News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2010, 09:40:35 AM »
In the spirit of being helpful, let me note:

1. Crane and Behr were both relatively obscure men. To the extent people knew about them in th 1920's, they were quickly forgotten thereafter. Or as I say in the piece, they soon became "forgotten men of a by-gone era".

2. Historical causation is a very tricky issue. In the case of Crane I have no idea what impact, if any, the debate had. My essay assumes that there was none. At least none that is provable.

3. There were course ratings before Crane. There were also many people who held ideas similar to Crane's who pre-dated him. Crane's originality was in the way he applied those older ideas.

4. The debates were nonetheless very important for the reasons given in my excerpt above and in more length in my piece. My hope is that after reading my piece you will have learned something about about the tangled mess lying behind many commonly used architectural concepts. That is worth the candle, I think, because most people assume those concepts are much clearer than they in fact are.  

I had thought the above was reasonably clear in my piece. But from a number of responses here and elsewhere, perhaps not.


Bob  

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #76 on: January 14, 2010, 09:58:03 AM »
Perhaps this doesn't answer Tom M's question directly, but as I clearly stated previously I am not the expert on this matter.  However, here are some of the questions and possible impacts that Bob's piece (and the underlying ideas of the Crane/Behr debates, which I have not read in their entirety) touches on...

1) penal vs. strategic discussions and hashed out defintions and ideals of each (very important to me)

2) forced proponents of each to formalized their thoughts...this might have been the catalyst for some of the great writing in golf course architectural history.  (As I am at work and only have a few seconds, can some one help me on this one...when were these debates started?...when were the great books written?  Mackenzies' Golf Course Architecture, Colt's essays, McDonald's Scotland's Gift, Thomas' Golf Architecture in America, Mackenzie's notes which were used for The Spirit of St. Andrews, and the other great books of that era.)...this entire time along with its writing are regarded as some of the most important in the history of golf course architecture.

3) Again, I bring up Bobby Jones.  He walked off St. Anderws I think in 1921 proclaiming it unfair (I believe that is right).  But Mackenzie defneded it as the greatest golf course, a direct contrast to Crane who rated is as the worst.  Then Jones chooses Mackenzie to help him with Augusta.  Again, what were the dates of these debates?  Weren't they published in golf magazines?  When did Jones pick Mackenzie?  Might these debates influenced him?  Isn't Augusta an important golf course?  Wasn't Augusta built with St. Andrews in mind?  Why would Jones emulate a course he didn't think fair (or worthy)?

4)  Now golf course ratings and rankings are prevelant.  Is it possible that these debates were a catalyst for this proliferation?

In a nutshell, what were the potential imacts of these debates on golf course architecture?  formal defiition of architectural concepts, catlysts for some of the great writings on the topic, a hand in one of the greatest courses of all time, help proliferate rankings.

Anyway, I've got to run...but this should be a good food for thought.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2010, 10:59:38 AM »

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

 

It would lazy man's out if the person simply said apples & oranges and ignored the comparison. I addressed the comparison and answered your question. I still think its a poor comparison. 

Although I believe the Crane-Behr debate was an interesting debate and worthy of an essay, my point has been it had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history, and I believe the fact that most are having difficulty answering my question about its impact confirms my point.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #78 on: January 14, 2010, 11:13:37 AM »
Perhaps this doesn't answer Tom M's question directly, but as I clearly stated previously I am not the expert on this matter.  However, here are some of the questions and possible impacts that Bob's piece (and the underlying ideas of the Crane/Behr debates, which I have not read in their entirety) touches on...

1) penal vs. strategic discussions and hashed out defintions and ideals of each (very important to me)

2) forced proponents of each to formalized their thoughts...this might have been the catalyst for some of the great writing in golf course architectural history.  (As I am at work and only have a few seconds, can some one help me on this one...when were these debates started?...when were the great books written?  Mackenzies' Golf Course Architecture, Colt's essays, McDonald's Scotland's Gift, Thomas' Golf Architecture in America, Mackenzie's notes which were used for The Spirit of St. Andrews, and the other great books of that era.)...this entire time along with its writing are regarded as some of the most important in the history of golf course architecture.

3) Again, I bring up Bobby Jones.  He walked off St. Anderws I think in 1921 proclaiming it unfair (I believe that is right).  But Mackenzie defneded it as the greatest golf course, a direct contrast to Crane who rated is as the worst.  Then Jones chooses Mackenzie to help him with Augusta.  Again, what were the dates of these debates?  Weren't they published in golf magazines?  When did Jones pick Mackenzie?  Might these debates influenced him?  Isn't Augusta an important golf course?  Wasn't Augusta built with St. Andrews in mind?  Why would Jones emulate a course he didn't think fair (or worthy)?

4)  Now golf course ratings and rankings are prevelant.  Is it possible that these debates were a catalyst for this proliferation?

