[Mac Plumart]

Tom M...

fair enough.

but you should be aware that the first sentence of your last post in inaccurate. You say, "Your biggest and most defining moment is based 100% on speculation"

I did not say it was the defining moment in golf course architecture history.  

Here is precisely what I said, "these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history"

which is why I wanted to post it and discuss it...to learn more about it.

It is fine to disagree that is what these discussion boards are all about, but when you misrepresent what is said perhaps that leads to some issues.

EDIT..."then" changed to "when" in last sentence.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M…

I thought a lot about your post over the morning and I wanted to include a longer post in response to it.

First, and foremost, I love what you bring to the discussion group and you are one of the main reasons for me wanting to get involved with Golf Club Atlas.  I think your research is quite phenomenal and I hope that one day I have same level of knowledge related to golf history as you have.  However, for now I don’t…but I am really interested to learn.  This is why I read so much, ask questions, etc.

Secondly, I think you and I, potentially, go about things (or look at things) differently.  Perhaps this is due to our backgrounds/professions.  From your posts and writings on the site, it appears to me that you are a golf historian and an author.  You research past records, find evidence, and report on it.  As you are an historian and author, that is what you must do and it makes total sense.

I on the other hand am a portfolio manager.  I do research and try to piece together a variety of data from a variety of sources to derive a mosaic picture in order to infer a conclusion (or an educated guess) as to what might happen in the future.  From this I take investment actions.  In your words, I speculate.  In my world, there is nothing definitive…you simply do the best you can to figure out what might happen.

A recent an example of this is a trade I executed on a stock.  In March, when the whole world seemed to be falling apart my research led me to believe that the core earnings of the stock were around $2.74 after all the dilution.  But the stock was trading at almost the same price, which equates to 1 times earnings.   In my world, that is absurd unless the company is going out of business.  BUT, if the company is going to make money how can it go out of business?  So, after more diligence, double and triple checking, I loaded the wagons with the stock when the price was around $4/share.  Now, did I know for sure (did I have verifiable evidence) that the stock would rise in value?  No.  I simply made the best guess I could.  And fortunately that stock is about $16 to $17 per share as I type this.  

So, this is where I come from and how I think.  Is it “right” for an historian to think this way?  No, you can’t speculate on what might have occurred in the past.  You can’t say that even though Joe Schmoe is the architect of record on Course X, I think it Jane Doe had something to do with it even though there is no evidence to support it.  I get that.  And I get that you are trying to find evidence to support the claims that you make and you like to see similar evidence when others make claims as well.

But in this instance regarding Joshua Crane, I did not make a definitive claim.  Rather I said, “ (it was)…perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history"

“Perhaps” was used purposefully to open it up for debate

And

“one of the biggest” was used  to put a qualifier on it.

I can see by using my regular thought processes how this MIGHT be true.  And it is interesting for me to wonder about it and the entire “Golden Age” for that matter, which is the reason why I put this paragraph in my opening post…

“how wonderful it must have been to be an active participant in the "Golden Age" of golf course architecture.  CB MacDonald develops his ideas and models, Mackenzie takes an almost opposite stance, Colt makes major steps forward, and Joshua Crane takes an entirely different view on what a golf course is supposed to be.  No clear direction had been established concerning what the fundamentals of golf course architecture were and all of these guys (and some more) were putting into writing their formal thoughts.  How cool!”

In closing, I see clearly where you are coming from and I respect it very much.  In fact, I would like to see more of your work and if there is anything I can do to help facilitate it…I am simply an email or post away.

However, understand I am seeking to learn about golf, golf architecture, and its history.  I rarely make definitive claims.  Instead, I generally think out loud and wonder openly…in hopes that others will join in provide extra research, color, background, and opinions.

I could go on…but I will stop now.

Later,
Mac

[TEPaul]

I've spent the last "some" hours reading (again) and rereading Bob Crosby's "In My Opinion" essay entitled Joshua Crane (In the Golden Age). In my opinion, it is the most elucidating, edifying, historically educational and immaculately written piece ever put on Golfclubatlas.com, and by a minimum factor of a least ten.

However, what seems to be saddening is at least one semi-preceived prominent contributor to this website who had some critical opinions on the gist of this essay either didn't read it very carefully or didn't understand it very well after having read it or else just simply miscontrued the meaning of it for God only knows what reason. He actually said he thinks Crosby missed the boat on some significant point that the author never even came close to trying to make in the first place in this wonderful essay.

