to play them again.  I would rather play a challenging course like the Pete Dye Golf Club of WV.  Quite a challenge, huge variation in challenges from hole to hole. 

My understanding is that is the difference between what Crane and Behr were advocating.  And to me that difference regarding ideals on what golf is all about is HUGE.  Perhaps each has their own place however.  Resort courses maybe Crane-esqe?  Fair and equitable.     

[TEPaul]

"My understanding is that is the difference between what Crane and Behr were advocating."


Mac:

I'd say you are exactly right about that----eg that kind of thing was a large part of the difference between what Crane was advocating and Behr was advocating (or at least what Behr said Crane was advocating. ).


"And to me that difference regarding ideals on what golf is all about is HUGE."


I think it can be huge (at least in the context of an "ideal") or at least Behr and Mackenzie seemed to suggest it could be huge if the direction of golf and golf architecture generally turned down that road they feared Crane's ideas and ideals would take it vs the ideas and ideals they endorsed.

 

"Perhaps each has their own place however."


Perhaps each does have its own place and that is the reality of that idea of "The Big World Theory" that you asked me about yesterday. To me perhaps the ultimate goal for golf and architecture is that it never gets to a point of real homogenization or standardization of product. Variety, and the greater variety the better, in an overall spectrum context is probably a fairly ideal goal for golf and golf course architecture. Why? Because if one considers all golfers together there is arguably a very wide spectrum of taste amongst them and what they want from golf and golf architecture.

The only real problem with that, it seems to me, is when any one single course tries to satisfy too wide an opinion of taste and style.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
Crane was a 'parts' kind of guy, Mac and Behr were 'parts is parts' kind of guys, i.e., they saw the the whole stucture, Crane looked at the elements.

But, I also think I wouldn't be wrong in saying that no architect ever tried to create unfair or unbalanced situations on his/her courses.     

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

The way you described football and hockey when you were a kid (and what it was you played on) is not much unlike the way Max Behr described golf itself when it was in what he called its "age of innocence," before it began to emigrate out of Scotland to sites that Behr said were unsuited to accept the game and the spirit of it as it had existed in Scotland. When it emigrated out of Scotland (arguably around 1850 and on and probably owing somewhat to the blanketing of GB by their railway system) he said those that inherited it began to take its pieces apart and try to analyze what they all meant so that they could put them back together again to make more scientific sense out of it all.

As I said on this thread in some earlier post, one of the problems with the Crane vs Behr (Mackenzie) debate is the whole thing was essentially a series of articles in various periodicals which has never been collected into one central place or offering. Therefore not that many people have had the opportunity to read the whole thing. I think the meat and crux of the entire thing basically came from Behr and his series of remarkable articles. How many of them have you actually read? If it is just a few I would be willing to make them available to you somehow or see that they are.

For those I know who really have read and considered Max Behr's writing they all seem to agree it takes a lot of time to consider and let it sink in. I've been doing it for ten or more years now and it is without question the most remarkable thoughts and series of them on golf and golf architecture I have ever read by a country mile.  

However, I fear that too many who say they have read him but who really haven't just seem to pass him off as some kind of crackpot who wrote in a labrynthian, Edwardian style that is essentially meaningless to golf and architecture as we know it and think of it or should think of it.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

In my limited exposure to Behr, I agree with you.  I find his writing excellent but difficult to read and comprehend.  I have only read a few of his articles thus far, but am in the midst of digging into them.

I find them very interesting, but I find myself reading enough paragraphs to get the gist of a concept and then having to put it down and think about it for quite some time to let it sink in...and then pick it back up and continue on. 

Given that I very much enjoy the topic and his style, I can stay focused long enough to work through his articles.  Perhaps the people you refer to in your last paragraph, don't stick to it and miss out on some of his ideas?

But like I said, I am no Behr expert...yet!   

[Mac Plumart]

I know this topic might be more important to me than others, but that hasn’t stopped me from posting previously…and it won’t stop me now. 

I have stated in the past that the debates between Joshua Crane and Behr/Mackenzie might have been one of the most important moments in golf course architectural history.  The opinions of other members of this site have varied…some agree and others have not.  Most notably, Tom MacWood has disagreed and the gist of his disagreement has been that the previously mentioned debates and it participants were obscure and quickly forgotten.  For the record, I think he is correct in what he says.  Perhaps the actual debates themselves were not that important.  HOWEVER, the crux of what they were debating was (and is) extraordinarily important.  I have tried to communicate this in prior posts, but obviously I haven’t done a good enough job.  Nevertheless, that is what I believe.