In a nutshell, what were the potential imacts of these debates on golf course architecture?  formal defiition of architectural concepts, catlysts for some of the great writings on the topic, a hand in one of the greatest courses of all time, help proliferate rankings.

Anyway, I've got to run...but this should be a good food for thought.

The concept of penal and strategic had been hashed out prior to the debate. There were no golf architects or golf architectural critics who identified with penal golf architecture, so there were no proponents of penal architecture around to formalize anything. Supposedly one of the reasons Jones chose Mackenzie was his admiration for Cypress Point. I suspect the heavily bunkered CPC would have finished near or at the top Crane's ranking had he evaluated it. Modern golf rankings began with Golf Digest in 1965 or 1966, it seems to me that trying to trace that ranking to Crane 40 years earlier is a major stretch.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 11:15:38 AM by Tom MacWood »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2010, 11:15:59 AM »

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

 

It would lazy man's out if the person simply said apples & oranges and ignored the comparison. I addressed the comparison and answered your question. I still think its a poor comparison. 

Although I believe the Crane-Behr debate was an interesting debate and worthy of an essay, my point has been it had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history, and I believe the fact that most are having difficulty answering my question about its impact confirms my point.

Tommy Mac

Or, it could be that few people have the driving need to show causation between the Debates and architecture.  Many may be satisfied that it is quite possible the debates influenced architecture, perhaps through Dr Mac.  At any rate, he would have had to spend a great deal of time in the course of these debates on the subject matter and he was very good friend's with Crane.  It seems to me anything conencted with this siubject stands a good chance to have made Dr Mac at the very least give his ideas some thought.  

Bob already stated that his premise was not to show causal link between the Debates and you have stated that the topic was interesting enough to warrant an essay.  What exactly is your beef?  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #80 on: January 14, 2010, 11:31:52 AM »
In the postscript of the essay there is defintely an attempt to tie Crane to the ills of modern post-WWII golf architecture, RTJ, USGA set up, etc. I don't believe Crane or the Crane-Behr debate had any affect on any of those things.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2010, 12:32:23 PM »
KBM
You are right on the money, that is exactly what Bob wrote after six pages of showing a direct parallel to Crane's philosophy. He doesn't provide an alternative theory as to why things developed as they did, therefore the reader is left to conclude Crane is to blame, despite his brief claim to the contrary. And he goes on to say Crane and other proponents of equitable architecture all draw on similar intuitions about fairplay (which is at the root of the evils of post WWII golf architecture as described in the postscript). Who are the other proponents of equitable architecture?

In addition to my not agreeing with the attempt to blame Crane for the ills of modern architecture, I think generally he was a little unfair to Crane. He didn't really go into the fairly dramatic transformation Crane made after the debate, and the likely reasons for that transformation. And my biggest issue is one of historical perspective, there was an important debate taking placing at the time that did have a real impact on golf architecture (and on Crane and Behr), but it was ignored in the essay.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 12:40:00 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #82 on: January 14, 2010, 12:41:36 PM »
Tom M...

I, for one, love it when you give more verbose answers to questions posed rather than simply responding with more questions.  I learn a great deal from those reponses.  Thanks!

On my last post, question #2 was not answered.  Any insight into that?

Great stuff guys!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2010, 02:39:52 PM »
Ok...

I finally had a few minutes of down time at work and I dug up the answers to my second reason regading why these debates might have been important to golf course architecture and the dates of the arguments and books.

First off, on Ian Andrew's website under the "Books that Shaped the Game", he says the following...

"I can not express how important this part of the Golden Age influenced future architects. It is the single most important decade in shaping most of the latest generation of architects." 

Given this quote and the fact it is in the "Books that Shaped the Game" portion of his website, I have to believe that the writing of the Golden Agers were important to golf course architecture and its development.

So, 1924 Crane's rankings are unvield.  Almost immediately debates break out.  Then from 1926-1927 Behr and Crane confront each other in magazine articles and debate penal/equitable architecture vs. strategic.

1926 "The Links" is released by Hunter.  On his website, Ian says the following about the book..."Hunter slowly educates the reader about golf architecture, particularly pointing out the failings of penal architecture and the elements of architecture that add the greatest interest"

1928---"Scotland's Gift" is released. Another classic book on architecture.

1929---"The Architectural Side of Golf" by Wethered and Simpson is released. Ian Andrew describes this book with htese comments..."This is perhaps the most thorough analysis of the strategic school of design. The book is very poignant and full of strong opinions particularly from Simpson when it comes to penal architecture."

1931(?) Mackenzie takes the notes which are used to make up The Spirit of St. Andrews.  Crane is mentioned specifically in this book.

So, were these debates which centered on the Crane the most significant moment in the entire history of golf course architecture?  Probably not.  But were they significant and important?  I say yes.  Very much so.

