[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- I didn't try to define it because Behr did just fine. His reference to the hole as "prey" seemed fundamental to defining golf as sport. Human nature wanting to ease the conquering of the prey, is part and parcel to what I'm now calling "Wrong turn at revere".

[TEPaul]

From "the What's Fair & Unfair?" thread;

This remark on this thread and subject of "Fair & Unfair?" in golf and architecture and how far the concept of it should be taken is a great lead-in to try to explain Max Behr's philosophy on the necessary part of what he called "Nature" (randomness, unpredictability, even apparent inequity) in golf and architecture, since inherently that has a lot to do with the subject of "fairness or unfairness" in golf.

To distill Behr down even further on this particular subject and to perhaps shed some more light on what Behr meant with his distinction between golf the "sport" and golf the "game", it should be mentioned that one of the clearest distinctions he drew on the subject of "sport" vs "game" by way of analogy was with a comparision of golf to tennis in the context of time and space.

Behr makes the point that as tennis involves two or more opponents vying for a common ball, something that golf does not do, then inherently they are vastly different but he also makes the point that a tennis court is necessarily a playing field on which the dimensions must be both exact and standardized. The reasons for that in the context of time are obvious but the reasons for that in the context of space is merely to create a playing field that’s as efficient as possible to basically isolate and highlight the physical skill of the player! This obviously includes the player coming as close to that OB line as possible with his shots so as to make the retrieval of the ball more difficult by his opponent. But since a tennis court is exact and standardized in its dimensions for this particular purpose, Behr, correctly, views the playing field of tennis as completely man-made and the entire dimension and construction of a tennis court as man-concocted which is one of his definitions of a "game" (completely man-made, apart from any necessary inclusion or preservation of Nature's part in the contest).

Golf, on the other hand, is a recreation whose playing fields are in no way as exact or standardized and further should not be, as golf depends on its playing on the somewhat unadorned and somewhat unaltered landscape of Nature itself for much of the essence and challenge of it.

Behr believed that's the way golf began and the way it evolved and that the essence of Nature in its random unadorned form should be preserved to maintain the spirit and essence of what a "sport" is about which anyone knows is vying or recreating with something---a fish, a bird, a horse or even a golf ball on the landscape of Nature as the partial challenger!

This is part of Behr's distinction between golf the "sport" vs golf the "game", the latter which he did not want to see obtrude into the "sport" by becoming highly defined in dimenson and man-made in look (he believed it was necessary that an architect should strive to make whatever he created at least look like Nature). Golf course architecture that gave golfers little choice and no real requirement for thought by being designed so as the golfer could clearly see he must hit the ball right down the middle (the difference between good (fairway) and evil (hazards) or be penalized was not particularly thought provoking (as a sport involving Nature) or ultimately enjoyable because of it.

But the most startling thing of all and one I recognize may be completely resisted on here and elsewhere is Behr apparently believed that golf and architecture should never be designed in such a way as to attempt to ISOLATE physical skill for the purposes of completely HIGHLIGHTING them alone--as does a game such as tennis--which again is completely man-concocted and man-made as to the nature and dimension of its standardized playing field!

Again, apparently in his opinion, golf and architecture, through over obtruding rules, highly dimensionally defined design, any form of good or evil moralizing regarding the features of the recreation of golf should be guarded against!

They should be guarded against and those who valued the essence of the recreation of golf the "sport" should strive to preserve that other opponent--"Nature" (or at least the percepiton of it)! Nature, whose very randomness and unpredictability never offered any man the kind of "fairness" or equity or reward for raw physical skill the way some man-concocted game that was merely designed to isolate and highlight physical skill felt it must! Nature never did that simply because occasionally even the best executed shots were subject to unfairness and luck within the randomness of Nature! Behr believed even the most physically adept sportsman accepted that and accepted it well as a given! Behr also believed that "thought" should be maintained even over raw physical skill in the sport of golf. I guess, in a sense this isn’t probably much different than the old ballad; “You take the high road and I’ll take the low road and I’ll be in Scotland before Ye!”