As a reminder, the crux of what they were debating was Crane’s rating process whereby he ranked the fairest golf courses of his day.  He thought that a golf course should reward the learned skills of a golfer regarding ball striking and the like to yield a winner of a golf match whose skills were the best.  Meanwhile, Behr and Mackenzie took a different view on a golf course.  They thought it shouldn’t be so much about fairness and equity, but about options, strategies, risk/reward, and in generally more “sporting” in nature and for sure some amount of good, or bad, luck will occur in the lives of sportsmen.

Well, what I have observed since my initial readings of Bob’s piece is that the core issues discussed in these debates are alive and well in the golfing world today.  And I’ve observed a few examples of this over my brief golfing career…

1) I think the PGA Tour appears to really embrace “fairness” and equity in golf courses.  Unfair bounces are not welcomed, rather predictable outcomes are preferred.  After all this affects their income levels and prosperity and the courses are designed to separate the most highly skilled players from the rest.  In fact, I’ve played a fair amount of courses that host PGA Tour events and quite frankly most of them are not to my liking.  Indeed, they are usually fair and predictable with clear cut lines of attack and obvious risk reward choices…not extraordinarily mentally challenging, but very challenging to ones ball striking skills.

2)The majority of the golfing public seems to side with Crane when looking at and judging golf courses.  I can’t tell you how many low handicap and/or “experienced” golfers I’ve run into that make statement or comments that baffle me.  I was talking to a few very low handicap golfers with a lifetime of golfing experience just the other day about Pinehurst.  They told me to avoid playing #2 when I get there as its greens are not very good.  They went on to explain that the greens won’t accept aerial approaches; you have to hit low shots to the greens to hold them.  Huh?  Isn’t that the point?  And if you are going to hit a high approach, you’ve got to be in the correct position on the fairway, right?  But I didn’t argue with them, I just listened.  They went on to say that #4 and #8 were clearly the better courses.  I could give more examples of this type of mentality, but I think you get the point.


3)Garland posted on here a few days ago about a renovation or design on his golf course, the title of the thread was entitled “Need your help demonstrating unpredictable is better than predictable”  In fact, here is his opening statement from the thread…

“I have been reading architectural improvement suggestions for my club. They often support an idea by saying it makes the course more fair. This of course is a misuse of the word fair, because everyone plays the same source, so it is fair to everyone as they all face the same things. What they mean to say is that the suggested idea makes the course more predictable.”


Pure Crane…NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!

4)I’ve also noticed the majority of golfers like a course they can score on.  I’ve seen so many people play golf and be myopically focused on their scorecard and I’ve asked many people why did you like course x and the response was…I shot 71!  Or did you like hole y…yeah, I birdied it!!  This type of stuff seems like they like “fairness”, “predictability”, and good results. 

5)But then I’ve seen many golfers play a golf course, complain about certain holes and features as “unfair” or “bad”…but then be so interested to give it another shot and try to score better.  I find the 5th at Cuscowilla, the 12th at East Lake, and the Redan and Lookout Mountain to be this way.  The 5th at Cuscowilla has a shell-backed green that can’t be held with an aerial approach.  I’ve seen many people chip from one side of it to the other with “good” chip shots and yell “This just isn’t fair”.  The 12th at East Lake is a par 4 with a bunker in front of the green and the green slopes away from the golfer, so you’ve got to land the ball just past the bunker or risk rolling far away from the hole or off the back.  I’ve heard time and again, “Man, I hit a great shot and got screwed by this green.”  And  the redan at Lookout Mountain is similar to the 12th at East Lake, just a par 3 and it has a bunker in back of the green. 

Anyway, each of these holes is complained about while on the course but lusted for after the round to try it again and do better.  This is Behr/Mackenzie’s main point…at least in my opinion.  Create interest, intrigue, mystery, puzzles, problems, etc…that are not readily apparent.  This will make a course interesting to play again and again.

So, I’ll stop now.  But I challenge all of you guys to see if you can spot the issues highlighted in the Crane/Mackenzie debate still being carried out today.

I find it fascinating!!

[Mac Plumart]

Bump

[Sven Nilsen]

Mac:

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the front page.  In light of the current conversations taking place, the Crane/Behr/MacKenzie debates remain relevant, and there are lessons to be learned from a current examination of these "old" issues.

I still do not have a full grasp of what Crane meant by an "ideal" course.  I understand his thoughts on fairness and equity, but in my mind he really seems to be arguing for conformity, such that the player knows what to expect on whatever course he chooses to play that day.  This thought, while an admirable idea if one is seeking to perfect the competitive aspect of golf, runs counter to an ideal that I believe both you and I hold dear, which is that golf is just as much about a sense of discovery (or adventure) as it is about seeking perfection.

