"Tom:
Max Behr is always in the back of my mind when I go native on this sort of thing.
Tom Paul and I have long discussed these points as they relate to Max Behr and he tends to disagree with ole Max on the point that the golfer is not accepting of a feature that is obviously contrived.
I disagree.
To me, it seems that the golfer actually tends to reject the fact that the golf course is constructed, and this is where the idea of controlling the conditions of the golf course to make up for a golfer's shortcomings comes to bear."
Kyle:
Max Behr and his writing on golf architecture is in the back of my mind too any time I go native, or more accurately start to think what-all "natural" really means in golf and certainly in golf course architecture. After-all, he was the one, probably the only one, who articulated in depth this distinction between golf as a sport versus golf as a game. To do that he essentially used the analogies of some of the inherent characteristics involved in hunting and fishing to highlight some similar characteristics of golf as a sport. The analogies he used for the idea and requirements of a game were basically tennis, football, baseball and such.
Behr's treastises on golf as a sport versus golf as a game were never much understood, at least by none other than a very select few (Mackenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Bob Jones etc). They certainly flew over the head of his basic debating opponent on this theme---Joshua Crane! And even if his distinction was somewhat understood by others, most did not really see or understand the point of it. C.B. Macdonald's reaction to that distinction may be the most instructive and interesting of people really in the know back then (Macdonald thought Thomas's half strokes for putts was completely pointless too, apparently failing to understand or appreciate where Thomas was really trying to go with it----which was essentially to make golf architecture more easily adaptable to all player levels as well as to render golf architecture considerably less expensive to both make and maintain).
So what was at the root of Behr’s point in declaring or defining golf as a sport rather than a game, and to use the analogies of hunting and fishing as sports? It was basically not much more than the fact that in all three (golf, hunting and fishing) essentially the OPPONENT was Nature itself!!
For fairly obvious reasons this type of analogy or similarity between golf on the one hand and hunting and fishing on the other was never an easy analogy or comparison to make. It was obviously not an easy analogy to make because most just could not really see any similarity at all between hunting and fishing and golf! To most golf seemed far more similar to something like tennis or hockey or lacrosse et al as they all involved sticks and balls, and certainly hunting and fishing don't. For that reason the similarity or analogy was apparently never understood other than by a slight or select few who could obviously see a lot further along to what Behr was really getting at.
Behr’s point with this idea of golf as a sport rather than a game only had to do with the fact that golf and the golfer really do have to deal with Nature as an opponent and not ONLY just a human opponent which is the entire point and purpose of games like tennis, hockey and lacrosse et al, which necessarily require standardized spatial definitions to render the dynamic of human movement more effective and efficient in those particular games. Very few could see that because golf seemed to them to be so much more like tennis or football or baseball or hockey or lacrosse or whatever that involved human opponents competing against one another by vying for a common ball. Apparently so few then or today realized that is just not what golf is----human opponents do not and cannot vie for a common ball in golf so the type of standardized spatial definition so necessary to those games to make human movement more effective and efficient just does not need to exist in golf or be a part of it----hence the idea of making it some replication of the unlimited spatiality and randomness of Nature itself. And that is around which Behr’s idea of golf as a sport completely revolved. Unfortunately, he never really articulated that point of golfers not vying for a common ball well enough, in my opinion!
Later I will put something on here concerning Behr’s ideas about why the golfer would accept that which was natural or he thought was natural and would not accept that which he thought was artificial and consequently want to change it. This is basically the only thing I disagree with what he wrote and the reason I do is I just believe the ensuing 50-75 years since he wrote it have proven him wrong; not with all golfers but most. I regret to say I believe that is true but nevertheless I do.