I suggest those truly interested in the complex nuances of the evolution of American architecture take the time necessary to read and fully digest the fascinating albeit complex meaning of this wonderful essay.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I agree with you, the essay was very well written and well researched. And Joshua Crane was a fascination character, and an interesting subject for an essay. The issue I have with the essay is the idea that Joshua Crane and 'the debate' had some major impact on golf architecture. Joshua Crane and the Crane-Behr debate had a little or no impact on the development of golf architecture. I'm finishing up my alternative account of the essay, which I believe will give some historical perspective to what was actually going on in architecture at the time.

[TEPaul]

From Post #43:

"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."

[BCrosby]

"The issue I have with the essay is the idea that Joshua Crane and 'the debate' had some major impact on golf architecture."

If that is your take on my Crane piece, I urge you to read it more caefully. Regarding the causation claim you think I was making, let me quote my last two paragraphs.

"The claim here is not that Crane is somehow responsible for the most widely held modern views about golf architecture. He's not. Golfers aren't thinking of Crane when they say that "fairness" and resistance to scoring are the sine qua non of good golf design. Nor is the claim here that the USGA, the PGA or Augusta National all have Crane in mind when preparing their venues for golf competitions, even if the ideas on which their preparations are based are remarkably similar to Crane's. By the time golf architecture awakened from its long sleep during the Great Depression and World War II, Joshua Crane was a forgotten figure of a bygone era.
The claim being made here about Crane is not a causal one. The claim is rather that, first,  Crane and other the proponents of equitable architecture all draw on similar intuitions about "fair play". Second, that Crane helps to see why importing such ideas from other sports into golf architecture seems so natural and how central they are to the most widely held views about golf design. And finally, that the responses of Behr, MacKenzie, Croome and others to Crane's project give us the clearest, most thorough articulation we have of why taking equitable concerns appropriate to other sports and importing them into the design of golf courses is a problematical enterprise. Which is to say, if you want to understand the real points of friction in disagreements over foundational issues in golf architecture since the Golden Age, you would do well to use Joshua Crane and the fuss he stirred up in the 1920's as your starting point."
 
Let me try to be as clear as I can. Because I guess I need to. The Crane debates didn't "cause" anything as far as I can tell. The debates were important, however. For the reasons given above.

Bob  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bob,
These guys argued in the late twenties. What courses, and what style of golf course, hadn't appeared before these arguments even commenced?
I think too much is made of Crane, and although he created a fuss, his high marks for the holes which made up the "Ideal Golf Course" don't seem to be any different than ones that would make that list today.

His rating of the ideal course:
Hole #1 is  PV's #1           - 95.3%
       #2 is  NGLA #10       - 94.5%
       #3 is  Kittansett #3   - 95.6%
       #4 is  PV's #16         - 96.6%
       #5 is a combo of
Essex #10 & Myopia #14   - 97.0%
       #6 is Essex 4            - 96.5%
       #7 is Merion #12      - 96.8%
       #8 is PV's #12         - 94.8%
       #9 is Brae Burn #4   - 95.3%
.and here's the link to the back side if anyone wants it: http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1927/gi282g.pdf

The questions of fairness and equity predated Crane, and as it can be seen in the modern arena, they will also outlive him.
His was an era of amateur sportsmen whose ideals were molded on an Olympic model of an equal and fair playing filed. Our modern era is one of cash for play, and a fair playing field is the 'ideal' because 'I' don't want to lose big bucks because of an errant bounce.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

On the other hand Crane disliked the Eden, the Road Hole and lots of other holes we (and others like CBM) think highly of.

Yes, the issue of "fairness" predated Crane. By decades. I think I was clear about that in the piece. The real value of the Crane debates is the way they brought disagreements over that issue to a head. It's much more complicated (and interesting, I think) than most people assume.

Bob  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bob,
Well, I've never heard anyone call the Eden hole 'fair', and the Road hole isn't probably too high on Duval's list. 

I read your entire piece and, for what it's worth, I thought you did a very good job with it, I just don't come to the same conclusion about the meaning of their discussions. Everything they were arguing was, necessarily, done prior to the discussion, and nothing changed going forward, at least not until after WW11, and then for completely different motives.

Having said that, I think the whole discussion was important and not something that should be forgotten.

[Mac Plumart]

I agree that the Crane discussions were very important.  But perhaps the ideas represented by each side are more important than the actual particpants in the discussion...since they seem to pre-date Crane/Mackenize, etc and they continue to this day.