One interesting side note concerning the effect that Crane's writings may have had relates to course yardages during the 1920's.  Up until 1923 or so, course yardages generally followed an upwards trend.  Obviously the changes in the ball and in club technology had an effect on this, as most likely did the enhanced skill being demonstrated by a nation that had unequivocally taken to the game.  But at some point during the 20's you start to see courses lose yardage.  Not every course, but enough to make one wonder what was going on.  I have no evidence that there is any connection to Crane, but the possibility does exist that there was a movement towards the "ideal" and that yardage adjustment downward was one symptom of a larger philosophical movement.

If anyone is interested in some examples of these types of adjustments, I'd be happy to put together a list.

Sven

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the front page.  In light of the current conversations taking place, the Crane/Behr/MacKenzie debates remain relevant, and there are lessons to be learned from a current examination of these "old" issues.

Thanks, Sven.  And, yes, I bumped it because I see this same "old" stuff coming to a head with The Old Course changes and the PGA Tour changes to classic golf courses.

I considered putting up a long post on this issue, but perhaps there is too much Old Course talk on GCA right now...so I'll put it up as a new article on my site in a few days.

Sad news for me is that I think the Crane mentality is winning out over the mainstream golfing public. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Mac:

When you write your follow up piece, I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have on how Crane's theories relate to the language Dawson used this week, that they were looking to make changes in line with the "essential strategy" of the course.

This thought, with its implication of one way to play a hole, runs contrary to everything I've ever thought about the Old Course. 

Different golfers with different games will play different holes in different ways on different days with different weather.  There is no other course that promotes this thought more than St. Andrew's. 

Sven

[Mac Plumart]

Mac:

When you write your follow up piece, I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have on how Crane's theories relate to the language Dawson used this week, that they were looking to make changes in line with the "essential strategy" of the course.

This thought, with its implication of one way to play a hole, runs contrary to everything I've ever thought about the Old Course.  

Different golfers with different games will play different holes in different ways on different days with different weather.  There is no other course that promotes this thought more than St. Andrew's.  

Sven

Will do.

You touch on what make The Old Course beyond brilliant, which is, as Mark B. calls it, equifinality.  Multiple ways to play the same hole and reach the end in the same amount of strokes, if I understand the theory correctly.  Of course, along the way of each separate route you'll face different decisions and execution risks each offering their own unique rewards.

[Joe Lane]

Hi,

Thank you gentlemen for probably the most penetrating discussion I’ve seen on this board yet, and precisely the subject I’ve been thinking about for some time.


I have written a number of pieces on my blog, djlane.wordpress.com, on these very same subjects. In particular, you might be interested in the piece entitled, “The Occult Charm of Chicago Golf Club … And Why It Doesn’t Matter.” Please let me know what you think.


Thanks,


Joe

[BCrosby]

Joe -


Your thread raised the question - to change your terminology slightly - of the relationship between the quality of a shot and its outcomes. Should the architect have a duty to assure that such relationships are always "rational" or "fair"?  That, I think is the nub of the issue you raised in your thread.


That same issue was at the heart of the Crane - Mack/Behr fuss in the mid-1920's. Crane took the view that the link between execution and outcomes should be tight, rational and predictable. MacK and Behr, following John Low, thought otherwise. They believed that an important part of a good course was that the link between execution and outcomes was sometimes irrational and unpredictable. All with the goal of making golf more interesting. It made for a game that forced players to "think" about what shots they were playing. (Early on Low was mocked for promoting "thinking golf", mostly because it broke with late Victorian assumptions that golf should be more predictable, something strongly favored by Taylor, Vardon, Hilton and many others.) MacK and Behr believed that golf, at bottom, should be about much more than simple athletic skill.   


Those are still key issues in golf architecture, though they aren't talked about as much as I wish they were. I think Doak is getting at similar concerns with his "paradox of proportionality".  By which I understand him to be saying that sometimes the punishment does not fit the crime, and that's not only ok, it can be a good thing because it makes the game more interesting. I would love to hear more of Tom's thinking about that.


Bob

[Joe Lane]

Hi Mr. Crosby,


I really, really want to know about Mr. Doak’s “paradox of proportionality”—where did you see that? Also, I’m very, very much indebted to your presentation of this Crane fellow: indeed, I entirely agree with you that I do seem to be following his thoughts, although with an opposite conclusion. But what’s even more interesting to me is that Crane seems to have been part of a much larger movement at the time: so much of the first half of the twentieth century was about trying to be “scientific,” while so much of the second half of the century was about rejecting “science.” I could show you the New Republic’s 1941 obituary of the novelist James Joyce—surely the antithesis of the scientific—and sure enough, he’s called the “Einstein” of literature. Makes me think, anyway.


Thanks very, very much,


Joe


 

[BCrosby]

Joe -

The full TD quote is:

"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05).

(BTW, Mike Whitaker uses it as his tag-line.)

It's a statement that can take you in all sorts of interesting directions.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()