Strategic School Of Architecture

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

AGAIN, you seem to think that Crane had to have been a trend-setter for the debate he had in the 1920s with Behr/MacKenzie to have been a most important one.

I've never understood why you think that if Crane did not originate some of the issues that were developed in that debate that that would make that debate unimportant. The fact is even if Crane did not originate some of the issues of that debate for some reason he did inspire the likes of particularly Behr to articulate some fundamental issues to do with golf and architecture that had never before been articulated in that way. That is what was important about that debate in the evolution and history of golf and architecture.

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, a few times on recent posts you've mentioned a number of things you pointed out in 'my essay.'  What essay would that be? If you're referring to what you wrote and sent to some of us-----eg the same thing you mentioned on here that Ran Morrissett did not put on this website because he felt, as you said, it was too controversial , I doubt anyone would call THAT an essay. It was more like some bizarre and petty attempt to counterpoint Bob Crosby's excellent essay entitled "Joshua Crane" by essentially trying to change the subject and theme of Crosby's essay and implying it was unimportant and the true story surrounding the Crane/Behr debate was in fact much larger, perhaps even including what you refer to as 'the American Movement' in golf architecture.

Perhaps you should consider writing your own essay on that subject because your "counterpoint" of Crosby's essay was neither that or particularly useful in any way or sense.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I'm still waiting for someone tell me what resulted from this important debate. Did it make a sound? I don't think this debate compares in importance to the impact of Vardon's criticism, or Taylor's for that matter. What do you think?

I will admit it is unorthodox, but I would say mine is an essay within an essay. It was the only effective way I could deal with all the areas Bob addressed. I would never write an essay that dealt with the realities of the American movement, the Crane-Behr debate, Mallabey-Deeley & JH Taylor, RTJ and the USGA. They are mostly unrelated and the result would have been an incoherent mess, which is why I chose the footnote method. An essay on the American movement would be interesting I think.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I'm still waiting for someone tell me what resulted from this important debate. Did it make a sound? I don't think this debate compares in importance to the impact of Vardon's criticism, or Taylor's for that matter. What do you think?"


What do I think of those issues you mentioned and the question you asked above? Do you really want to know, Tom MacWood? 

[Tom MacWood]

Yes, please answer it, and while you're at it answer the other question I asked that you missed. What were the concrete results from this important debate? Where did Crane suggest control on incremental shots?

[Sean_A]

Yes, please answer it, and while you're at it answer the other question I asked that you missed. What were the concrete results from this important debate? Where did Crane suggest control on incremental shots?

Tommy Mac

What are the CONCRETE results of any philosophical debate conducted through magazines about gca?  This is a question that needn't be answered to make this particular debate in important. 

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

The one that immediately comes to mind is the controversey and ensuing debate caused by Harry Vardon's critique of American golf architecture in 1914, whcih sparked the American movement. The Best Hole Discussion, which is what inspired CB Macdonald. Horcace Hutchinon's criticism of Boston golf architecture, which was followed by a debate, some serious soul searching, and ultimated a redesign movement in that city. The amateur vs professional architecture debate in Britain, which settled that convtroversey once and for all in the UK, and opened the flood gates for amateur architects. The Haskel debate, which preceded the start of the so called golden age.

I wrote an essay on the history of criticism and debate for the magazine Golf Architecture. I can forward it to you if you'd like.

[Sean_A]

The one that immediately comes to mind is the controversey and ensuing debate caused by Harry Vardon's critique of American golf architecture in 1914. The Best Hole Discussion, which is what inspired CB Macdonald. Horcace Hutchinon's criticism of Boston golf architecture, which was followed by a debate, some serious soul searching, and ultimated a redesign movement in that city. The amateur vs professional architecture debate in Britain. The Haskel debate. I wrote an essay on the subject for the magazine Golf Architecture.

Tommy Mac

I thought you were looking for concrete results of debates?  As in direct, causal relationship - meaning you are placing way too emphasis on "the debate" and very little and on the men of action.  Your suggestions are far from concrete results.  We can extrapolate all day on the matter, but if concrete results is the measure of importance on a debate than we may as well outlaw debating. 

So now Harry Vardon is responsible for the rise of good American architecture?  What?  Before Vardon nobody thought architecture could be better?

The best hole discussion was responsible for the work CB Mac did? What?  CB Mac never had a a thought on this matter previously?

HH is responsible for redesign efforts in Boston?  Huh?

What came of the Haskell debate?  The debate occurred, but regardless, innovation marched forward.  Was it ever in doubt? 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I will admit it is unorthodox, but I would say mine is an essay within an essay. It was the only effective way I could deal with all the areas Bob addressed. I would never write an essay that dealt with the realities of the American movement, the Crane-Behr debate, Mallabey-Deeley & JH Taylor, RTJ and the USGA. They are mostly unrelated and the result would have been an incoherent mess, which is why I chose the footnote method. An essay on the American movement would be interesting I think."


