Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mac Plumart on December 28, 2009, 11:12:05 PM
-
I have just read Bob Crosby's "Joshua Crane" article posted on the "In My Opinion" section of this website.
First, and foremost, great work Bob!
Secondly, how wonderful it must have been to be an active participant in the "Golden Age" of golf course architecture. CB MacDonald develops his ideas and models, Mackenzie takes an almost opposite stance, Colt makes major steps forward, and Joshua Crane takes an entirely different view on what a golf course is suppposed to be. No clear direction had been established concerning what the fundamentals of golf course architecture were and all of these guys (and some more) were putting into writing their formal thoughts. How cool!
Thirdly, I think if you read what Crane was saying/doing...he was right. At least he was right along the lines of what he was trying to discover. And that was, what were the most fair and equitable golf courses in the world. He might have framed his lists as to what were the most ideal golf courses...but he was clearly making a list of the most equitable courses.
Additionally, the debate between Behr and Crane about golf being a sport or a game...spot on!!! It appears to me Behr is right on that one...and that is golf is a sport (not a game like billiards) and, therefore, not really designed to be equitable and fair. His views were an eye opener for me.
And finally, reading how Crane's course rankings differed from consensus opinion highlights how different criteria can yield different results when trying to rank golf courses. Much like Golfweek varies from Golf Mag. which varies from Golf Digest...and etc. All use differnt metrics and get different results. Interesting. These discrepancies and how they can arise are really highlighted when Crane's criteria are analyzed.
Anyway...not too much response required...
I just really think it is interesting to see how the "Golden Age" battles defined our current game and how wildly different golf course rankings can be depending on the criteria you choose to use.
Thanks Bob!!
-
Mac
Your final comment “how wildly different golf course rankings can be depending on the criteria you choose to use” is the reason I do not like top 10’s, 100’s.
Golf is like out taste in women, friends, sense of humour and probably anything else you care to mention is down to the individual. The only difference is that when we started getting interested in golf there was a basic code (etiquette) and rules we were all not only expected to but also required to follow. Perhaps more so my generation and older, than those born late, say late into the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s.
Golf to many is just producing the lowest score possible every time they play. The very idea of playing a challenging course for the sake of it or for fun rather than achieving, the lowest score is nearly alien to them. Others believe that only a deep lush green colour highly manicured is acceptable as a golf course, irrespective of the surrounding landscape. Many a modern and old golfer have no care as to how to traverse a golf course and some see no harm in banning walking.
So never a truer word has been written ‘criteria you choose to use’, rightly or wrongly defines just about everything that makes us an individual. Therefore, some have decided to drastically changing the face of golf from how the game was originally played to a game of convenience. Perhaps they feel no longer up to the challenge, just seeking the easy option of no physical or mental exertion or whatever ‘criteria you choose to use’. ;)
Happy New Year
Melvyn
-
Melvyn...again...BRILLIANT!!!
The words you chose to use and the words that Behr used to desrcibe golf almost go hand in hand...which is the polar oppposite of Crane's ideals which were the basis of his list.
Behr described golf as sport...like climbing a mountain. I took that to mean no mountain is the same and how you get to the top is left up to your own imagination and ability. Some go the quick and steep route...some take the long and winding road. Isn't golf the same? Some choose to go over the hazards, while others choose to go around them...and this is dependant on their ability. Furthermore, in mountain climbing you might take the steep and quick route...but you might slip on a loose boulder. In golf, you might try to carry the water and a breeze might blow and keep your ball from carrying it...and splash. Those are the trials and tribulations of events that have a sporting nature.
Billliards is more like a game (according to Behr). Standards tables, standard sizes for pockets, perfectly smooth surface. Change any of those things and the expert billiards player will not be happy as the skill they've acquired by playing the standard tables will be somewhat nulllified. It is a game with standard dimensions and playing areas. Not much original thinking and planning is needed to hit shots...line it up...hit it...it goes in...move on the next one. You must strategize on what shot to hit and how to position your next shot...but it is all on a standard and commonplace playing surface.
In sport, nothing is standard...the mind needs to be in tune with nature, aware of the playing area, and its potential pitfalls. Also, you have to be aware of your own personal limitations and abilities. Behr thought that was the nature of sport and golf was sport.
Withthis in mind, other sportsmen liek the challenge and the deep thought process behind trying to overcome a golf courses. This is why courses like St. Andews Old appeal to them...they are unique with optionss and decisions. They never loose interest in it.