Again, these is only a direct mention of Crane in "The Spirit of St. Andrews", but since the debates were so heated and published in Golf Magazeines, I have to assume that the authors of the other books had to aware of them and, therefore, had to be influenced by them.

Given Ian Andrews' profession and his comments on the importance of these books, they are still influencing golf course architeture to this day.  Which makes them very important to the history of golf course architecture.

Anyway, I have to get back to work.  But, these are my thoughts. 

I anxiously await Tom M's newest piece on the subject as I hope to learn more about it.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #84 on: January 14, 2010, 03:13:09 PM »
“KBM
You are right on the money, that is exactly what Bob wrote after six pages of showing a direct parallel to Crane's philosophy. He doesn't provide an alternative theory as to why things developed as they did, therefore the reader is left to conclude Crane is to blame, despite his brief claim to the contrary.”


Please try to give the general reader of Crosby’s essay more credit than that. Bob Crosby offered the following to not only explain Crane’s philosophy but perhaps the philosophy of the vast majority of all golfers before, during and after Joshua Crane.

“Behr grasped more clearly than most the significance of how Crane had framed the debate. As will be recalled, Crane had given to his CP&P principles a central role in his analysis of golf design. His justification for that role was that those or similar principles were the keys to equitable sporting competitions generally and, as such, should also apply to the design of golf courses (mutatis mutandi). It was a simple and highly intuitive proposition. After all, Crane asked, golf claims to be a sport doesn’t it? That was at the heart of Crane’s rationale for making his CP&P principles the relevant metric in assessing the quality of a golf course.”


 


“And he goes on to say Crane and other proponents of equitable architecture all draw on similar intuitions about fairplay (which is at the root of the evils of post WWII golf architecture as described in the postscript). Who are the other proponents of equitable architecture?”





Who are the other proponents of equitable architecture (the term “equitable architecture” was created by Bob Crosby to better explain Crane’s and the philosophy of many others before him of the idea in golf and in golf architecture of “control,” “predictability,” “proportionality” (“CP&P”---an acronym also created by Crosby)?  I would say probably over 90% of all golfers before, during and after Crane and I would also say the reason they are all probably proponents of equitable architecture in golf is simply because all intuitively link golf to all other stick and ball games which utilize a common ball for their very structure, as Crane so prominently did on his side of the debate.

To link golf to all other stick and ball games in this way is obviously a very intuitive thing to do, not the least reason being very few probably ever even considered that golf is in fact perhaps the only stick and ball game in the world which does NOT use a common ball between human opponents or allow for a ball to be vied for by human opponents and/or their equipment and ball.

In my opinion, the articulation of that distinction between golf and all other sports or games----that fundamental uniqueness about golf, may’ve been the most important thing of all from Max Behr. It may even be the fundamental bedrock reason why golf was never meant to be fair or equitable in the context of its playing field as all other sports and games necessarily are and have to be simply because their very structure depends upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents-----completely UNLIKE golf!

I admit this idea, even if fundamental to golf is incredibly counter-intuitive to the vast majority of golfers of any era probably because it is so unique (Bob used the Latin term “sui generis”) compared to all other stick and ball games and sports, and I also note that when Behr clearly pointed this out to Crane in the debate-----ie this fundamental difference with golf to all other stick and ball games or sports as well as what it meant to golf's playing fields and why Crane's proposals were fairly anathema thereto, Crane fairly ignored it and failed to respond to it. Crane was apparently not a dumb guy. He probably understood very well that if he took that point up at all in response to Behr his entire side of the debate would be severely weakened regarding his reasons to want to make golf fairer by striving to remove luck from it and make it more “equitable” as is frankly necessary both to and in all other games and sports which use a common and vied for ball-----completely unlike the very structure of golf itself!
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 03:29:01 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2010, 06:06:03 PM »
Ok...

I finally had a few minutes of down time at work and I dug up the answers to my second reason regading why these debates might have been important to golf course architecture and the dates of the arguments and books.

First off, on Ian Andrew's website under the "Books that Shaped the Game", he says the following...

"I can not express how important this part of the Golden Age influenced future architects. It is the single most important decade in shaping most of the latest generation of architects." 

Given this quote and the fact it is in the "Books that Shaped the Game" portion of his website, I have to believe that the writing of the Golden Agers were important to golf course architecture and its development.

So, 1924 Crane's rankings are unvield.  Almost immediately debates break out.  Then from 1926-1927 Behr and Crane confront each other in magazine articles and debate penal/equitable architecture vs. strategic.

1926 "The Links" is released by Hunter.  On his website, Ian says the following about the book..."Hunter slowly educates the reader about golf architecture, particularly pointing out the failings of penal architecture and the elements of architecture that add the greatest interest"

1928---"Scotland's Gift" is released. Another classic book on architecture.

1929---"The Architectural Side of Golf" by Wethered and Simpson is released. Ian Andrew describes this book with htese comments..."This is perhaps the most thorough analysis of the strategic school of design. The book is very poignant and full of strong opinions particularly from Simpson when it comes to penal architecture."