Behr didn't want to see rules abolished or architecture or man-made design abolished he simply felt that in the application of those things Nature's necessary part of the balance SHOULD BE PRESERVED within the recreation of golf. The very presence and maintenance of Nature in golf frankly made it a "sport" as distinct from a completely man-concocted "game", in his opinion.

And all this he explored only because he felt it would be more pleasurable, gratifying and interesting for any golfer as he played golf.

There is one last point I believe that Behr implied because he didn't specifically mention it per se. I'm not sure even Geoff Shackelford agrees with my feeling about this.

I believe that when Behr wrote these essays always interlacing the theme of Natural golf architecture and Nature's necessary part in the balance as the essence of golf, what he was also consciously doing is making a fascinating comparison between man's fundamental relationship to Man VERSUS Man's fundamental relationship to Nature itself.

I believe Behr felt man always strove to define and control and dominate most anything including not just other men but Nature as well! Behr obviously felt that man, the golfer, felt more content and comfortable, perhaps resigned somehow in a sporting sense vying against Nature, an opponent he understood, even if subliminally, was larger than himself —an opponent that was more powerful and more indominable than Man. This is apparently why he felt the golfer was apt to face less critically an obstacle he perceived to be put before him by Nature than an obstacle he perceived to be put before him by another man (architect). This is why he proposed that architects should utilize Nature and what they made should be made to look like Nature to the golfer. That, and the fact he believed that if an architect understood the forces of Nature (wind and water) he would be able to create man-made architecture that would last longer. These two ideas formed the basis of what he referred to as “Permanent Architecture”.

Was Behr right? It’s hard to say isn’t it? It’s safe to say not many really listened to him. Should they have listened better? I think so. We should listen better to him now because in some real ways we can see, 75+ years later, that many of the things he feared have happened. Golf courses were severely changed in the ensuing years and now many of them are being put back to the way they once were.

Behr was probably right in his reference to the “game mind” of Man in architecture that Man can be a super defining, controlling, dominating and in some ways a destroying force. Behr was talking about golf and golf architecture. He did write most of these essays in the 1920s but he did live until 1955. The supreme irony when he was initially writing these essays about the dangers of Man disrespecting Nature and perhaps destroying golf courses due to that disrespect that the time would not be long in coming when Man came to realize he could also completely dominate and ultimately destroy not just Nature but himself as well!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
Do you remember when I started the "Haultain" thread about a year ago suggesting that he had thought of things that Max Behr only copied a generation later (in inferior prose), and how wroth with anger you were then, even though you hadn't read our dear Arnold?  I do, and I'm so glad that you have finally read Haultain, as I suggested.  I still am not sure if Max B did, or if he did, whether or not he understood it."

Rich:

Wroth with anger? You're dreaming man, but of course that doesn't surprise me. As I said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Behr took some or even many of his ideas that he developed later in his essays from Arnold Haultain. Haultain's mention of time and space in architecture is significant and is no doubt where Behr got the idea of time and space in golf architecture which he went on to intricately develop as to the reasons why they evolved the way they did.

Haultain is a very interesting and entertaining and thought provoking writer (probably why Behr's thoughts were provoked by Haultain). But Haultain merely mentions many of the things Behr delves into in tremendous detail. Rewriting Haultain a decade or two later is definitely not what Behr is doing in his essays although it certainly doesn't surprise me that you'd make an obtuse remark like that.

Haultain's writing paints extremely vivid and pretty pictures of many of the things of golf and golf architecture. He's an excellent writer in that way. That's what you need to read Rich, someone who paints pretty and vivid pictures for you. particularly when mentioning things like targets and flags--it's simple and comforting and you don't need to think too much--I know you sure don't want to do that--so your general response is that Max Behr's essays are "fuzzy". The only thing that's "fuzzy" is your ability to read them and understand what he's saying.

To date, I've never known you to remotely even attempt to counterpoint a thing Behr ever said or wrote--all you seem to be able to do is to attempt to dismiss him and to keep saying he's unclear--which again doesn't surprise me coming from you, since Max Behr doesn't exactly paint simple pretty little pictures in virtual sound bites!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

To show all what has happened to many of Max Behr's courses here in SoCal, presented here is Hacienda GOLF Club which is right here in La Habra Heights.