Crane like the predictable "standardized" courses which make his scoring more predictable. Hence his disliek for the "quirk" of St. Andrews...it messed up his scorecard.
Those are the criteria these men choose to use in evaluating golf and, therefore, golf courses.
At least that is how I read Bob's great article.
-
Yet even while I admire the marvelous co-ordination between eye and muscle called for this modern [American] target golf, I cannot but regret that it has taken us so far from the original conception of the old cross-country game. One of the things which distinguished golf from every other past time was that while other games were imitations of war in miniature, golf was an imitation of life, in which the player had to thread his way among unexpected dangers and undeserved bad lies. Of golf, almost alone among games, it could be said that a man’s worst enemy is himself.
That is still true, but we have been so anxious, in the sacred name of fair play, to take all the element of luck out of the game, that we have to a proportionate extent destroyed its value as a test of each man’s ability to stand up to bad luck. Modern golf is a stiffer test of a player’s skill, but it has robbed the game of something of its charm as an adventure of the spirit.
Give me the spirit over the vanity every time. Although I doubt you will get all the movers and shakers (and their wannabees) to agree.
Mac, The game mind is more complex then the difference between the confines of a pool table and the freedom and variety of nature.
-
Mac,
I think Adam touches on another real distinction between Golf (and all other Sports) and "Games"...the player is not competing against another. Whether it's a mountain, or a fish, they are on their own.
Melvyn and Adam,
Is it possible for me to strive for the lowest score WHILE appreciating every aspect of the game that you both seem to think I am missing?
-
Jim
Of course, but then I believe you have like many on this site the experience, quality and depth of knowledge of the game of golf. Perhaps giving you a much finer understanding than the average player and would appear to have produced a sense of humour as well.
How many times have you failed to beat your previous score (and not really caring) yet come away having fully enjoyed the day’s golf?
Melvyn
-
Mac,
Here are a few place listings by magazine, first number being Golf Digest, then Golf Magazine, then Golfweek Classic.
Augusta 1/3/9
Pine Valley 2/1/2
Shinnecock 3/4/3
Cypress 4/2/1
Oakmont 5/6/5
Pebble 6/5/7
Merion East 7/7/4
W.Foot west 8/14/16
NGLA 15/9/6
Fishers Island 9/20/11
Seminole 10/13/
The only discrepancies between the lists for the top 11 places are:
Oak Hills makes Golf Digest’s,
Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Pinehurst #2 make Golf Magazine’s,
Crystal Downs and Prairie Dunes make it onto Golfweek’s list.
What these lists show is that even though a system like Crane’s looks at it differently, finding the true worth of a thing like a golf course always comes back to one thing, using the samplings from the largest and most interested persons removes as many individual idiosyncrasies (like Crane’s or yours or mine) as possible, and gives the best result.
-
My sense of humor is purely American...I need it explained...
How many times have you failed to beat your previous score (and not really caring) yet come away having fully enjoyed the day’s golf?
I don't think the previous days score is a fair comparison...but maybe my expectations for the day would be.
To your point, I enjoy myself just about every time I play...but, the times I don't are tied to score as much as anything else.
For what it's worth, the days where I start off poorly and turn it around and have a decent score are probably the most enjoyable...assuming all other things are equal (playing partners, course, course conditions, weather etc...)
-
Joshua's rating system is reproduced on this thread.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32246.0/
-
Sully, Thankfully there are those, (a minority) who can achieve the lowest scores, and are able to think and feel more then just about themselves and their scores.
The road taken in golf course architecture, (as well as society as a whole) is responsible for the foul trend of vanity and ego be coming so acceptable. It's the Me Me Me generation, magnified. I've postulated before that the GCA exemplifies this horrid trend. This hypothesis was formed on what I gathered from reading the early days of GCA.com, when the opinions expressed were more honest, and frank.
Since hindsight is 20/20, it boggles the mind how the majority still can't see how the words of Max Behr were prophetic. And, why the designers who have heeded Max's insights are now comprising the lists of the best courses built in the last decade.
-
Adam,
Do you think the notoriety bestowed on GCA.com had anything to do with those honest and frank commentators of a decade age leaving? Do you think they were only honest and frank because they thought the door was closed?
-
I've not given much thought on why they left, other than they likely just don't have as much patience as those who have stayed. ;)
Also, There's a huge difference between constructive criticism and mean spirited discourse. Although, one would think a modern GCA would be use to critics, and, a few of those, who might've been insulted, could've defended their positions, or at least, tried. Rather than barring anyone in their firm to post.