There is perhaps an issue with this thread and how it relates to Bob's piece.  I made the statemtn regarding the relevance and effects of the debates in the context of golf course arhcitectural history and I am not sure that Bob did.  I will have to re-read it to be sure.

So, if people take issue with that portion of this thread, I think they take issue with my statements and not Bob's piece.

FYI.

Another mistake I may have made is assuming that Crane lost the arguments and, therefore, lost the hearts and minds of golfers.  Perhaps golf course architecture has been primarily in sync with his thoughts through out history and most golfers want fair and equitable golf courses.

Anyway, I look forward to Tom Macwood's article on the topic. 

Again, great work Bob.  I think this topic is fascinating!

[Tom MacWood]

Why was the Crane discussion important? Can anyone point a concrete result of the discussion? Was Crane the father of equitable architecture...if so, what are examples of equitable architecture?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M…

I haven’t read all the articles and writings on the Crane/Behr debates, but from reading Bob’s article(s) it is clear that he thinks the following were concrete results of their discussions…

1)   Penal vs. Strategic discussions;

2)   shaping modern understanding of the terms;

3)   clarify what’s wrong with the distinction;

4)   they suggest a better way to parse fundamental differences in architectural philosophies;

5)   The debates tell us that seeing fundamental differences in design philosophies as turning on a distinction between       
                strategy and penalty is misleading, both conceptually and as a matter of history;

6)   And they provided for a better framework for seeing historic debates over basic design philosophies.   That is to see
                them as debates between, on the one hand, strategic architecture and what might be called “equitable architecture”
                on the other.


FYI…these are cut and pasted directly from Bob’s piece.


One question I have regarding this time frame is this…prior to Crane did anyone ever do golf course ratings or rankings?


Also, it appears you edited your last post while I was responding…you added was Crane the father of “equitable architecture”?  Frankly, I don’t know…but I would say no as he didn’t design anything and wasn’t “penal” or “equitable” architecture already prevalent in golf, highlighted by Oakmont?  But like I said…I really am not the guy to answer this definitively. 

[Tom MacWood]

Your six points are one or maybe two points rephrased six different ways.

The concepts of penal and strategic predate the very brief Crane-Behr debate. It is true Crane tried to clarify what was wrong the term penal (when the term was used against him like reactionary or ultra-conservative is used in political discussions today), but no one took him seriously so it had no impact. As far as suggesting a better way to parse the fundamental differences of those terms, that was Bob's parsing 80+ years after the fact not Crane-Behr.

What were the concrete results of the 'debate'...what work or works of architecture can you point to that was/were impacted by the debate?

[Mac Plumart]

Don't know...not educated enough on the topic.

Were there ratings or rankings before Crane did his?  Just curious.

[Sean_A]

Your six points are one or maybe two points rephrased six different ways.

The concepts of penal and strategic predate the very brief Crane-Behr debate. It is true Crane tried to clarify what was wrong the term penal (when the term was used against him like reactionary or ultra-conservative is used in political discussions today), but no one took him seriously so it had no impact. As far as suggesting a better way to parse the fundamental differences of those terms, that was Bob's parsing 80+ years after the fact not Crane-Behr.

What were the concrete results of the 'debate'...what work or works of architecture can you point to that was/were impacted by the debate?

Tommy Mac

Does an impact on architecture have to take place to make the "debate" important from a historical perspective?  Additionally, your question is an impossible one to answer just as are the questions of influence on architecture.  I can look back to your Art and Crafts piece and justifiably conclude that the movement had no effect on architecture, but so what?  What is important is the question(s) was asked and someday the search for the answers to those questions may lead to all sorts of interesting tid bits which help fill the gaps of history.  History isn't about making accurate, firm conclusions.  History is about filling in the big picture with little pictures, connecting the dots and trying to recreate an overall landscape of what was happening, why and how all the different aspects of that landscape are connected - or not.  That isn't to say making conclusions isn't important, but conclusions change with every little picture gathered and to find these little picture folks have to ask questions.  This is why I think your A&C piece is fantastic.  You are trying to connect the dots.

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Does an impact on architecture have to take place to make the "debate" important from a historical perspective?  

If the debate had no impact on architecture, one way or the other, why would it be considered an important event in the history of architecture? Do you think Crane-Behr debate had an impact on golf architecture, if so what was it?

