“The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...
the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history. And I don't think any of them were wrong, per se...rather they were simply in a different frame of mind or "place" regarding their ideas on golf.”
Mac Plumart:
You may be right that the discussions (debates?) between Mackenzie/Behr and Crane were perhaps one of the biggest (or most important) and most defining moments in golf course architecture history. Bob Crosby and I believe that to a large extent and have for some years now; others do not see it that way for various reasons or to the extent we do.
Nevertheless, Bob and I (we’ve been discussing this subject for some years now) feel that even though the most important points of the debate were broached fairly well on both sides and by both sides, unfortunately the actual debate itself by the three of them back then was not particularly well joined or developed. That particular aspect we feel is perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the entire so-called MacKenzie/Behr vs Crane debate on golf architecture and golf and/or what both are, what they should be back then, and what they should be in the future. The reason the debate was never well joined and developed appears to be that it rather quickly became personal or ad hominem. The latter may even be the primary reason why Bob Crosby wrote his essay on this subject and why he feels (as I do) that the entire subject of the debate should be reprised and joined again.
However, when I’ve considered the points that MacKenzie and Behr made on the one side and Crane made on the other side, and when I also consider the points that the contributors to this thread are making on one side or another side, it occurs to me, as it has for some years now, that perhaps no one has really given golf and its golf architecture the appreciation and understanding of all that it can be and deserves.
By that I only mean to say I think golf itself, unlike most all other games or sports, particularly stick and ball games or sports, is replete with a number of interesting formats-----match play, singles, foursome, better ball, total field competitions in stroke play of varying formats etc, not to even mention the fact it really can be played alone without the benefit of another human competitor present, and so forth. And why is that? What is it about golf, that includes all those varying formats even including solo and alone, that makes it fundamentally different or even unique compared to almost any other stick and ball game in the world? I would say it is because in golf the ball is never vied for between human opponents and so in a real way a human opponent is not even necessary to the basic structure of how golf is actually played. To some that may seem so basic as to be almost pointless but it very well may be the greatest and most important point and fundamental of all of golf and even the seminal reason why golf courses both can be, should be, and are so very different from one another around the world.
And so, for that very reason alone it just may be that the real trick for all of us is to not ever try to convince or proselytize anyone as to what golf should be or how it should be approached and looked at by anyone else. Shouldn’t we all just allow anyone or even everyone to find their own way to how to look at and play golf, including what they feel about any iteration, type or style of golf course architecture----and if not, why not?
It seems to me the most important point Behr made (at least to me) is that golf and golf architecture and the appreciation of it (or not) is essentially all about emotion, individual emotion----and individual emotion is not exactly something anyone should or even can mathematically or formulaically measure or even rank or rate for some attempt at a general consensus of opinion as the correct thing to do and the only right way to go. To even attempt to do so is to head down a road whose ultimate goal seems to always be standardization and equity and fairness----or even a far more awful eventuality----viz. sameness.
As Max Behr liked to say----eg if this point and premise is well drawn (if it is true) it may be the very reason the real deal with golf and its architecture is in its differences, particularly in its vast differences from course to course that make up the entire spectrum of golf and architecture world-wide. As Bill Coore has said, a very wide spectrum of difference is so important to the vitality and the future of both golf architecture and golf.
If this is true, it would seem the only inherent difficulty or obstacle is that these necessary vast differences of type and style from course to course, including the vast differences of individual opinions or emotions regarding any of them or even how to best play the game----this necessarily very wide spectrum worldwide, is never possible to accomplish on any one single golf course. But isn’t this the point of why we do have and should have such vast differences in types and styles of golf architecture around the world, including so many vastly different opinions about how to best play golf and enjoy it?
C.B. Macdonald’s autobiography was called “Scotland’s Gift Golf,” and it is true that Scotland gave the world golf because it happened to have it long before the rest of the world, but that was a long, long time ago and the game (or sport) no longer belongs to just Scotland---golf now belongs to the world with all the world’s variations and differences, culturally and otherwise, imbued into golf.
Because of (or even despite) some of these unique differences compared to most all other games or sports, isn’t THIS the ultimate and even the unique gift that golf both can and has given to us all?