"The thing I find so fascinating about this whole area of GCA discussion is how all the moving parts fit together and this is precisely why I think that discussing Crane/Behr, American vs. British courses, Bob's essay and Macwood's additions is very appropriate."
Mac:
The entire area or era (perhaps the late 19th century up to perhaps the 1930s or even to date) is fascinating with all its moving parts and evolution. But again, Bob Crosby wrote an essay on the so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie" debate which took place from about the mid-1920s into the early 1930s. Bob did not really intend to cover a far larger or longer era or event----he chose to cover that specific debate which MacWood has implied was not very important in the broad scheme of things. I for one disagree and I know Bob Crosby does too because the broad scheme of things very well might include the fact that that debate back then was not that well joined or understood but the issues that were aired in it, particularly by Behr, are incredibly important to reprise and revisit and not as some discussion of some historical event in time but for the future of golf and architecture!!
"It appears to me that once you begin to not only know the relevant facts (Crane's articles, TOC history, NGLA, etc), but seeing how they fit together and why and how things evolved and occurred is when the magic really starts to happen. And this is why I like when Tom Macwood provides more "meat" to his posts and questions."
Tom MacWood seems to have suggested that Crane did not start the interest or proposition of more "equity," "equitableness," more fairness and less luck in golf and architecture and that is somehow important to know because it somehow might minimize the importance of the issues aired in that Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate. I don't agree with that at all, and either does Crosby. Crosby said in his article that Crane did not invent the idea. Inventing the idea is not the point at all, at least not of Crosby's article. What is the point of it is the articulation of the issues involved in that debate, particularly by Behr! Did anyone before him delve into the depths he did about why golf and architecture should maintain its inherent luck factor and steer clear of a fixation with "fairness" equity, control, predictability, proportionality (C,P &P) the way Behr did as a result of that particular debate with Crane? If anyone did to that extent, I'm sure not aware of it or who did it. That's a large part of the point of Crosby's essay! MacWood seems to have missed that point entirely!
"I for one think Bob Crosby's article(s) is/are great. I find reading Macwoods addittions to it fascinating. If for no other reason then they add to the context to some of Bob's points. Is Tom Macwood right and/or wrong on his additions? I am sure the answer is "yes", but it varies depending on what section you are talking about. It seems to me that any great discovery is a process. And the process needs to be joined together by competent groups of people who have passion for the subject at hand."
Is MacWood right and/or wrong on his additons? Good quesiton. I happen to think he is wrong to counterpoint Crosby's essay with an eye towards suggesting the issues within the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate were not particularly important. But he might be right with his additons or counterpoints or whatever one wants to call them, if he just wanted to do his own article on the entire 30 or 40 or 50 or even 110 year history of the entire evolution of the ideas and philosophies of greater equity and fairness in golf and architecture-----OR even less equity and fairness in golf and architecture. Let MacWood write his own essay then addressing a far longer timeframe if he thinks that adds something. Trying to minmize the importance of the issues within that Crane/Behr debate is not the way to do that, however; at least not in my opinion.
"In this instance, Bob put forth a great piece of work. Tom was added to it. We should continue to polish it up, add questions, make comments, research points of dispute, and work on it until the research mosaic in complete. Perhaps this is something a group of people can do, perhaps it is an individual task that each and everyone of us who has an interest should do on their own."
Bob Crosby most certainly did put forth a great piece of work. And I don't think MacWood added to Crosby's work at all or even intelligently counterpointed it----it actually seems he tried to minimize it and suggest the theme and the issues Bob explored in the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate was not particularly important!
"If I have my facts straight, Tom Macwood doesn't think that the Crane/Behr debates were vitally important to the evolution of golf course architecture. One of his points is that these types of discussions had been occurring many years prior to the Crane/Behr debates. I am sure he is right. But isn't that a sign that the topic Crane/Behr were discussing was very important. GCA enthusiasts discussed these types of issues prior to Crane/Behr, and to this very day we are still discussing these issues."
That's right MacWood apparently doesn't seem to think the Crane/Behr debates were vitally important because I think he's missing Crosbys' entire point here. Crosby never denied that the issue may've been going on for some years and he may even admit that the debate itself was not particularly well understood at the time. I think Crosby's point is, or should be, that that is not important if the issues delved into and discussed during those debates really are of fundamental importance to golf and architecture, and not just to back then but particularly now and into the future. If they weren't that well understood back then that to me is the very reason WHY Crosby chose to reprise and re-present those fundamental issues of that debate and why he even included a few new terms of his own which arguably explain better what was at issue here (Crosby mentioned many times that the term "penal" was not a particularly good one to use on Crane or perhaps anyone else, and he explained why that was so).
"If we continue to work on it, think about it, polish it up, debate it, perhaps we can add the next step in the research/discovery process."
I think that is precisely what Crosby was trying to do with that essay and the point he was trying to make; a point, I might add, that MacWood seems to have missed almost entirely.
"At least that is my take on it and why I find this thread and these topics so interesting and important."
I think your take is pretty good, Mac, particularly if you fully understand what Crosby was trying to do with that essay, "Joshua Crane" and what he was not trying to do with it. And that includes what MacWood was apparently trying to do by "counterpointing"
Crosby's essay as he did, rather than just writing his own essay covering a far broader time and perhaps a number of other issues that Crosby chose not to get into and for what seems like good reasons.