Tom MacWood:

After having carefully read your "counterpoint" to Bob Crosby's essay, the thing you call your essay or your essay within an essay (his essay), I would say yours is unorthodox and I would also say that it is what the inconherent mess is.

Your whole approach on this website and this thread to Bob Crosby's essay and the issues dealt with in it seem to be accurately reflected in your own remark above in which you say in one sentence you would never write an essay that dealt with the realities of the American movement and then in the last sentence of the same remark you say you think an essay on the American movement would be interesting!

I suppose one should take that to mean you think an essay on the American movement that does not deal with the realities of the American movement is what would be interesting.  

These kinds of incoherent and contradictory musings and ramblings on your part on these posts seem to be most representative of your approach and MO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac,

Good answers....now, was that so hard?

I gather the Lido contest would be in there somewhere as a big influencer.  Other than that, I would surmise all those debates, articles, contests, had an influence on gca, as did the Crane debate and its just conjecture how much each was relatively.  But, as I pointed out, starting with Thompson some gca's used charts to evaluate designs, so I would say Crane had some influence if his charts were the first widely known ones.

Can someone point me to a copy of the so called Boston debate?

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
Yes, Vardon's criticism (and Darwin's) sparked the American movement. Have you read my counterpoint essay?

[TEPaul]

"Yes, Vardon's criticism (and Darwin's) sparked the American movement."


Depending on what is meant by the American movement, that remark most certainly would be quite the analytical stretch! Perhaps you should do another essay comparing and contrasting which was the greater influence on early American architecture, Vardon and Darwin or the "Arts and Crafts" Movement. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Whiile I don't disagree with TMac, its just hard to say what influenced who from 100 years distant.

That said, if then was like now, and a guy like Vardon spoke, I would guess it would carry more weight than a guy like Crane, just as a gca comment by Jack Nicklaus would now carry more wieght in public than any comment I might make, or a critic like Brad Klien, Geoff Shak, etc.

[Tom MacWood]

The one that immediately comes to mind is the controversey and ensuing debate caused by Harry Vardon's critique of American golf architecture in 1914. The Best Hole Discussion, which is what inspired CB Macdonald. Horcace Hutchinon's criticism of Boston golf architecture, which was followed by a debate, some serious soul searching, and ultimated a redesign movement in that city. The amateur vs professional architecture debate in Britain. The Haskel debate. I wrote an essay on the subject for the magazine Golf Architecture.

Tommy Mac

I thought you were looking for concrete results of debates?  As in direct, causal relationship - meaning you are placing way too emphasis on "the debate" and very little and on the men of action.  Your suggestions are far from concrete results.  We can extrapolate all day on the matter, but if concrete results is the measure of importance on a debate than we may as well outlaw debating.  

So now Harry Vardon is responsible for the rise of good American architecture?  What?  Before Vardon nobody thought architecture could be better?

I take it you have not read my counterpoint essay.

The best hole discussion was responsible for the work CB Mac did? What?  CB Mac never had a a thought on this matter previously?

I take it you have not read CBM's autobiography.

HH is responsible for redesign efforts in Boston?  Huh?

I take it you are not familiar with HHG tour of the US in 1910.

What came of the Haskell debate?  The debate occurred, but regardless, innovation marched forward.  Was it ever in doubt?  

Innovation and progress is inevitable but there is no way golf architecture would have developed as quickly had it not been for the Haskel. The popularity of the game exploded with its introduction, as did the redesign and design movement to keep up with popularity and to keep older courses viable. Cause and effect.
Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

What resulted from the important Crane debate?

[TEPaul]

"That said, if then was like now, and a guy like Vardon spoke, I would guess it would carry more weight than a guy like Crane, just as a gca comment by Jack Nicklaus would now carry more wieght in public than any comment I might make, or a critic like Brad Klien, Geoff Shak, etc."



Jeffrey:

Actually, back then was nothing like now; there is a ton of historical written material from that time that in many ways pretty much proves the very opposite of what you just said above and THAT is what is so historically interesting about that time in architecture and architectural philosophy and debate.

At least with that "amateur/sportsman" element that got so involved in writing as well as in the creation of various really significant courses and architecture. The "professional" element in architecture had gotten very little respect from them, at least before say the late teens and early 1920s when the professional architect element really got organized and began to devote themselves soley to golf course architecture.

I do not think it was just coincidental that it was at that point that those impressive creations of the early days such as Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley et al were never begun again after that time. At that point, those "amateur/sportsmen" architects and philosophers of the early days must have felt the professional element had finally gotten good enough and there was no reason in the future to do what they had done previously with creations such as those mentioned which still today are some of the most respected courses and architecture in the world.