-
It would be curious to me if people whose opinions are very well regarded left the site for site specific reasons...like patience...but forget that for now.
I'm curious about this concept of playing golf for something other than the lowest score...I see that as cheating the architect, cheating the game, and cheating nature. Forget all the etiquette and enjoyment stuff, I do it and understand it...I even understand not caring about final score, after all it's not life...but I cannot understand when someone says they play a course "for the sake of it"...
I want to know how someone can claim they are appreciating the golf course and experimenting with the architecture when they aren't trying to find the best way to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible.
-
Jim...
I think almost everyone who plays tries to get the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible. That is the point of the whole endeavor.
But I personally don't like playing courses that our too easy. I like the challenge...and since I am an 11.6 index...combining these two things rarely leads to really low scores...but I enjoy the game nevertheless. HOWEVER, some people that I play with go bananas when they don't hit their expected score. They aren't enjoying anything about the game or the course in the midst of their sorrow/antics/anger/frustration. Perhaps that is a key point...you don't seem to be in that camp.
I can also add this...the first few times I played after each of my surgeries I scored about 10 shots above my index...but I was happy to be playing. In fact, I played a few great and new courses during this time and I did enjoy seeing the courses and the interest they could have provided my game had I been able to actually play near my ability.
And finally, now that I can walk a course...I get a big thrill out of simply walking a course and seeing all the parts of the golf course I missed zooming around before.
But make no mistake about it...I've played really well lately and that makes it just a little more fun to play. No doubt! But I would rather shoot an 89 on a course like Kiawah Ocean in 30 mph winds that 81 on a rinky dink course that is too easy with no architectural interest.
I don't know if that adds anything or not...but at least it was long winded!! :)
-
I want to know how someone can claim they are appreciating the golf course and experimenting with the architecture when they aren't trying to find the best way to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible.
Me too.
Presumably,an architect designs a golf course as a test.The player's objective is to get through the test in as few shots as possible.How do you know if a golf course is good if you're not really trying to play it?
-
Golf to many is just producing the lowest score possible every time they play. The very idea of playing a challenging course for the sake of it or for fun rather than achieving, the lowest score is nearly alien to them.
Mac,
An 89 at Kiawah in some wind is a better score than an 81 at a rinky dink course, so that's consistent with being more happy with success, but the above comment by Melvyn is just the most recent of several comments over time from people claiming to not be trying for the lowest score...and in my opinion, if you're not trying for the lowest score, you're cheating the architect and the game.
Letting your score dictate who you are is an entirely different matter, and that's where I suspect the people that think they're not trying get stuck, they see people like your guys that go bananas.
-
Jim...
Of course...only Melvyn can answer what he means by that. Perhaps the spirit of it was along the lines of my last post...but like I said only he knows.
And for the record...I agree with you...you are cheating the game and the architect and the course if you don't try to do your best and rise to the challenge the game and the course present.
However...I'VE GOT IT!!! Here is an instance of someone I know who doesn't try to get the lowest score he possibly can. I've played golf with a guy from time to time who people say is a sand-bagger concerning his handciap. He can shoot 79 when the stakes are high...or 95 when he is playing for nothing. But his argument is that he puts the score in the GHIN system just as his score card says...which indeed is an accurate reflection of his score that day.
But here's the kicker...
When he plays match play, he will try like heck to win each and every hole. BUT...when he is out of a hole he mysterisouly hits poor chips, mis-reads putts, mis-clubs on his approach shots, etc. So, yes he may have indeed scored a 7 on a par 3...but it is pretty clear that his effort isn't his best.
This efforts results in a higher than normal handicap and success on winning money on the course...but strangely enough not very many people want to play with him. Go figure!!
-
Jim
I play golf for the fun and challenge of the game. On old courses, that I have played many times the score is not the issue – it never is, it’s reading the course and navigating through different approaches. Some major errors have befallen me as my skill was unworthy of some of my efforts, yet I rose to the challenge and perhaps ended with an 8 or so on those holes but did I enjoy trying to extricate myself from these disaster, you bet I did. Why, because the score is just part of the enjoyment of playing the game of golf.
