Strategic School Of Architecture

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,

As you pointed out, Behr made that same point to Crane, and it's not a given that the idea itself was wholly (or is that Holy ) Max's.
I'm sure that you've come across old articles where one architect used 'penal' as a slur towards another.

It was an original idea at some point, probably around a century ago.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
As you pointed out, Behr made that same point to Crane, and it's not a given that the idea itself was wholly (or is that Holy  ) Max's.
I'm sure that you've come across old articles where one architect used 'penal' as a slur towards another."


Jim:

It might be better for you to make that point to Bob Crosby rather than me. He wrote the essay and he did a lot of research on it even going to England to do research. The two of us have certainly discussed the subject (Penal vs Strategic) for years as we have the subjects of Crane and Behr and that debate, but nevertheless Bob wrote that essay, not me.

So it will be interesting to see what he says about who he thinks first used the term "penal" to describe someone's golf or architectural philosophy versus a term and philosophy such as "strategic."

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I've taken Bob's essay and added my own thoughts (and documentation) on what I believe was truly going on in golf architecture before, during and after the so-called Crane debates. The Crane debate was a minor blip in the greater scheme of things.

My version was a little too controversial for Ran to run, which is ironic considering mine is a counterpoint to Bob's essay about a public debate. But if anyone is interested in reading it I will be glad to email it.

Send me an email at thomas.macwood@sbcglobal.net

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
I didn't see where Bob Crosby was on here saying that someone else had 'taken' his idea from him, did you?  

I've read articles from the 'golden age' in which one architect was using 'penal' as a way of taking a shot at another, yet I cannot remember one in which an architect chose to say that he was from that 'school'. I'd think that your extensive perusals of old literature and articles would have revealed the same thing.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
I didn't see where Bob Crosby was on here saying that someone else had 'taken' his idea from him, did you?   "


Jim:

No I didn't either, but what is that supposed to mean? Do you think Bob Crosby is the only one on this website who should question something someone else says about his essay or part of the theme of his essay?  

Tom MacWood has for a long time maintained that there really wasn't much of anything to that so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie" debate in the 1920s because all architecture is some combination of penal and strategic design. He further maintained on here that the whole thing wasn't much more than Behr, Mackenzie et al's dissatisfaction that Crane's mathematical architecture rating formulae rated TOC so low.

I think as Bob Crosby explained so well in his essay there was a whole lot more to that debate than just the way MacWood views it.

[TEPaul]

"My version was a little too controversial for Ran to run, which is ironic considering mine is a counterpoint to Bob's essay about a public debate. But if anyone is interested in reading it I will be glad to email it.

Send me an email at thomas.macwood@sbcglobal.net"



Tom MacWood:

When you mention anyone do you actually mean that or are you going to make some exceptions and not email it to some such as myself? I think by this time you have my email address since we certainly have had plenty of email in the past. If you don't have it you can find it at the bottom of any of my posts. Please email it to me; I would love to see your 'counterpoint' to Bob's essay even if Ran Morrissett didn't use it because it was too controversial. 

[Sean_A]

TEP
I've taken Bob's essay and added my own thoughts (and documentation) on what I believe was truly going on in golf architecture before, during and after the so-called Crane debates. The Crane debate was a minor blip in the greater scheme of things.

My version was a little too controversial for Ran to run, which is ironic considering mine is a counterpoint to Bob's essay about a public debate. But if anyone is interested in reading it I will be glad to email it.

Send me an email at thomas.macwood@sbcglobal.net

Tommy Mac

I am not sure what "too controversial" means, but I think it a bloody shame that your piece wasn't posted.  Without exception your pieces are thoughtfully written and uncover interesting aspects or angles of course design and those people and events that influenced course design.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
I don't remember TMac saying the debate was meaningless, only that it wasn't a seminal moment in the history of GCA, but that's my take.

TMac entire post said:
The penal school of architecture was invented by golf architects to label other golf architects they didn't care for or agree with.
Let me reiterate, I've seen this same thing written in articles form the era.

No one ever claimed to be associated with the penal school of golf architecture.
I can't say that I've ever seen anyone say they were, have you?

There are no purely strategic or penal designs, all golf courses are blends of strategic and penal aspects, usually leaning one direction or the other.
I would say that everyone on this site would agree to the above, architects included.

As a general rule, American golf architecture after 1913 leaned more to the penal than did the British.
Question this one all you want, but I don't think ratings and slopes have softened over the ensuing decades.