My feeling on that interesting evolution of that early time is not just that the professional element (or some of them) did not have the talent to do really good architecture; it was more a matter of the fact that up until the teens and early 1920s they just never really had the opportunity to spend the time it took on various projects those famous "amateur/sportsmen" had spent on theirs that made their courses and them famous.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

In many ways that kind of thing paralleled the ongoing question (I guess debate) about who the best golfers were---eg the top amateurs or the professionals. That debate (obviously fueled by the career of the great Bob Jones) would carry on perhaps even into the mid 1950s and might arguably have finally been decided in that event that became the subject of the recent book called "The Match"----- amateurs Venturi and Ward against Hogan and Nelson in a massive bet match at CPC drummed up by Coleman and Lowery. It was one helluva match of incredible golf that came down to the very last putt on the last green, and Hogan sunk it!

[TEPaul]

"What resulted from the important Crane debate?"


It has long been my opinion that the most important thing that resulted from the Crane debate was the extensive writing that Behr did on many of the underlying fundamentals and essences of both golf and golf architecture, and even on some of the fundamental and perhaps even subliminal emotions and sentimentalities of the golfer generally, particularly towards golf course architecture.

I don't think anything half that fundamentally searching and good and important was ever done before or since.

The historic irony is it may've been partially responsible for the likes of Behr and Mackenzie to come up with a new expression in architecture that was apparently never well understood and consequently never really took hold.

But can it now, if the issues that were developed in that debate are far better understood and appreciated? It has always been my understanding that THIS is the point Bob Crosby's essay makes and it is the reason he reprised that debate and wrote about it as well as he did.

Unfortunately, we have some with the outlook Tom MacWood seems to have which is if the debate was not important back then or if it did not have a large impact back then there is no reason to assume the issues developed in that debate should ever have any impact and it is therefore unimportant or just some blip in the broad scheme of things as he has characterized it.

In my opinion, that outlook and approach is either very limited or just muddled thinking and perhaps both.

[TEPaul]

"I take it you have not read my counterpoint essay."

I have. I read it very carefully!


"I take it you have not read CBM's autobiography"

I have. I've read it about twenty times and constantly refer to it and cite it.
 

"I take it you are not familiar with HH tour of the US in 1910."


I'm very familiar with it. I've read all he wrote about that tour as well as much of what was written by others about that tour and what HH said about that tour. There is no question at all there were numerous and constant examples of real competitive zeal between both sides of the Atlantic that had to do with just about every facet of golf including its architecture. At one point even the President of the United States weighed in on one of those golf controversies between America and the other side.

[Tom MacWood]

"What resulted from the important Crane debate?"


It has long been my opinion that the most important thing that resulted from the Crane debate was the extensive writing that Behr did on many of the underlying fundamentals and essences of both golf and golf architecture, and even on some of the fundamental and perhaps even subliminal emotions and sentimentalities of the golfer generally, particularly towards golf course architecture.

I don't think anything half that fundamentally searching and good and important was ever done before or since.

The historic irony is it may've been partially responsible for the likes of Behr and Mackenzie to come up with a new expression in architecture that was apparently never well understood and consequently never really took hold.

But can it now, if the issues that were developed in that debate are far better understood and appreciated? It has always been my understanding that THIS is the point Bob Crosby's essay makes and it is the reason he reprised that debate and wrote about it as well as he did.

Unfortunately, we have some with the outlook Tom MacWood seems to have which is if the debate was not important back then or if it did not have a large impact back then there is no reason to assume the issues developed in that debate should ever have any impact and it is therefore unimportant or just some blip in the broad scheme of things as he has characterized it.

In my opinion, that outlook and approach is either very limited or just muddled thinking and perhaps both.

TEP
Behr wrote extensively before the debate and wrote extensively after the debate. He developed his sport/game distinction before Crane, not because of Crane as Bob suggested in his essay. So is that it?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Behr wrote extensively before the debate and wrote extensively after the debate. He developed his sport/game distinction before Crane, not because of Crane as Bob suggested in his essay. So is that it?"


Tom MacWood:

Yes, Behr did write extensively on architecture before the debate, and during the debate as a result of the debate, and after the debate.

When I said the following above----“It has long been my opinion that the most important thing that resulted from the Crane debate was the extensive writing that Behr did on many of the underlying fundamentals and essences of both golf and golf architecture, and even on some of the fundamental and perhaps even subliminal emotions and sentimentalities of the golfer generally, particularly towards golf course architecture”----that is not to suggest that I’m saying all Behr’s ideas on architecture or even any of his ideas on architecture were as a result of or from his debate with Crane. I am only saying that he used those ideas in his debate with Crane!