Unbeknownst to me Hacienda, a private course who at one time had a waiting list to join in the hundred to two hundred range in the late 1970's recently offered memberships at a bargain rate of $7,500 in hopes of attracting new blood and most, MONEY to build a new clubhouse and pay for further alterations to a golf course that has deteriorated over time due to the Big Three:

--Trees
--Green Committee
--Ted Robinson, Don Hogan, Robert Trent Jones (All who made horrible changes to this once really good golf course)

To show how much this GOLF CLUB really thinks of Golf, see their website, http://www.haciendagolfclub.com/

At the menu on the left side, you can pull up Golf Activities which amount to one picture of the clubhouse and little if no description of the golf course, and then pull up a three page portfolio on Hacienda's trees which have choked the golf course to death and reduced it to the mass of human excrement that Hacienda is today.

[mikeyolympic]

tommy,

what were the changes made to hacienda by RTJ, ted robinson, and etc?

you're right. they're website really sucks in terms of describing the course.

i think one of the obvious changes was to hole 8. what used to be that area beneath the new 8th fairway with that little hazard creek running down it?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommy- I smell weakness! How long has this affinity for the "enjoyment and appreciation" of their members been policy? When did the arborist become green chair?

Clearly their lowering of price shows a lack of credibility and hopefully this too will fail. Then, I suggest a hostile takeover. East coast smart money will see the value in restoring Max's principles, while having a warm climate to retreat to, come October. Florida is so passe', while La Habra has a certain ganster rap elite sound to it.

cento uno anni

[TEPaul]

I like Adam's thinking on Max Behr's Hacienda G.C.

If those thoughtless La Habra sybarite members of that club don't respect Max and don't know how to preserve his golf architecture and TommyN needs some East Coast shocker troopers to come in there and deal with those obtuse members--it will be done!

This wouldn't be the first time I had to go West to California for a cause. Back in 1970 US Senate candidate John V Tunney won the California Democratic primary and was up against incumbent Senator George Murphy (who was one great example of "Murphy's Law", Ill tell you) in the general election. Tunney was looking a bit weak in the polls in the summer so he called in the East Coast shock troops and Murphy was history!

So, to our West Coast Max Behr afficionado cousins--if you need the East Coast shock troops we can be there in no more than five hours and lay an "Education" on those Hacienda G.C. "nuresgirl" members they'll never forget!

All that you fellows out there need to do for starters is rent the chainsaws because I don't believe even the East Coast Shock Troopers can get their chainsaws through airline security these days!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, I haven't been ignoring you, I swear. Its just everytime I get half-way through a post on Hacienda, I have to cut it off, because something else comes up!

Tomorrow (today) (BTW, Happy New Year everyone!) I will post some pictures tomorrow of Hacienda taken today, (Yesterday) as I played over there with Cory Miller.

[mikeyolympic]

tommy,

so where are the pictures you've promised?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

More to come later when I spend a little more quality time to get some better shots.

There are so many great things at Hacienda that could truly make it a really good golf course, IF the membership didn't trip over itself 99.9% of the time.

Here is a prime example:
#3, just in front of the green. Beautiful Max Behr au-nautrale' sandy waste-style bunker sitting in front of the green, and then more of the same circling around the green--now all gone. (the footprints are still there) The bunkers you see are all the sum of the original parts, very much evolved looking, but not too much in tune with what's in the ground, meaning that they don't tie-in or together.



This is the tee shot over a pretty pronouced ravine. Understand that at Hacienda, tree planting is another certain killer of this golf course, as so many trees have been planted there in the last 30-35 years, they are finally choking off the course. Most of the members do not and will not ever understand this.

Originally, this hole and one in back of it behind the trees, the 3rd were shared fairways, a fancy modern day meaning that the holes had maximum distance of boundries on at least one side. That slope you see in the back ground enabled a much more difficult but safe angle to go at the hole. Taking the Cape-like right, required a much more severe route that didn't suffer fools. It was a pretty sharp drop-off to the right side of the hole from about 165 yards in, to a green that followed the downhill nature of the site. In the early 60's all of this changed when they built all of it up about 4 to 5 feet, reshaped the drop-off's and created a less then inspiring natural flow of things. The hole is still tough, but back in the old days, it must have been really fun when playing the ground game.