1931(?) Mackenzie takes the notes which are used to make up The Spirit of St. Andrews.  Crane is mentioned specifically in this book.

So, were these debates which centered on the Crane the most significant moment in the entire history of golf course architecture?  Probably not.  But were they significant and important?  I say yes.  Very much so.

Again, these is only a direct mention of Crane in "The Spirit of St. Andrews", but since the debates were so heated and published in Golf Magazeines, I have to assume that the authors of the other books had to aware of them and, therefore, had to be influenced by them.

Given Ian Andrews' profession and his comments on the importance of these books, they are still influencing golf course architeture to this day.  Which makes them very important to the history of golf course architecture.

Anyway, I have to get back to work.  But, these are my thoughts. 

I anxiously await Tom M's newest piece on the subject as I hope to learn more about it.

Are you under the impression there were no heated architectural debates prior to 1924? There were a number of debates that were much more heated and involved a much larger number of high profile participants. The golf ball controversey is one that comes immediately to mind (actually more than one). The Berh-Crane debate was a minor debate historically.

You are ignoring all the books written before 1924 written by or with contributions from Low, Hutchinson, Darwin, Hilton, Hutchison, Fowler, Bauer, Ross, Colt, Alison, Mackenzie, Campbell, Hotchkin, Beale, the Suttons, etc. Not to mention the huge number articles written on the subject in magazines and newspapers prior to 1924.

The idea that this short lived debate spurned an architectural book movement is ridiculous IMO.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2010, 06:10:27 PM »
There were golf books, magazines, and debates before 1924?  Huh?  Really?

I guess you don't see my point at all.  Frankly, I think it is pretty easy to piece together and see...but you choose not to.

That is fine.

I look forward to your upcoming article on this topic.



Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #87 on: January 15, 2010, 11:03:37 AM »
“Although I believe the Crane-Behr debate was an interesting debate and worthy of an essay, my point has been it had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history, and I believe the fact that most are having difficulty answering my question about its impact confirms my point.”



This point, termed above as “my point” (that the Crane-Behr debate had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history), is, in my opinion, fairly misleading at worst and unnecessarily limiting at best (to a discussion) of the actual subject and issues articulated back then from and within the so-called “Crane-Behr debate.”

It is rarely, if ever, denied (by those who have comprehensively studied what Crane said, proposed, claimed, on one side of the debate and what particularly Behr said, proposed, claimed, on the other side of the debate) that those ISSUES they articulated are not interesting and potentially maximally important to not just golf architecture but to golf itself. The point is----do those issues (articulated in that debate) offer a good framework with which to better understand golf architecture principals or even the unique structural principals of golf itself?

It is frankly irrelevant if that debate and the issues articulated in that debate did not have much of an impact on golf and architecture back then-----eg there are numerous reasons an important impact from that debate on golf and architecture may not have resulted and been forthcoming back then and even up until today (that in and of itself is a subject for another highly important and interesting essay).

The real point (question) is----if the specific issues (subject) of that debate (what either side was saying, proposing and claiming) could be and were to be comprehensively and intelligently reprised and analyzed and discussed today COULD it result in an interesting and maximally important impact today and particularly on the future of golf architecture and even golf?

From having discussed this subject and so many of the details of it with Bob Crosby (and a few others who have studied it all very carefully) for a number of years, I believe that was and is Bob Crosby’s hope, his intention and his ultimate goal. I certainly know it is mine. I also believe Bob Crosby did a truly marvelous job of articulating in his essay the issues contained in that actual debate back then. Frankly I think he did a far better job of articulating and explaining the real issues within that debate back then than the actual debaters did.

I do not suggest that some of the issues on their own face within that debate back then, even the most fundamental issue contained in that debate (in my opinion and apparently in Behr’s opinion perhaps the absolute basic fundamental issue being the fact that golf may be the only stick and ball game in which the ball cannot be vied for between human opponents) are easy to embrace or appreciate or even understand. And consequently they are definitely harder still to embrace, appreciate and understand if one has not comprehensively read and considered them all as well as both how and why they were articulated in that debate.

However, that does not mean they are not or may not be maximally important to golf architecture and particularly golf both before those debates, during those debates and afterwards and into our future.

I would suggest for those interested in this subject and thread (which appears to be about Bob Crosby’s four part essay entitled “Joshua Crane in the Golden Age”) and in discussing the specifics of it that they go back and read and reread Parts III and IV, and particularly consider the following quotation from Max Behr in Crosby’s essay:

 “In a game the contest is for control of a common ball. Skill is opposed to skill, and hence is relative to the tasks which the opposition creates. But in all sports skill is expressed along parallel lines. That is to say, in sports there is a conceivably ideal way in which the task of skill might be accomplished by all contestants. We are conscious of this in the playing of a golf hole, and according to our abilities, we succeed or fail in paralleling this line. Thus golf belongs within the category of a sport. And in sport skill is comparative in solving similar problems. The actual opponent is golf is nature, the human opponent being merely a psychological hazard….”