Behr wrote his ideas on the distinction of a sport and a game (in the context of golf versus other games in which a ball is vied for between human opponents unlike golf) in May 1923. That article was “Principle in Golf Architecture” and it was essentially a treatise on the necessary “naturalness” in golf and particularly golf architecture (golf’s playing fields). It was also apparently his introduction of his opposition to the on-going application and philosophy of what he referred to as the “Penal School of golf architecture.”

Behr even went on to say in that essay (“Principles of Golf Architecture, May 1923) that out of that Penal School of golf architecture the Natural School of Golf architecture was born! He even enhanced and further explained that evolution of the Natural School of golf architecture emanating out of or as a reaction to the Penal School of golf architecture by mentioning the idea that the advocates of the Natural School of golf architecture were motivated by a love of nature and were actuated by an evaluation of golf as a pastime played under the stimulus of emotion!

It does not matter at all in consideration of the importance of the issues that were discussed in the Crane/Behr debate whether Behr came up with the ideas he used in that debate before or during that debate, only that he used them in that debate.

It does not matter either if Crane was not aware or even was aware of Behr’s ideas or philosophy of the game/sport distinction before or even when he developed and wrote about his ideas of less luck and greater fairness in golf and architecture.

All that matters is that those two varying and seemingly opposed philosophies and ideas, amongst others, were used in that Crane/Behr debate, and further, those issues were, and more importantly are, extremely important!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
In his essay Bob claimed the sport/game distinction was developed by Behr during the Crane debate.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
In his essay Bob claimed the sport/game distinction was developed by Behr during the Crane debate."



Tom MacWood:

You don't read very well or else you don't comprehend what you read very well do you? But I guess I already knew that.

Bob Crosby did not claim in his essay that the sport/game distinction was first developed by Behr during the Crane debate. Go back and read Bob's essay "Joshua Crane" again or as many times as you need to for a full understanding of what the essay actually said in this vein. Bob mentioned that the sport/game distinction was made by Behr in the early 1920s perhaps during a Rules debate with John Low.

Behr used the sport/game distinction in his May 1923 article enititled "Principles of Golf Architecture." I am not sure if that was the first time he used that distinction or if that article is the one Bob Crosby was referring to about Behr and Low and a rules debate. That article does mention the Rules of Golf and the sport/game distinction.

So again, Bob did not say Behr developed that sport/game distinction during the Behr debate; all he said is that Behr used it as a way of countering Crane's insistence on, and call for greater fairness and equity in golf as is necessary in other games in which a ball is vied for between human opponents-----UNLIKE IN GOLF!

Furthermore, you have written what you claim is an essay counterpointing Bob Crosby's essay "Joshua Crane" or you claim you wrote an essay within an essay or whatever that even you mentioned was unorthodox. No kidding! You also mentioned that Ran Morrissett refused to post it on this website because he said he thought it was too controversial. I think we are all beginning to see why Ran Morrissett may've felt your "counterpoint" or your essay or your essay within an essay, or whatever you call it   was too controversial-----eg you were trying to counterpoint an essay (Bob Crosby's "Joshua Crane") you neither read very carefully or fully considered or comprehended, or all of the foregoing.

And you call yourself an expert golf architecture historian/researcher/analyst/writer??

Truly amazing!!  

As I've mentioned on this website numerous times, you certainly are a very good raw researcher as you have proven your worth for a long time in that respect by coming up with all kinds of interesting historical material but you've also proven you are sorely lacking in the historian, writer, and particularly the analyst categories, and your remark that Bob Crosby's claimed in his essay that Behr developed his sport/game distinction during the Crane debate is just another good example of that .

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
So thats it? The reason the Crane debate was so important it gave Behr an opportunity to reiterate his thoughts on golf architecture?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

To me that is the most important part of that actual debate. Numerous people criticized Crane for his ideas including Croome, Simpson, Ambrose, Mackenzie et al, but no one came close to Max Behr in articulating the specific reasons why Crane's ideas were ultimately contrary to the way golf and architecture should be in his opinion.

I feel, and have felt for a number of years that Behr's specific and detailed articulations on those subjects were and are by far and away the best ever offered on golf and architecture and I think if reprised and presented again in a more understandable form with more relevent terms (such as Equitable Architecture and C,P &P rather than Penal Architecture) they could have a great deal of use and currency for golf and architecture today and into the future. I believe Bob Crosby does as well and I think that is why he reprised the subject of that debate and wrote that excellent article entitled "Joshua Crane."

By the way, are you going to acknowledge the fact that Bob Crosby did not claim Behr's "sport/game" distinction was developed during the Crane debate, as you have claimed on here, but was done earlier, or are you going to ignore that mistake on your part too?