[Steve Lang]

  One could say the most penal things get in some places is a little drainage ditch, some bunkers, and gorse.. or some guy in metal ready to slash you with a sword and gallop off..

[TEPaul]

TEP,
I don't remember TMac saying the debate was meaningless, only that it wasn't a seminal moment in the history of GCA, but that's my take."


Jim:

I don't remember Tom MacWod saying the debate was meaningless either. Where did you get that idea? Do you think someone said Tom MacWood inferred that debate was meaningless?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
Please.

Your words:
Tom MacWood has for a long time maintained that there really wasn't much of anything to  that so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie" debate in the 1920s

Mine:
I don't remember TMac saying the debate was meaningless,

Merriam's words (or was it Webster's):
Meaningless:   1. Lacking any significance

Play semantic games with yourself, thank you. 

[TEPaul]

“TEP,
Please.

Your words:
Tom MacWood has for a long time maintained that there really wasn't much of anything to  that so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie" debate in the 1920s

Mine:
I don't remember TMac saying the debate was meaningless,

Merriam's words (or was it Webster's):
Meaningless:   1. Lacking any significance

Play semantic games with yourself, thank you.    ”





Jim Kennedy:

As you quoted above, here are my words on what I feel Tom MacWood said about the importance or significance of the Crane/Behr debate;

“Tom MacWood has for a long time maintained that there really wasn't much of anything to  that so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie" debate in the 1920s”


And here are Tom MacWood’s own words from this morning on this thread about what he feels was the importance or significance of the Crane/Behr debate:


“The Crane debate was a minor blip in the greater scheme of things.”




Do you really see any difference at all between what he says he feels about the importance and significance of the Crane/Behr debate and what I said I believe he feels about it? Or should we look in the Dictionary for the definition of the word “BLIP?” I think we will all find it means something that really isn’t of much importance or significance which is not exactly the same thing as something with no meaning at all-----eg meaningless----without meaning, no meaning etc, etc.

Again, Tom MacWood has maintained on here for a long time that the debate was unimportant in the broad scheme of things (a blip) because he maintains all architecture has some degree of the penal and the strategic in it and he also maintained that he feels the debate was mostly over the fact that Crane's mathematical forumlae for rating golf architecture rated TOC so low.

Bob, on the other hand, saw a great deal of importance and significance in that debate as he believes apparently a number of others did at that time as well, and certainly including the likes of Behr, Ambrose, Mackenzie and perhaps Bob Jones.

I very much agree with Bob Crosby's essay and I do not agree with the view of Tom MacWood on it in which he apparently maintains it was unimportant and a blip in the broad scheme of things.

And THAT is what I think we ought to be concentrating on with this subject and thread and not some hair-splitting discussion of the exact meaning of blip and meaningless and which one means something of greater or lesser importance or significance. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim Kennedy:
And THAT is what I think we ought to be concentrating on with this subject and thread and not some hair-splitting discussion of the exact meaning of blip and meaningless and which one means something of greater or lesser importance or significance. 

Then you ought to stop playing games, as it was you who came up with the hair splitting, not me.

Jim:
I don't remember Tom MacWod(sic) saying the debate was meaningless either. Where did you get that idea?

From you, but speaking of hairs, you couldn't squeeze one between any reasonable persons interpretation of 'meaningless' and 'there really wasn't much of anything' when used in the same context to describe the same thing.
If you'd like to get back to the subject then please do, and lay off the meaningless semantics.

[TEPaul]

"Jim Kennedy:

It seems without fail on some of these select issues and subjects you tend to come on these threads just pretty much to argue.

I should point out to you that pretty much each item you put in bolds in your Post #57 were points Bob Crosby made himself in his excellent three part article on here entitled Joshua Crane (which was all about that so-called "Penal vs Strategic" debate or the so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate).

That is why I mentioned that it appears Tom MacWood borrowed one of them. It now seems (as reiterated in bolds in your Reply #57) he pretty much borrowed all of them from Bob Crosby's essay, and is now seemingly saying this is the way he feels about that debate.

And that most certainly does make one wonder what it is that MacWood is disagreeing with in Bob Crosby's essay and particularly why Tom MacWood felt the need to write a counterpoint essay to Bob's essay which MacWood claimed Ran apparently thought was too controversial to put on here.  

The question then becomes what is it about Bob Crosby's essay that Tom MacWood disagrees with? Or perhaps as of today Tom MacWood even disagrees with his own "counterpoint" essay that Ran thought too controversial to put on here. Perhaps now MacWood agrees with Bob Crosby's essay as I do and always have.