I’ve long felt it was truly unfortunate and roundly misleading that Behr chose to make a distinction in this debate that golf should be considered a “sport” and that all other stick and ball games where a common ball is vied for between human opponents (unlike golf---eg apparently being the only stick and ball game where a ball is NOT in some way vied for between human opponents (or their ball) should be considered “games”). I think that distinction that Behr made while interesting and even maximally important (apparently he was the first one or even the only one who ever made that interesting distinction) unfortunately never advanced beyond general semantic confusion.

Behr's interesting point of the vast and fundamental importance to both golf and golf architecture that the structure of golf is that a ball in golf cannot be vied for between human opponents (or their implements and balls) unlike every other stick and ball game would probably have produced far more mileage in general understanding had he simply made that point, and the fundamental importance of it, and not attempted to categorize it (golf) with a different term----eg “sport.”

I say that because Crane had predicated his side of the debate on the fact that golf, and golf architecture, should be viewed and approached with the very same philosophy and goal of perfection, more standardized definition of “risk/reward” areas for fairness and lack of luck to serve the purpose of “competitive equity” (that Bob Crosby terms “CP&P”= equitable architecture) as all other stick and ball games whose very purpose and structure depend upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents------eg completely unlike golf and its very structure and purpose.






 






« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 11:20:09 AM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #88 on: January 20, 2010, 07:06:31 PM »
This thread has been pushed to the backburner recently, but I have been thinking about it continuously ever since I first started it.

Joshua Crane was brought to my attention while reading “The Spirit of St. Andrews” by Alister Mackenzie.  He mentions Crane and Behr very early on in the book and has some interesting things to say about him/them.

This inspired me to begin to search for more information on Crane and this search immediately led me to Bob Crosby’s piece on Joshua Crane which is posted in the “In My Opinion” section of this site.  Reading that proved to be an eye opening experience for me and led me to think about golf on an even deeper level. 

As I’ve written on this site before that I think golf is a magical game.  And reading about the Crane vs. Behr debates led me to believe that I am correct in that thought.  It is not a game like any other. In fact, it is quite unique.  Adam Clayman, Jim Sullivan, and Tom Paul all made comments on this very thread that seem to back that statement up. 

Adam said in reference to golf, “The game mind is more complex then the difference between the confines of a pool table and the freedom and variety of nature.” 

While Jim Sullivan followed that up with the following, “I think Adam touches on another real distinction between Golf (and all other Sports) and "Games"...the player is not competing against another. Whether it's a mountain, or a fish, they are on their own.

And much later Tom Paul said the following, “In my opinion, the articulation of that distinction between golf and all other sports or games----that fundamental uniqueness about golf, may’ve been the most important thing of all from Max Behr. It may even be the fundamental bedrock reason why golf was never meant to be fair or equitable in the context of its playing field as all other sports and games necessarily are and have to be simply because their very structure depends upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents-----completely UNLIKE golf!”

So, I think it is quite clear that golf is entirely unique in the sports world.  However, it appears that many, many people (Joshua Crane included) want to minimize that “uniqueness”.  They want fair and equitable courses.  They want the element of luck removed.  Now, do I have factual empirical evidence to support my claim?  No. 

But I do know that Tom Fazio is one of the most prolific golf course architects in the history of the game.  Inherent in that fact is that there is a high demand for his product.  But what is the main complaint that golf course architecture experts say about his work?  Well, Ian Andrew for one said, “Tom’s work can be characterized as too safe and too fair to be great.”  But if Tom Fazio is in high demand, doesn’t that mean that most golfers desire “fair” and, therefore, equitable golf courses?  And then, doesn’t that mean that Crane was right?  It probably does.

Furthermore, I have played Cuscowilla 5 times in my brief golfing career.  And every time I play the 5th hole with its shell-backed green, at least one of my playing partners will chip on to the green and watch his ball roll off the other side and exclaim full of frustration, “this just isn’t fair!!!” 

But what is even more interesting to me is that these very same players who think the 5th isn’t fair, can’t wait to play the course again and specifically talk about wanting to make par on that hole. 

Wasn’t it Mackenzie who said that great holes/courses will initially be criticized before they are understood and then loved?  I think so.  Doesn’t Mackenzie have 6 of the most highly regarded courses in the entire world?  Yes.  Weren’t Mackenzie’s ideas on golf course architecture in direct contrast to Crane’s?  Yes.  In fact, Mackenzie thought St. Andrew’s Old Course was the greatest course in the world and Crane thought it was the worst.