The A&C movement was an aesthetic movement in the late 19th and early 20th C, that directly or indirectly impacted a very broad spectrum of creative disciplines (from architecture to metal work to gardening and textiles), it was especially impactful among educated middle and upper middle classes in the major cities of England, London being the hub. The men who revolutionized golf architecture at the turn of the century were from the educated upper middle classes living in and around London. Of all the creative disciplines why would golf architecture be immune from this powerful aesthetic movement?

[Sean_A]

Does an impact on architecture have to take place to make the "debate" important from a historical perspective?  

If the debate had no impact on architecture, one way or the other, why would it be considered an important event in the history of architecture? Do you think Crane-Behr debate had an impact on golf architecture, if so what was it?

The A&C movement was an aesthetic movement in the late 19th and early 20th C, that directly or indirectly impacted a very broad spectrum of creative disciplines (from architecture to metal work to gardening and textiles), it was especially impactful among educated middle and upper middle classes in the major cities of England, London being the hub. The men who revolutionized golf architecture at the turn of the century were from the educated upper middle class living in and around London. Of all the creative disciplines why would golf architecture be immune from this powerful aesthetic movement?

Tommy Mac

I didn't say the debate had an impact on architecture, but that doesn't mean it didn't.  There is an awful lot out there we don't know and never will know.  To me it is plausible that this debate could have had an influence on Dr Mac in some way and he in turn could have had an influence on others. 

As for your piece, I am not at all certain all creative disciplines were influenced by A&C.  Additionally, I am not certain gca wasn't influenced by A&C, but it strikes me as plausible.  But to definitely claim there was an influence, one must show what that influence was and how it couldn't have been the product of some other factors.  As I said, I am not hung up on the conclusions because they are necessarily largely based on opinion.  What is far more interesting and satisfying is the attempt at connecting the dots and therefore giving the reader a wider scope and how archietcture fits into that scope.

Ciao 

[Tom MacWood]

To my knowledge there has never been aesthetic movement quite like the one that took place at the turn of the century in England, one that affected such a broad spectrum of unrelated disciplines. Do you know of a comparable aesthetic movement?

I take it you read the Crane essay, in your opinion what plausible impact did the debate have on golf architecture? And if had little or no impact, why should it be considered an important event?  

[Tom MacWood]

I take it you read the Crane essay, in your opinion what plausible impact did the debate have on golf architecture (or specifically on Mackenzie)? And if had little or no impact, why should it be considered an important event?  

[Sean_A]

To my knowledge there has never been aesthetic movement quite like the one that took place at the turn of the century in England, one that affected such a broad spectrum of unrelated disciplines. Do you know of a comparable aesthetic movement?

I take it you read the Crane essay, in your opinion what plausible impact did the debate have on golf architecture? And if had little or no impact, why should it be considered an important event?  

Tommy Mac

It sounds as if you are asking me which is more plausible; the possible impact of A&C or the Debates?  That is something I can't answer.  As I said earlier, neither may have had an impact, on the other hand, both may have had an impact.  I just don't know.  I wasn't privy to conversations and internal thoughts of these guys.  What I will say is because a direct causal link cannot be found written in dusty old Minutes or magazines doesn't in the least mean there wasn't one.  Can you agree, despite no direct proof, that both A&C and the Debates could have had an impact on architecture? 

Ciao   

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

for the record I agree with you completely and I think others do as well.

The points Bob Crosby makes at the end of this article(s) are extremely important to golf course architecture.  And anyone reading those debates would certainly be impacted by it...assuming they had the mental capacity and interest/passion to understand what was being said.  And what I mean by this is that the average golfer of the day reading these debates most likely wouldn't be interested, but an architect or aspiring architect might have eaten them up. 


I made a point a few posts ago about how Tom M and I see things/think differently.   I'll make it again and then fade away on this thread.  In my mind, I can easily see connections between things and visualize possibilities.  I think this type of thinking is vital to understanding the potential for these arguments and the debates to have a huge impact on the golfing world.

However, Tom M., given his background and style, seems to want to find an article or written document that says that Architect X built the bunker in the middle of the fairway because he was reading the Crane/Behr debates about equitable golf....or something along the lines of verifiable evidence.  I think that finding this type of evidence is very unlikely to happen. 

Therefore, I think on this issue the two types of thinkers will be in direct disagreement and that is fine...as that is what makes the world go round.  However, that will not stop me from believing that these debates (or maybe more importantly the type of thinking each side represents) are very important to the hisotry of golf course architecture.  Especially, since it seems like the type of thinking pre-dates these specific debates and continues to this day.