I guess some of us will find out soon if we can take him at his word that he is willing to email his "Counterpoint" essay to Bob's essay to anyone who wants it.

I told him on a post today that I wanted it and I hope he emails it to me.

Do you want Tom MacWood's "counterpoint" essay Jim Kennedy? Have you even read Bob Crosby's essay and carefully considered it? If so, when was that?

If the answer is yes perhaps after a while a good discussion can be had by comparing and contrasting what both essays have to say about that so-called Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate that took place through the latter half of the 1920s and what the degree of the importance of it was either back then or perhaps to us today or into the future.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
Now you're getting ridiculous. You made a superfluous and semantical argument and now you're accusing me of being inflammatory?

But be that as it may, now your calling TMac a plagiarist, or does your remark that "...he (TMac) pretty much borrowed all of them from Bob Crosby's essay" or are you going to argue that because you didn't actually use the word you weren't calling him one?

Squirrel your semantic tail out of that one. 


p.s. I've read Bob's essay, and I just got TMac's counterpoints.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:


If Tom MacWood borrowed an idea or a number of them from Bob Crosby's really fine essay and put them on this particular thread I would say that should be considered as Tom MacWood beginning to get a good education on this subject and definitely not plagarism! To me that would indicate he agrees with Crosby's essay, and not that he's trying to plagarize it on here. After all this is a Discussion Group on which we often agree and disagree with the things others say.

However, if Tom MacWood is going to claim the ideas in Bob's essay are his original ideas and not Bob's then I will begin to consider that MacWood is getting into plagarism unless and until he can show someone both WHEN and WHERE he came up with and then WROTE the same ideas (essentially using many of the same words) that are in Bob's essay before Bob Crosby came up with them and wrote them in his essay on here.

But again, I look forward to reading MacWood's "counterpoint" essay because at this point I'm wondering what Tom MacWood thinks it is in his essay that COUNTERpoints Bob Crosby's essay.

[TEPaul]

By the way, Jim Kennedy, even though I asked for it on this thread I have not gotten Tom MacWood's "counterpoint" essay to Bob Crosby's essay from Tom MacWood.

Since you just mentioned above that you just got his "Counterpoints" would it be too much to ask you to please email them to me (my email can be found at the bottom of all my posts) or do you think that might be some kind of violation of some kind of trust or some kind of agreement I'm not aware of?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think there's going to be any state secrets revealed so I'd guess he'll send them to whoever asks for them, and there wasn't any disclaimer in the email I received warning that the points weren't to be distributed. 

I don't think he'd want to exclude you if there is to be any future discussion of the points he's making in his 'rebuttal' (I'm not going to look up the dozens of other words that convey the same meaning as 'rebuttal'), if it can be called that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Since you just mentioned above that you just got his "Counterpoints" would it be too much to ask you to please email them to me (my email can be found at the bottom of all my posts) or do you think that might be some kind of violation of some kind of trust or some kind of agreement I'm not aware of? 

TEP,
Eventually they will get you, and then you can stop being paranoid. 

I have no secret agreements with anyone on this site, and Three-Finger Brown has enough digits to count all the messages between TMac and myself in the 8 or 9 years that I've been on this site. 

[TEPaul]

"I don't think he'd want to exclude you if there is to be any future discussion of the points he's making in his 'rebuttal' (I'm not going to look up the dozens of other words that convey the same meaning as 'rebuttal'), if it can be called that."


Jim Kennedy:

Is there any particular reason why you called it a rebuttal rather than a counterpoint as MacWood seems to call it? If not then why is your word rebuttal in single quotes above? Who said it?

[TEPaul]

Well, I did get via email what Tom MacWood referred to on his Reply #52 as his 'counterpoint' of Bob Crosby's essay on here entitled "Joshua Crane."

Thank you for emailing it to me Tom MacWood, I appreciate that.

In the hope of not violating some trust or unspoken agreement I am going to include what Tom MacWood said to me about his so-called 'counterpoint' essay in that email. Here it is:

"TEP
Let me warn you the format is unusual. The meat of the essay is all  
Bob's; the footnotes and images are mine. Its sort of an essay within  
as essay.
TM"

(there are a number of ‘sics” I should have included in MacWood’s email to me but I’ll spare you all because he is a really poor grammarian with his writing on here)

I would even be glad to put on here what I said to him in response to his email message before I even began to read his so-called 'counterpoint' essay to Bob Crosby's essay entitled "Joshua Crane," if anyone else is interested!  