So, who is right and who won the argument?  Well, I think Mackenzie and Behr were right…but perhaps Crane won the arguments as more people can grasp the ideals he espoused more readily.  According to my research, most people don’t “get” St. Andrews right away.  In fact, most don’t see what the fuss is about at all.  But, most great architects and golfers LOVE St. Andrews. 

However, all of these points can be debated and discussed for many, many more years to come.  Just like they’ve been debated for the last 85 or so years since the original Crane debates first started.  Also, some on this site have said they don’t see how these debates were important.  Well, sometimes you can’t convince someone of anything if they don’t want to believe it.  Using the economy/markets as an example, you couldn’t convince most people that tech was a bad investment in the late 90’s…but the 2000’s proved it was.  You couldn’t convince most people that stocks were a good investment in March of 2009…but since then the S&P 500 has experienced an historic run up in value.  And it seems to me that the simple fact that we are still discussing these debates which took place over 80 years ago would prove their importance, but perhaps I am wrong.  I think the fact that one of the greatest architects of all time mentioned the debaters specifically by name in his notes/book would be further proof of their importance…but perhaps not.  Either way, it doesn’t matter to me.  I was under-weight tech stocks in 2000, I bought stocks in March of 2009, and I think these debates are important.

Furthermore, there has been a lot of discussion on this thread about “card and pencil” golfers in contrast to golfers simply playing the game.  For the record, I don’t care how you play the game…do what is right for you.  But I did stumble across this quote by John Low recently,

“The pity of golf today is that men play entirely to win and are afraid that they may be defrauded by some inequality of penalty from gaining the end of their desire. It would be happier for golf if we would only remember that the true good is in the playing, not in the winning.” 

Take the quote or leave it, I simply thought it was interesting and applicable to our previous discussion.

In conclusion, I go back to the Tom Paul quote I posted earlier...

“In my opinion, the articulation of that distinction between golf and all other sports or games----that fundamental uniqueness about golf, may’ve been the most important thing of all from Max Behr. It may even be the fundamental bedrock reason why golf was never meant to be fair or equitable in the context of its playing field as all other sports and games necessarily are and have to be simply because their very structure depends upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents-----completely UNLIKE golf!”


Is this why you can play while focusing on your stroke play score, your match play standing, or not worry about your score at all?  Is this the fundamental reason for the games magic? 

Anyway, that is what I got thus far…but I will continue to ponder why this game has such a hold on me!


Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2010, 07:26:15 PM »
Mac,
It's probably corerect to say that the discussions are worthwhile from a historical point, but I can't see that they changed anything at the time and they haven't changed anything today.

No one started building eminently fair golf courses in the late '20s, and what came after WW11 was the commercial golf course, built for volume.

I don't think there is a whit of difference between sport or game, not where there is some athleticism involved, and what makes golf so attractive has to do with the many ways in which it can be enjoyed, i.e. alone, in a group, against an opponent, against many opponents, against no one but yourself, an easy walk, a hard test, a commune with nature, a commune with yourself, and the list goes on and on.

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2010, 08:11:05 PM »
Mac:

I’m glad to see you’re interesting in carrying on with this subject!



“However, all of these points can be debated and discussed for many, many more years to come.  Just like they’ve been debated for the last 85 or so years since the original Crane debates first started.  Also, some on this site have said they don’t see how these debates were important.”




I’m not so sure some on this site said that debate (or its subject matter) was not important although at least one kept questioning what impact it had or kept claiming it really had little impact and consequently it must not be very important to reprise or discuss now. The impact the actual Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates had on golf and architecture very well may be somewhat irrelevant providing the subject matter and the points made in that debate can be considered fundamentally important to discuss henceforth. I think that is one primary reason Bob Crosby reprised that debate and wrote about it in the way he did----including changing some of the terms used that may’ve originally served to simply confuse many people back then. I think Bob’s creation of the terms “CP&P” (Control, Predictability and Proportionality) is brilliant because those terms much more accurately reflect what Crane was actually saying and proposing, as opposed to the “Penal” label (penal vs strategic) that was perhaps somewhat unfairly thrust on him in that debate. And I think the resulting term “Equitable Architecture” that directly results from a far greater application of CP&P as Crane was proposing is really brilliant on Bob’s part.






“So, who is right and who won the argument?  Well, I think Mackenzie and Behr were right…but perhaps Crane won the arguments as more people can grasp the ideals he espoused more readily.”




I think that question of yours is a natural one to ask and your quick answer to it is very accurate particularly the last part of it after the ("....."). Who actually won the argument or debate is probably a truly slippery item to pin down and it too may be somewhat irrelevant, again if the subject matter and points made are fundamentally important and relevant to discuss henceforth, particularly if they were not particularly well engaged or developed by the debaters back then.