I also love courses that I have never before played upon, either alone or if possible with friends. Again, it’s the challenge. I may never win the biggest dick (head) competition but I will try and come out with the biggest smile, perhaps that’s what defines us Brits against you Yanks. It’s playing the game because it is a game, of accumulating and understanding the skill requirements of each phase of the round. I am not after a clinical approach, life is just too short to go down that path, ask Tiger.
Relax, enjoy and perhaps you may find that your scorecard will reflect that state of mind, if not don’t worry, there is always tomorrow.
Melvyn
-
Sully, Perhaps I missed it, but where did you get the notion that someone isn't "trying"?
I'm one who enjoys playing shots of differing styles (Traj and curve) on almost every swing. To me that's fun. I score well when my putts fall. Which means I don't try to hit high soft fades on every shot like the robots that dominate the modern game. Why do they dominate? Back to my point about the architecture and maintenance melds only asking and allowing for that shot. If I don't score well it isn't the end of the world and doesn't preclude me from appreciating the architecture. On the flip side... If the architecture ONLY allows for a one dimensional player to score well, I don;t think it's very good architecture.
Since I have not been there, I assume Oakmont, even though it's very difficult, still allows a player the flexibility in deciding how they want to play the shots and attack the hole. And, is inherent on why it is considered a great course. George Pazin's accounts are at the heart of my assumptions. I like difficulty, I get up for it, as long as it isn't the same task over and over and over again. Such as high soft shots required on every swing.
-
I think somewhere in between Melvin, and JMEvensky and Jim Sullivan is match play. The aim is not to take the fewest strokes but to take fewer than you opponent on each hole - a subtle but important difference.
I will make a more conservative or aggressive play if I think it will improve my chances of winning the hole, but that play may well lead to a higher score for the hole. I might lag a 10 foot putt to ensure a win on a hole in match play, when in stroke play I might be more aggresive and try to make birdie (or par :().
Similarly, a hole may be described as a good match play hole because of its "knife-edge" qualities, a bold play may result in a better chance of defeating my opponent on that hole, but failure may be disastrous. In stroke play, the risk would not be worth the gamble, in match play, depending on the circumstances of the match, the gamble may be indicated. The decision making process does not consider the number of strokes but the outcome of the hole.
I will guess that all those who line up on the "must try for the lowest number of strokes" side of this discussion are from North America. That is the way we are taught to approach the game, match play is an afterthought. It seems like even when we play match play, we still will remain in stroke play mode. Pity!
-
I may never win the biggest dick (head) competition but I will try and come out with the biggest smile, perhaps that’s what defines us Brits against you Yanks. It’s playing the game because it is a game, of accumulating and understanding the skill requirements of each phase of the round. I am not after a clinical approach, life is just too short to go down that path, ask Tiger.
Relax, enjoy and perhaps you may find that your scorecard will reflect that state of mind, if not don’t worry, there is always tomorrow.
Melvyn
Your inability to leave the "Holier Than Thou" attitude behind makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation, I'd be happy to try.
-
Adam,
I didn't necessarily think you don't "try", at least most of the time, but there's a very strong condecension on here against those that worry about score..."Scorecard & Pencil..." and I think they (you included on occassion) are missing something if they don't look at each shot as an opportunity/challenge to hit the best shot you can in an effort to finish the hole as quickly as possible. Melvyn's comment above about plauing just for the sake of it is only the most recent example.
Again...letting your score affect anything else about you is a shortcoming not related to golf.
-
Jim
How on earth have you managed to come up with your "Holier Than Thou" statement based upon my comment.
Holier than thou, I am astounded, no shocked.
There is nothing more worth saying on the subject if that is your opinion.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
I put it in quotes for you.
Most every post of yours is a diatribe on you Brits doing it the right way and us Yanks screwing it up...we got your point, but it doesn't help move the conversation along.
If you're interested, please explain how you could stand in the middle of the 17th fairway at TOC and just play the hole "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to manuever your way to the lowest possible score on the hole without disrespecting the game. And in my opinion, the only distinction between Match Play and Stroke Play in this conversation is that the desired lowest score might be different based on ones opposition in Match Play.
-
Jim, You have assumed too much from both mine and Melvyn's posts. You are dead wrong if you think I don't try to make every swing the one that gets the job done.
-
And in my opinion, the only distinction between Match Play and Stroke Play in this conversation is that the desired lowest score might be different based on ones opposition in Match Play.
Jim, while I agree with your statement for the most part, there is a whole different mindset in match play, one that leads to a different decision on which stroke to play. But it is still true that a player will be focusing on the successful execution of the stroke chosen, regardless of the form of play.
