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!