So were the points well made and developed by the debaters back then and if not then why not? I don’t know that they were very well made or developed by Crane. But that might have had to do with the fact that he was attempting to do something somewhat different than Behr and Mackenzie claimed he was actually doing or ultimately going to do if his ideas were carefully followed of wrapping golf architecture in some context of formulaic and mathematical analysis. Behr and Mackenzie responded that they felt golf was wholly unable to be subjected to this type of mathematical and formulaic analysis simply because of what golf fundamentally was (its structure of an unvied for ball which essentially and effectively creates an additional "opponent" that frankly relies on a form and playing field of natural randomness) compared to other stick and ball games that depend on exact linear dimensions for their very purpose of making the vying for a common ball between human opponents more efficient in both time and space!

On the other hand, I think Behr developed some truly remarkable points in this debate and to a depth of explanation and insight (incite? ;) ) that had probably never been done before. Despite that Behr was a writer who was notoriously complex and difficult to understand and the other problem with that debate having a wider and better and bigger impact both back then and today is unfortunately the entire debate that was carried on over an extended period of time in a number of periodicals does not seem to have been compiled into one single place or volume where anyone back then or any or all of us today can read it and consider it carefully. Frankly one of the real drawbacks to discussing this debate or this subject on here is so few have access to what-all Crane wrote and particularly what-all Max Behr wrote, not to mention what Mackenzie wrote about it.

I’ll add more later…..

 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 08:36:48 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2010, 08:36:21 PM »
Mac
Cypress Point, Pasatiempo and Royal Melbourne were all laid out around the time Crane's system was under attack. How do you think those courses would have faired under Cranes rating system, and why?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2010, 08:41:56 PM »
Tom...

I am certainly interested to hear your "I'll add more later..." comments.

In the meantime, the point you make that the subject matter and the points made in that debate can be considered fundamentally important is what I have been trying to describe throughout this thread as opposed to the actual debates themselves, but apparently I've been doing a bad job at that.  Anyhow, the subject matter of the debates is what I am most interested in as they are what I think are vitally important.


Jim Kennedy mentions...

"what makes golf so attractive has to do with the many ways in which it can be enjoyed, i.e. alone, in a group, against an opponent, against many opponents, against no one but yourself, an easy walk, a hard test, a commune with nature, a commune with yourself, and the list goes on and on."

Jim's detail of all the ways golf can be enjoyed is potentially due to the fact that the ball isn't fought for (vied for) by opposing players/teams.  And isn't this what makes the game unique?  

Interesting to think about.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2010, 08:42:55 PM »
Tom M...

I have no clue.  Never played those courses.

Have you?  What are your thoughts regarding the same question?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #94 on: January 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM »
Tom M...

I have no clue.  Never played those courses.

Have you?  What are your thoughts regarding the same question?

I've played CPC and Pasatiempo. Even if you haven't played any those courses I assume you know what characterizes them, and Mackenzie's other well documented designs in the mid- to late-20s. I also assume you know Crane's system.

Based on that knowledge how do you think those courses would have rated out?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #95 on: January 20, 2010, 09:14:59 PM »
Tom M...

I suppose I don't see the value is offering up a speculative analysis of a course I haven't played according to a formula for rating courses that I didn't construct or agree with.  In fact, if you read up on Crane's method he states clearly that a thorough study of the elements of sound layout and upkeep are required.  Again, I haven't played the courses or studied them thoroughly.

However per your own words, you have.  So if you deem this important to our discussion, please detail your thoughts and explain to us how they might be useful in our discussion.

Furthermore, you mentioned you were preparing an essay in response to Bob's.  As I stated previously, I would be very interested in reading that.  Any progress updates?

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #96 on: January 20, 2010, 09:15:39 PM »
"Jim Kennedy mentions...

"what makes golf so attractive has to do with the many ways in which it can be enjoyed, i.e. alone, in a group, against an opponent, against many opponents, against no one but yourself, an easy walk, a hard test, a commune with nature, a commune with yourself, and the list goes on and on."

Jim's detail of all the ways golf can be enjoyed is potentially due to the fact that the ball isn't fought for (vied for) by opposing players/teams.  And isn't this what makes the game unique?  

Interesting to think about."



Mac:

I think it unquestionably is what makes it unique as well as how and why it can be played and enjoyed in all those ways Jim Kennedy mentioned. I really do believe that this fundamental point that basically Behr made in that debate is the bedrock issue and idea of all of this----eg golf is essentially the only stick and ball game in the world where the very structure of it depends on the fact that the ball does not have to be vied for and in fact cannot be vied for without violating its basic rules and principles. The fact that all other stick and ball games rely on a common ball vied for between human opponents makes their very structure and the principle of their games just so distinctly different from golf.

I'm afraid this difference is just so basic that over time most golfers have become unaware of it and consequently tend to try to gravitate towards the equitability between human opponents vying for a common ball which all other stick and ball games rely upon with their structure and point.

It is interesting to me that it does appear that Joshua Crane never even bothered to intelligently acknowledge this point of Behr's and engage him in it in that debate. As I said earlier on this thread, Crane was apparently a pretty smart guy who probably understood what it would mean in that debate if he actually did acknowledge that particular point Behr made and tried to discuss it regarding golf and equitableness (compared to other stick and ball games).

