I know this topic might be more important to me than others, but that hasn’t stopped me from posting previously…and it won’t stop me now.
I have stated in the past that the debates between Joshua Crane and Behr/Mackenzie might have been one of the most important moments in golf course architectural history. The opinions of other members of this site have varied…some agree and others have not. Most notably, Tom MacWood has disagreed and the gist of his disagreement has been that the previously mentioned debates and it participants were obscure and quickly forgotten. For the record, I think he is correct in what he says. Perhaps the actual debates themselves were not that important. HOWEVER, the crux of what they were debating was (and is) extraordinarily important. I have tried to communicate this in prior posts, but obviously I haven’t done a good enough job. Nevertheless, that is what I believe.
As a reminder, the crux of what they were debating was Crane’s rating process whereby he ranked the fairest golf courses of his day. He thought that a golf course should reward the learned skills of a golfer regarding ball striking and the like to yield a winner of a golf match whose skills were the best. Meanwhile, Behr and Mackenzie took a different view on a golf course. They thought it shouldn’t be so much about fairness and equity, but about options, strategies, risk/reward, and in generally more “sporting” in nature and for sure some amount of good, or bad, luck will occur in the lives of sportsmen.
Well, what I have observed since my initial readings of Bob’s piece is that the core issues discussed in these debates are alive and well in the golfing world today. And I’ve observed a few examples of this over my brief golfing career…
1) I think the PGA Tour appears to really embrace “fairness” and equity in golf courses. Unfair bounces are not welcomed, rather predictable outcomes are preferred. After all this affects their income levels and prosperity and the courses are designed to separate the most highly skilled players from the rest. In fact, I’ve played a fair amount of courses that host PGA Tour events and quite frankly most of them are not to my liking. Indeed, they are usually fair and predictable with clear cut lines of attack and obvious risk reward choices…not extraordinarily mentally challenging, but very challenging to ones ball striking skills.
2)The majority of the golfing public seems to side with Crane when looking at and judging golf courses. I can’t tell you how many low handicap and/or “experienced” golfers I’ve run into that make statement or comments that baffle me. I was talking to a few very low handicap golfers with a lifetime of golfing experience just the other day about Pinehurst. They told me to avoid playing #2 when I get there as its greens are not very good. They went on to explain that the greens won’t accept aerial approaches; you have to hit low shots to the greens to hold them. Huh? Isn’t that the point? And if you are going to hit a high approach, you’ve got to be in the correct position on the fairway, right? But I didn’t argue with them, I just listened. They went on to say that #4 and #8 were clearly the better courses. I could give more examples of this type of mentality, but I think you get the point.
3)Garland posted on here a few days ago about a renovation or design on his golf course, the title of the thread was entitled “Need your help demonstrating unpredictable is better than predictable” In fact, here is his opening statement from the thread…
“I have been reading architectural improvement suggestions for my club. They often support an idea by saying it makes the course more fair. This of course is a misuse of the word fair, because everyone plays the same source, so it is fair to everyone as they all face the same things. What they mean to say is that the suggested idea makes the course more predictable.”
Pure Crane…NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!
4)I’ve also noticed the majority of golfers like a course they can score on. I’ve seen so many people play golf and be myopically focused on their scorecard and I’ve asked many people why did you like course x and the response was…I shot 71! Or did you like hole y…yeah, I birdied it!! This type of stuff seems like they like “fairness”, “predictability”, and good results.
5)But then I’ve seen many golfers play a golf course, complain about certain holes and features as “unfair” or “bad”…but then be so interested to give it another shot and try to score better. I find the 5th at Cuscowilla, the 12th at East Lake, and the Redan and Lookout Mountain to be this way. The 5th at Cuscowilla has a shell-backed green that can’t be held with an aerial approach. I’ve seen many people chip from one side of it to the other with “good” chip shots and yell “This just isn’t fair”. The 12th at East Lake is a par 4 with a bunker in front of the green and the green slopes away from the golfer, so you’ve got to land the ball just past the bunker or risk rolling far away from the hole or off the back. I’ve heard time and again, “Man, I hit a great shot and got screwed by this green.” And the redan at Lookout Mountain is similar to the 12th at East Lake, just a par 3 and it has a bunker in back of the green.
Anyway, each of these holes is complained about while on the course but lusted for after the round to try it again and do better. This is Behr/Mackenzie’s main point…at least in my opinion. Create interest, intrigue, mystery, puzzles, problems, etc…that are not readily apparent. This will make a course interesting to play again and again.
So, I’ll stop now. But I challenge all of you guys to see if you can spot the issues highlighted in the Crane/Mackenzie debate still being carried out today.
I find it fascinating!!