-
Adam,
Fair enough, glad to hear it.
-
Jim
For your information from 1st Dec 1903
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/TheScotsman1121903TheAmericanGam-1.jpg)
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/TheScotsman1121903TheAmericanGam-2.jpg)
Melvyn
PS Is the guy taliking about you way back in 1903
-
"Our American Cousin" was the play Abraham Lincoln was watching when he was shot. It was written by a British playwright about the British perspective of American culture.
Most people consider Lincoln's shooting to be an assassination, but it was really at the request of Lincoln himself after watching the tripe on the stage before him.
;)
-
Melvyn,
I never asked you to agree that golf is identical on both sides of the Atlantic...it's not at all. But where I can speak of casual and competitive golf in both locations, it seems the writer was as ignorant as you as to the true golfers on this side.
-
Jim
Who is being 'Holier than thou' ?
Hope your game wherever you play it is more consistent that your posts.
Melvyn
-
Still you Melvyn, don't worry.
-
Do I detect that the misunderstanding here is that Melvyn is relating experience and writing about two-ball foursomes as is very common in Scotland, while Jim is relating experience of playing your own ball?
Is not there a considerable difference in these two types of play that will show up in the attitudes of the players. If a "Yank" goes to Scotland, plays in a match and grouses about the bad shots that lead to a defeat, then doesn't he exhibit the behavior related in the article?
-
I think somewhere in between Melvin, and JMEvensky and Jim Sullivan is match play. The aim is not to take the fewest strokes but to take fewer than you opponent on each hole - a subtle but important difference.
Yes,but...
Frequently on here,people equate "match play" with their weekend $20 Nassau.I've never met Jim Sullivan,but my guess is that he's referring to the tournament variety.There,a player still must focus on getting the ball in the hole in the lowest number of strokes,but,with the parallel consideration of how many strokes one's opponent is simultaneously taking.Match play doesn't remove the scorecard/pencil mentality so much as add an additional component.
Kind of the old match play maxim,"play the golf course,not your opponent".
-
The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...
the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history. And I don't think any of them were wrong, per se...rather they were simply in a different frame of mind or "place" regarding their ideas on golf.
For instance, Bobby Jones first played St. Andrews and picked his ball up and walked off the course in 1921 (?) due to the courses "unfairness". Could he have been thinking like Crane then?
Then, perhaps, he goes home and can't get the course out of his mind, despite his criticisms of it. Isn't this one of Mackenzie's criteria for a great course?
He then returns to St. Andrews and loves the course and actually picks Mackenzie (a thinker whose view of a golf course is a polar opposite one to that of Crane's) to design Augusta...which was supposed to emulate St. Andrews in many ways.
So...don't we see how Bobby Jones went from Crane-like thinking to Mackenzie like thinking in regards to golf in the span of a few short years?
If so, why would that be? Could it be we all have some Crane in us? That is we want to put up a "good" score. But then deep down we all want to be challenged and pushed by a golf course, in the way that St. Andrews pushes us, frustrates us, and inspires us to become better thinkers on a golf course rather than simply robots who have masters the swing?
-
Very simply, my position is that you should stand on each tee trying to figure out how to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible...then, once you screw up the tee shot, you re-calibrate your plan and goals accordingly...that's it!
That attitude is usually referred to on here as the Scorecard and Pencil mentality, but I am certain it is distinct from the boorish egocentric behavior also frequently included in the phrase...such as Mac's acquaintances referenced above.
Melvyn said he plays "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to produce the lowest score. I think he's cheating the game.
I asked how he would play #17 at TOC "for the sake of it" and he has yet to answer, instead focussing on Bulls and China Shops...
-
...
Melvyn said he plays "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to produce the lowest score. I think he's cheating the game.
...
Doesn't this clearly show a difference in philosophy between Melvyn and Jim, and perhaps between Scots and Americans.
Why is someone cheating the game if they are not trying to produce the lowest score? Scots talk about competing against nature. Americans try to produce the lowest score. Obviously these are general stereotypes not applicable in all cases, but I think they may have some merit.
Consider the following.
My home course is in the Columbia River Gorge, which is famous for its winds and wind surfing in particular. In my location, we get the winds mostly in late fall, winter, and early spring. Over in Hood River, they get them year round which makes wind surfing extremely popular there. During this time of year I love going out and trying to hit shots that work in the wind, with no regard for score. In the summer, I love competing in our series of men's tournaments where score is the thing with no need to hit shots that compete with nature.