On the other hand, and probably ironically, Crane did specifically ask why golf should not be treated as all other games in the context of equitableness. But he asked it obviously before Behr answered him with that particular point about the structure of golf uniquely NOT being a common vied for ball. After Behr gave that answer, I think Crane avoided the point altogether.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #97 on: January 20, 2010, 09:46:05 PM »
Tom M...

I suppose I don't see the value is offering up a speculative analysis of a course I haven't played according to a formula for rating courses that I didn't construct or agree with.  In fact, if you read up on Crane's method he states clearly that a thorough study of the elements of sound layout and upkeep are required.  Again, I haven't played the courses or studied them thoroughly.

However per your own words, you have.  So if you deem this important to our discussion, please detail your thoughts and explain to us how they might be useful in our discussion.

Furthermore, you mentioned you were preparing an essay in response to Bob's.  As I stated previously, I would be very interested in reading that.  Any progress updates?



You've never had a problem speculating before.

Mackenzie is arguably the most famous golf architect in history, and his designs in the mid- to late-20s are arguably his greatest designs. If you are not familiar with Mackenzie's most famous designs why should we take anything you say on this subject seriously?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2010, 10:04:08 PM »
Tom M...

If you don't take what I say seriously, that is fine.  Like I've said many times before, I have thick skin and my feelings don't get hurt easily.  I'm not trying to impress anyone, I am trying to learn.  If you don't want to partipate in the process...that is fine.    However, if you want to particpate in the process...that would be great as well.  As I've said before, if I can help you with your work in any way...I am an email or a post away.  Either way is fine with me, regardless of your stance I wish you well and hope you have a great and fulfilling life.

I'm off to bed...have a great night.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #99 on: January 21, 2010, 09:34:45 AM »
“Mac
Cypress Point, Pasatiempo and Royal Melbourne were all laid out around the time Crane's system was under attack. How do you think those courses would have faired under Cranes rating system, and why?”


“I've played CPC and Pasatiempo. Even if you haven't played any those courses I assume you know what characterizes them, and Mackenzie's other well documented designs in the mid- to late-20s. I also assume you know Crane's system.
Based on that knowledge how do you think those courses would have rated out?”  



“You've never had a problem speculating before.
Mackenzie is arguably the most famous golf architect in history, and his designs in the mid- to late-20s are arguably his greatest designs. If you are not familiar with Mackenzie's most famous designs why should we take anything you say on this subject seriously?”






First, I don’t believe I know who the “we” refers to in the third statement above but I do know it isn’t me, as I take Mac Plumart very seriously, as I understand Bob Crosby and some others do. I take him seriously if he answers some irrelevant questions about how he thinks some of Mackenzie’s designs “rate out” under Joshua Crane’s mathematical GCA rating system but I take him just as seriously, perhaps even more seriously if he chooses not to answer those questions above. I take him just as seriously or perhaps more seriously if he chooses not to answer those questions above because the gist and heart and meat of the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate had nothing to do with how Mackenzie’s courses “rated out” under Crane’s system.

Matter of fact both Behr and Mackenzie in the beginning and middle and end of that debate did not even address or discuss or debate the actual complex merits and details of Crane’s mathematical GCA rating system (as apparently Joshua Crane originally hoped they would); they constantly maintained that such a system had no place in golf and golf architecture simply because the point of Crane's system seemed to suggest and head towards establishing greater “competitive equity” (fairness) between human opponents in golf.

They, and others, felt very strongly that such a system had no place in golf and no application to GCA and that such a system even presented a very dangerous and deleterious prospect for golf and architecture for a very fundamental reason----eg golf’s structure did not utilize a common ball vied for between human opponents as other stick and ball games necessarily did! The very point and purpose of all the other games in which a common ball was necessarily vied for depended on strict dimensional standards that directly served the purpose of "fairness" (competitive equity) essentially to most effectively manage time and space for human opponents vying for a common ball. But to golf’s architecture and by extension to golf itself this was in fact complete anathema-----and the fundamental reasons why it was anathema were given to Crane by both Mackenzie and particularly Behr in fascinating detail and depth that constituted a bedrock fundamental principle of golf itself----the fact that its very structure and point was not the vying for a common ball but the playing of an individual ball often in a "comparative" or parallel contest over a natural or a largely unregulated landscape with or against other players or competitors.

I think understanding better the foregoing, and where it may lead and may apply, is what Mac Plumart is interested in learning and discussing and I think he feels that this particular subject offers that framework and opportunity and I take him very seriously because of it. For the benefit of others who have any interest in this subject it might be worthwhile to cut and paste onto this thread a few of the salient points Bob Crosby made in his excellent essay that pertain to various posts.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 09:50:11 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back