View from the 7th tee, which was another shared fairway with the 8th. That chunk of hillside you see is actually that, hillside that came down in the GREAT storm of 1938. Similar to the Valley Club of Montecito's 11th, and just as impossible to repair, it too actually still works for the hole.



Corey Miller does Ted Robinson!

Incriminating picture isn't it!?!?!?! Corey, who maybe a SoCal resident sooner then he wishes, stands at the par 3, 16th in the evening hours, a once natural Redan that had a small meandering creek flow-up its left side past the hole and down the canyon. In the 1960's, they dammed-it up because they didn't like the look of the natural creek, and created a pond. That pond got ugly, and then in the mid 70's Master Award Winning Golf Architect, Theadore Robinson Sr. built this monstosity of a raised green with a beautiful and serene pot bunker, bulkheaded by logs that junts out into the pond itself.

Thankfully, the club now realizes just how bad of a golf hole it really is, and they never really used to say anything bad about it until I got them all talking about how much they really did hate it!

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I used to play Junior tournaments there and always remember the course being wet--for obvious reasons today--there were thousands of new trees there.  Greens committees love to tree up his designs.  I live accross the street from Rancho Santa Fe and have witnessed its architectural demise over the past several years.  The latest afront involves poorly designed genreic Robinson/RTJ style bunkers that are hard to get in and out of--great for all the elderly members!  The architect used--I had never heard of him and have forgotten his name, did build some great new tees that certainly has toughened a fairly difficult couse.  Unfortunately, he has removed the back half of the 13th green and built an ugly brick wall fronting the green.  This was once a truely great world class hole.  Then there are the tree plantings--one eucaliptus is located within 6ft. of the 18th championship tee!  And there are the palm tree hazards created down the right side of 5--as bad as it could get!  In spite of the terrible work, it is still a hell of a golf course with super shot values.  The USGA was by the other day and suggested a lot less watering, so things are looking up for RSF in the ground game department.  It's too bad that Geoff's book was not finished a few years back--maybe someone would have used it for inspiration!

[mikeyolympic]

tommy,

thanks for posting the photos. they brought some great memories from the past when i got to play in the mclennan memorial twice at hacienda as a junior.

that 3rd hole is a damn tricky one. i remember sitting on the tee, and thinking "my god, where do i hit it?" there was this tree on the left that really encroached on the tee shot (a tree or trees they should cut down), and OB so close to the right. and the approach is to a blind green with bunkers surrounding it. if you missed long or to the left, you're ball was OB. the hole would have looked a lot more interesting with those orginal waste bunkers as tommy mentioned. very tricky hole....tough one.

it was nice seeing that 5th hole, the monster 460 yarder, par 4. i always thought the angle of the tee shot was a little awkward for me because if you wanted to get it down the fairway, you sort of had take a line dangerously over that ravine. i remember it was a steep fall off on the right side to OB, and i was always the chicken, and always hit it into those trees on the left for a sure bogey...

that 7th hole from the tee is gorgeous....i remember that dramatic slope on the right. interesting story how it got there... very simple par 5 with sort of a small green...

you're so right about the 16th hole. i remember teeing off that hole and thinking how awkward and how out of place it looked from the rest of the course with that railroad ties in front of the water. also, i remember how there weren't any sand in those right hand bunkers, they were rock hard. then again, i would say most of the par 3's at hacienda are fairly simple and mediocre except hole no. 6. that is a good looking par 3 up the hill... no. 12 and no. 4 sort of play the same...

hopefully, you can post a picture of hole no. 13. beautiful hole, and the angle of the skinny green always made it tough for me. i remember the last year i played there, they cut fairway down in that hollow below the green when a year before it was just rough...

tommy, i also wanted to ask you about the 18th hole. i remember seeing a tee box to the right of the original tee box for that hole. i remember that tee box was like in the middle of a strand of trees off to the right, and thinking, "is that a tee box?" is it? it would kinda be goofy with all those trees in the way right there...

also, i remember all the fairways at hacienda to be soft, rye grass... but the awkward thing was that in front of all the greens (the fringes), it was all kikuyu, making it pretty tough to run up shots... it is still that way?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Though there is a tree issue and the !st green has been changed, Victoria Club in Riverside, Ca probably is the  least ruined Behr course.  There are some really cool holes that use the stream that runs through the middle of the course. The green complexes are really interesting.  Bunkers have probably been changed, but generally pretty good.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

RMD,
The last person I knew of at RSF was Perry Dye. I will make it down there soon as I have only seen bits and pieces of the course, which reminded me a lot of Hacienda.