When Tom MacWood says the format is unusual I think I'd agree with him completely.

It seems he counterpoints Crosby's essay only when Crosby puts in a footnote, and the numbers of Tom MacWood's "counterpoints" which are in the format of numerical notes throughout Crosby's essay seem to correspond numerically identically to Crosby's own footnotes in his essay. I cannot yet quite figure out exactly why that is! Could it be that the only items and points Crosby presents in his essay that he footnoted are the only items and points in Crosby's essay that Tom MacWood disagrees with? If that were the case it most certainly would be a most remarkably COINCIDENTAL "counterpoint" essay!  

In Tom MacWood's post on here mentioning his ‘counterpoint’ essay he says Ran Morrissett did not put his "counterpoint" essay on here because he (Ran) felt it was too controversial, and MacWood goes on to say;

“My version was a little too controversial for Ran to run, which is ironic considering mine is a counterpoint to Bob's essay about a public debate.”

I wonder if Ran Morrissett felt this so-called ‘counterpoint’ essay of Tom MacWood’s was too controversial to put on here or perhaps just not very good or worthwhile enough for any of us to read and consider. I suppose only Ran Morrissett can answer that and I doubt he’d be interested in doing that. For my part, even though I certainly will read the entire Tom MacWood ‘counterpoint’ essay which he kindly sent me, I must say I have gotten through just ten of Crosby’s footnote numbers and MacWood’s commensurate counterpoints in footnote format and my opinion of MacWood as a GCA or historical analyst is less now than it was before and it was frighteningly low before I read this so-called ‘counterpoint’ essay to Bob Crosby’s extremely good essay on here entitled “Joshua Crane.”

However, I don’t see anything remotely controversial about this “counterpoint” essay of MacWood’s and I see no reason not to post it on a thread rather than on the “In My Opinion” section of this website. I’m quite sure that would not bother Ran Morrissett.

If no one is interested in seeing it, that’s fine by me but if anyone is interested in seeing it and considering it just say the word and I’ll start at the beginning of it and slowly post it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

(there are a number of ‘sics” I should have included in MacWood’s email to me but I’ll spare you all because he is a really poor grammarian with his writing on here)

Poor grammarian? You must not have read the above as you were typing it.  This, from the same man who writes 100 word sentences, and thinks 'extant' is a noun?     

An attack like the one in the quote is not criticism, and I really don't know how you can be critical of TMac's essay as you said that you have only  "....gotten through just ten of Crosby’s footnote numbers and MacWood’s commensurate counterpoints". 

On second thought, you might as well start chopping it apart now, you've removed any surprise about the outcome.

[Tom MacWood]

Well, I did get via email what Tom MacWood referred to on his Reply #52 as his 'counterpoint' of Bob Crosby's essay on here entitled "Joshua Crane."

Thank you for emailing it to me Tom MacWood, I appreciate that.

In the hope of not violating some trust or unspoken agreement I am going to include what Tom MacWood said to me about his so-called 'counterpoint' essay in that email. Here it is:

"TEP
Let me warn you the format is unusual. The meat of the essay is all  
Bob's; the footnotes and images are mine. Its sort of an essay within  
as essay.
TM"

(there are a number of ‘sics” I should have included in MacWood’s email to me but I’ll spare you all because he is a really poor grammarian with his writing on here)

I would even be glad to put on here what I said to him in response to his email message before I even began to read his so-called 'counterpoint' essay to Bob Crosby's essay entitled "Joshua Crane," if anyone else is interested!  


When Tom MacWood says the format is unusual I think I'd agree with him completely.

It seems he counterpoints Crosby's essay only when Crosby puts in a footnote, and the numbers of Tom MacWood's "counterpoints" which are in the format of numerical notes throughout Crosby's essay seem to correspond numerically identically to Crosby's own footnotes in his essay. I cannot yet quite figure out exactly why that is! Could it be that the only items and points Crosby presents in his essay that he footnoted are the only items and points in Crosby's essay that Tom MacWood disagrees with? If that were the case it most certainly would be a most remarkably COINCIDENTAL "counterpoint" essay!  

I'm sure a few of my footnotes do correspond in placement to Bob's, but for the most part I don't believe that is the case. I have 112 footnotes compared to 47 in Bob's original essay. Obviously you haven't read it yet...maybe you should wait and read it before commenting.