-
Very simply, my position is that you should stand on each tee trying to figure out how to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible...then, once you screw up the tee shot, you re-calibrate your plan and goals accordingly...that's it!
That attitude is usually referred to on here as the Scorecard and Pencil mentality, but I am certain it is distinct from the boorish egocentric behavior also frequently included in the phrase...such as Mac's acquaintances referenced above.
Melvyn said he plays "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to produce the lowest score. I think he's cheating the game.
I asked how he would play #17 at TOC "for the sake of it" and he has yet to answer, instead focussing on Bulls and China Shops...
Jim,
The attitude of card and pencil is not as simple as that. You are describing strategy, and the essence of the game of golf (fewest strokes possible) when you say you want to get the ball in the hole fast.
Obviously it's a misunderstood concept, this card and pencil catchall. Forrest Richardson once made a big deal that I was afflicted with the attitude because I wrote down all my scores. He couldn't be further from the truth. I write down my score because I keep a handicap. That's it. I don;t focus on my score and certainly don't ever think about it, as a whole, until the round is over. Nothing can derail a great day scoring faster than thinking "I'm two under".
-
Garland,
Maybe you could tell me what "competing with nature" means in the context of a round of golf...I've always understood what 'don't f*** with Mother Nature so I just figured I'd not compete with her either...
-
Jim,
I thought you would have gotten the idea from my description of playing in the wind in the gorge. It means successfully getting the ball keep from ballooning into a head wind and achieve some personal measure of success in all the other wind related shots; and to successfully lag a long putt near the hole on a very wet green and achieve some personal measure of success in all rain affected shots.
-
Maybe the missing piece of the puzzle is the difference between those who come from a background of signing scorecards and those who don't.
Wouldn't people who grew up playing tournaments have a different outlook as to how the game is supposed to be played?
-
JME, As I understand the the Tag, It's more about the casual round player who grinds over his two foot putt and then his three foot putt and then the tap in. Slowing down play for the rest who follow. Not about a guy who shoots in the mid to high 60's and can flat out play. (unless of course he takes five hours to do it)
That's one origin of the Tag, Card and Pencil mentality, as I know it.
-
JME, As I understand the the Tag, It's more about the casual round player who grinds over his two foot putt and then his three foot putt and then the tap in. Slowing down play for the rest who follow. Not about a guy who shoots in the mid to high 60's and can flat out play. (unless of course he takes five hours to do it)
That's one origin of the Tag, Card and Pencil mentality, as I know it.
Agreed that PGA wannabe's should be shot on sight and hung up as a warning to others.
I was trying to explain why some people have difficulty with the "being at one with nature" idea of playing.For some,the place for trying to hit different kinds of shots is the practice tee--the golf course is for trying to shoot the lowest score you can.It's just the way some were taught.
Pencil/scorecard should never be pejorative,IMO.
-
“The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...
the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history. And I don't think any of them were wrong, per se...rather they were simply in a different frame of mind or "place" regarding their ideas on golf.”
Mac Plumart:
You may be right that the discussions (debates?) between Mackenzie/Behr and Crane were perhaps one of the biggest (or most important) and most defining moments in golf course architecture history. Bob Crosby and I believe that to a large extent and have for some years now; others do not see it that way for various reasons or to the extent we do.
Nevertheless, Bob and I (we’ve been discussing this subject for some years now) feel that even though the most important points of the debate were broached fairly well on both sides and by both sides, unfortunately the actual debate itself by the three of them back then was not particularly well joined or developed. That particular aspect we feel is perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the entire so-called MacKenzie/Behr vs Crane debate on golf architecture and golf and/or what both are, what they should be back then, and what they should be in the future. The reason the debate was never well joined and developed appears to be that it rather quickly became personal or ad hominem. The latter may even be the primary reason why Bob Crosby wrote his essay on this subject and why he feels (as I do) that the entire subject of the debate should be reprised and joined again.
However, when I’ve considered the points that MacKenzie and Behr made on the one side and Crane made on the other side, and when I also consider the points that the contributors to this thread are making on one side or another side, it occurs to me, as it has for some years now, that perhaps no one has really given golf and its golf architecture the appreciation and understanding of all that it can be and deserves.