Victoria, well that one was changed by Bell Sr & Jr.

Mike,
That is a tree way back in there back there, and I have played it some years ago when it was first built. Surprizing thing about the 13th, because I have only known it to be fairway height down there, and thats in all of the years I have known the course. I was pointing out those trees that line the left side of the fairway. That used to be a pretty natural ravine on that side with nary a tree on it. It's still a good hole.

Just another tid bit for you guys:

The 15th, before the now hideous Robinson green and the Don Hogan green that was before it was an island in sandy waste with the creek on the left side. After talking to an older member, he informed me that the green was one of the best on the course, and the shot to it was completely blind, instead of halfway blind as it is now. Robinson did such a good job buring the tiling underground, that today, it is a quagmire of slop. My words to the green committee about that were, "if it was meant to be a creek, then it should be a creek." They got a chuckle out of that. I'm going to see if Harbottle agrees, which of course he won't.

Mikey,
If you are still home this next week and would like to go over there for a look, let me know, I'll bring the old aerial photo with me and we can have some fun.

[mikeyolympic]

tommy,

thanks for your offer. i would so seriously do it immediately, but i've got to hit the books down in san diego again...sigh... hopefully, when i'm up here in brea/la habra-ville, i'll be able to get a perspective of hacienda with you on site someday.

your interesting tidbit on green no. 15 got me thinking... i remember this hole being a sneaky tough one. on the tee shot, the fairway was well below and sort of slanting to the left. it was an awkward tee shot, and made harder with that creek running down the left side and trees on the right. i totally remember that green thinking "damn, that's a small green!" i'm a big guy at 6'5", and from front to back, it must have been only about 15 to 17 paces for me. the shape of the green itself sort of made me think that the green was somewhat altered. right now as i recall, it's just that simple circular shape with a severe back to front slope. i also remember that huge fall off in the back of the green and on the left and right sides. it's sort of a pushup green. i remember thinking there was just too much greenery(grass) around that green, and felt like something was missing. now i know that it used to be sand completely surrounding the green. still a pretty cool hole with a ridiculously tiny green.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
Sorry for mis-stating it a bit, but it wasn't so much a sea of snad as it was just natural sandy waste around the green areas. You could still run a ball in from the front, and the original green not nearly as built-up.

Around 1986, Ted Robinson, was given the task of building new greens, from East to West, #15,16, 8, & 6, and each one he suggested that each green be built-up to get them out f the natural wash, which can flood or at least get really wet more then they liked. Of those greens, the 6th being an somewhat of an O.K. green, the rest are horrible, if not grounds for Architecture Malpractice.

While playing the 10th the other day, it has now basically become an unplayable golf hole with all of the trees so grown-up and in play. A par 5 of some 475 yards max, it has such an abrupt dogleg left, and the trees on the left have inundated any line to the hole, you literally are forced to either hit the biggest hook of your life, or lay-up with an 8 iron for the approach in. Its that bad, and the equipment that far out of hand.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommy- Your comment about Harbotle was a tease, right? I have never met the man but if Stevinson Ranch is any indication, he may "get it" better than you seem to give him credit.

Is he on board to make changes?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Adam,
Was Steveinson Ranch a reclaimation? (restoration) What does Stevinson Ranch's style of architecture have to do with Max Behr's style of architecture?

I think it will remain to be seen. Judging from the restoration work at LACC, I'm very skeptical. So far, he has done ZERO research on the course.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommy- No. SR is an inspiring design that was built, start to finish, in nine months. While the course is built upon the flat land, alot of it is in keeping with nature and provides the options needed to be classified as multi-dimensional.

 If the trees are never going to leave, what could someone do to restore Behr there?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()