But in closing, I'll ask again...were they any type of golf course rankings before Crane did his lists?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
I do believe that Crane was the first to assign numerical values, but there have always been those who were ready to give their opinions, individually or as a group, about the relative qualites of golf courses.

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac

It sounds as if you are asking me which is more plausible; the possible impact of A&C or the Debates?  That is something I can't answer.  As I said earlier, neither may have had an impact, on the other hand, both may have had an impact.  I just don't know.  I wasn't privy to conversations and internal thoughts of these guys.  What I will say is because a direct causal link cannot be found written in dusty old Minutes or magazines doesn't in the least mean there wasn't one.  Can you agree, despite no direct proof, that both A&C and the Debates could have had an impact on architecture?  

Ciao    

You interjected the A&C essay into this discusion, not me (the comparison is apples and oranges IMO, comparing the affect of a well documented & influencial aesthetic movement to the affect of relatively obscure short lived debate between two mostly obscure individuals).

My question to you was specific to the Crane essay. I take it you read the essay. What was its possible impact on golf architecture? You menitoned Mackenzie may have been influenced, specifically what do you believe was the impact on Mackenzie?

[Tom MacWood]

Sean...

for the record I agree with you completely and I think others do as well.

The points Bob Crosby makes at the end of this article(s) are extremely important to golf course architecture.  And anyone reading those debates would certainly be impacted by it...assuming they had the mental capacity and interest/passion to understand what was being said.  And what I mean by this is that the average golfer of the day reading these debates most likely wouldn't be interested, but an architect or aspiring architect might have eaten them up.  


I made a point a few posts ago about how Tom M and I see things/think differently.   I'll make it again and then fade away on this thread.  In my mind, I can easily see connections between things and visualize possibilities.  I think this type of thinking is vital to understanding the potential for these arguments and the debates to have a huge impact on the golfing world.

However, Tom M., given his background and style, seems to want to find an article or written document that says that Architect X built the bunker in the middle of the fairway because he was reading the Crane/Behr debates about equitable golf....or something along the lines of verifiable evidence.  I think that finding this type of evidence is very unlikely to happen.  

Therefore, I think on this issue the two types of thinkers will be in direct disagreement and that is fine...as that is what makes the world go round.  However, that will not stop me from believing that these debates (or maybe more importantly the type of thinking each side represents) are very important to the hisotry of golf course architecture.  Especially, since it seems like the type of thinking pre-dates these specific debates and continues to this day.

But in closing, I'll ask again...were they any type of golf course rankings before Crane did his lists?

I'm not asking for how golf course X or golf hole Y was affected by the debate. I'm asking how did this debate change golf architecture, what affect to it have on the philosophy of a group of architects or even on a single golf architect.

There were course rankings that predate Crane, and numerical measuring systems for judging golf courses that predate Crane. I will go into that in more detail in my alternative account.

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

It sounds as if you are asking me which is more plausible; the possible impact of A&C or the Debates?  That is something I can't answer.  As I said earlier, neither may have had an impact, on the other hand, both may have had an impact.  I just don't know.  I wasn't privy to conversations and internal thoughts of these guys.  What I will say is because a direct causal link cannot be found written in dusty old Minutes or magazines doesn't in the least mean there wasn't one.  Can you agree, despite no direct proof, that both A&C and the Debates could have had an impact on architecture?  

Ciao    

You interjected the A&C essay into this discusion, not me (the comparison is apples and oranges IMO, comparing the affect of a well documented & influencial aesthetic movement to the affect of relatively obscure short lived debate between two mostly obscure individuals).

My question to you was specific to the Crane essay. I take it you read the essay. What was its possible impact on golf architecture? You menitoned Mackenzie may have been influenced, specifically what do you believe was the impact on Mackenzie?

Tommy Mac

I believe I am well documented for not buying the "apples and oranges" excuse for not comparing/contrasting whatever rests under the sun.  The reason we CHOOSE not to do so is more associated with laziness or inability - myself included.  In other words, anything can be compared/contrasted with anything else.  All that aside, your question is a good one, its well stated and deserves an answer.  However, I have already stated that I don't know the answer either way.  I have also stated there may well not be an answer to that question.  Well, at least the answer may be buried, as are countless other answers to speculative queries such as this and any possible influence A&C may have had on architecture, with primary subjects. At some point you will have to accept that a great many of the "answers" we come up with on this subject of golf architecture are based in subjective analysis simply because we don't have all that many straight forward answers to what are often not straight forward questions.  It isn't as ideal as a yes or no, but it is what we have to work with. 

Ciao

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()