In Tom MacWood's post on here mentioning his ‘counterpoint’ essay he says Ran Morrissett did not put his "counterpoint" essay on here because he (Ran) felt it was too controversial, and MacWood goes on to say;

“My version was a little too controversial for Ran to run, which is ironic considering mine is a counterpoint to Bob's essay about a public debate.”

I wonder if Ran Morrissett felt this so-called ‘counterpoint’ essay of Tom MacWood’s was too controversial to put on here or perhaps just not very good or worthwhile enough for any of us to read and consider. I suppose only Ran Morrissett can answer that and I doubt he’d be interested in doing that. For my part, even though I certainly will read the entire Tom MacWood ‘counterpoint’ essay which he kindly sent me, I must say I have gotten through just ten of Crosby’s footnote numbers and MacWood’s commensurate counterpoints in footnote format and my opinion of MacWood as a GCA or historical analyst is less now than it was before and it was frighteningly low before I read this so-called ‘counterpoint’ essay to Bob Crosby’s extremely good essay on here entitled “Joshua Crane.”

You maybe right perhaps he didn't feel it was good enough or up to the standard of GCA, all I know is what he told me, but you should probably read it yourself first before making any judgements. IMO it does paint alternative view of the Crane-Behr debate, and what was really happening in golf architecture at the time.

However, I don’t see anything remotely controversial about this “counterpoint” essay of MacWood’s and I see no reason not to post it on a thread rather than on the “In My Opinion” section of this website. I’m quite sure that would not bother Ran Morrissett.

If no one is interested in seeing it, that’s fine by me but if anyone is interested in seeing it and considering it just say the word and I’ll start at the beginning of it and slowly post it.

[TEPaul]

"I'm sure a few of my footnotes do correspond in placement to Bob's, but for the most part I don't believe that is the case. I have 112 footnotes compared to 47 in Bob's original essay. Obviously you haven't read it yet...maybe you should wait and read it before commenting."


That's true; I've only gotten through about the first twenty of your footnotes, and you're right, I should read the whole thing before commenting.

Did Ran Morrissett mention to you WHY he thinks this "counterpoint" essay of yours is too controversial?

[BCrosby]

I received Tom Mac's counterpoint piece a while back. I am honored he took the time to read my essay.

I've been thinking for a while about the best way to respond. First, most of Tom Mac's points were discussed in threads here. We all have more interesting hills to climb than to rehash those threads. As with most of the threads I've seen in which Mac participates, counter argurmement to his points don't seem to make much difference. Unlike in good discussions, they don't build to something better. Rather they tend to go round and round forever. I have no interest in engaging in those sorts of discussions. At some point, nobody is learning very much. People are just yelling at each other.

But my real hesitation in respsonding in any detail has to do with the idea at the center of his comments. Tom Mac thinks that the Crane debate was a minor one and that Crane was not taken seriously. Here on planet normal, that is not something about which reasonable men can disagree. Compounding that craziness are debates that Tom Mac cites as the really important ones in the Golden Age. One is the debate over the ball, which was huge, but as much a rules debate as an architectural debate and one that could have been ended with the stroke of a legislator's pen. The other is the debate over whether American courses are better than UK courses. I'm not impressed.

There were some factual errors in my piece. Tom points out a couple; there are several others that I will fix on the next go ground. None have a bearing on my main arguments.

There are what I consider a number of cheap debating tricks, misunderstandings or simple misrreadings. That's how it goes, I guess. But special mention should be made of Tom Mac's strange voyage into hypothetical land in which A.C.M. Croome and Charles Ambrose become blithering idiots who were fooled by the crafty Crane into publishing his pieces for more than three years in the most prestigous sporting magazine in Britain. (The doubly weird thing is that even if we assume that Crane was a complete fraud and had never seen a golf course, even if we assume that Croome and Ambrose were slobbering fools, it doesn't matter. This is not an attribution debate where what happened was unclear. We know exactly what happened. We know who wrote what, when and where. The historical record is perfectly clear. The published texts are what is important about the Crane debate. Those texts were what raised the fascinating issues that people debated. Magnificently, I might add.) 

I've gone on too long. I'm sorry Tom Mac didn't like my piece. I got lots of comments from lots of people on and off line. I greatly enjoyed almost all of those discussions. But all shared the basic premise that the Crane debates were interesting and important and worth revisiting. People who can't get past that threshold are people I don't have much desire to engage with.

Bob