By that I only mean to say I think golf itself, unlike most all other games or sports, particularly stick and ball games or sports, is replete with a number of interesting formats-----match play, singles, foursome, better ball, total field competitions in stroke play of varying formats etc, not to even mention the fact it really can be played alone without the benefit of another human competitor present, and so forth. And why is that? What is it about golf, that includes all those varying formats even including solo and alone, that makes it fundamentally different or even unique compared to almost any other stick and ball game in the world? I would say it is because in golf the ball is never vied for between human opponents and so in a real way a human opponent is not even necessary to the basic structure of how golf is actually played. To some that may seem so basic as to be almost pointless but it very well may be the greatest and most important point and fundamental of all of golf and even the seminal reason why golf courses both can be, should be, and are so very different from one another around the world.
And so, for that very reason alone it just may be that the real trick for all of us is to not ever try to convince or proselytize anyone as to what golf should be or how it should be approached and looked at by anyone else. Shouldn’t we all just allow anyone or even everyone to find their own way to how to look at and play golf, including what they feel about any iteration, type or style of golf course architecture----and if not, why not?
It seems to me the most important point Behr made (at least to me) is that golf and golf architecture and the appreciation of it (or not) is essentially all about emotion, individual emotion----and individual emotion is not exactly something anyone should or even can mathematically or formulaically measure or even rank or rate for some attempt at a general consensus of opinion as the correct thing to do and the only right way to go. To even attempt to do so is to head down a road whose ultimate goal seems to always be standardization and equity and fairness----or even a far more awful eventuality----viz. sameness.
As Max Behr liked to say----eg if this point and premise is well drawn (if it is true) it may be the very reason the real deal with golf and its architecture is in its differences, particularly in its vast differences from course to course that make up the entire spectrum of golf and architecture world-wide. As Bill Coore has said, a very wide spectrum of difference is so important to the vitality and the future of both golf architecture and golf.
If this is true, it would seem the only inherent difficulty or obstacle is that these necessary vast differences of type and style from course to course, including the vast differences of individual opinions or emotions regarding any of them or even how to best play the game----this necessarily very wide spectrum worldwide, is never possible to accomplish on any one single golf course. But isn’t this the point of why we do have and should have such vast differences in types and styles of golf architecture around the world, including so many vastly different opinions about how to best play golf and enjoy it?
C.B. Macdonald’s autobiography was called “Scotland’s Gift Golf,” and it is true that Scotland gave the world golf because it happened to have it long before the rest of the world, but that was a long, long time ago and the game (or sport) no longer belongs to just Scotland---golf now belongs to the world with all the world’s variations and differences, culturally and otherwise, imbued into golf.
Because of (or even despite) some of these unique differences compared to most all other games or sports, isn’t THIS the ultimate and even the unique gift that golf both can and has given to us all?
-
My friend,
your latest post just might be your best. I have copied it and saved it in my Word files.
I will review it again and again before I can even begin to prepare an answer.
Tom...it is posts like this (and the recent lack thereof) that has had many a member of GCA wishing for your return.
In a brief and quick response, I think you are right. These inherent facets of golf, which you mention, are indeed what makes it a great game and able to be loved by golfers with wildly different ideas of what the game is all about.
It is a game I love, but perhaps others love it for a completely different set of reasons. And that is fine. And, perhaps, that is what makes it great!
-
The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history.
One of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history? Thats quite a statement. What affect did this debate have on golf architecture?
-
Tom M...
I am thinking that if Joshua Crane would have gotten more followers then golf course architecture might have gone in a completely different direction.
As it seems to have gone, Bobby Jones picked Alister Mackenzie to help him with Augusta...which would go on to become one of the most influential golf courses in the world.
Alister Mackenzie was one of the debaters (along with Behr) who was on the opposite end of the spectrum relative to Crane.
I think if Crane would have won over Jones, I think things would have wound up differently relative to golf course architecture.
Hence, my statement.
-
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if were not for Behr and Mackenzie debating Crane, Crane would have had revolutionizing affect on golf course architecture history? Or are you saying golf architecture changed some how as a result of the debate? If so, how did golf architecture change?
-
"these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history"
Tom...
Essentially, yes to the first part of your question.
Here are my thoughts/thought process...feel free to critique, add further color, etc;
IF the majority of the golf course architecture world had jumped on board with Crane's idea behind golf and golf courses and then began to make golf courses that played "fair" and "equitable", then I think there is a chance that the history of golf course architecture could have been completely different.
For instance, if the most prominent golfer of the day, Bobby Jones, had stuck with the same mind frame that compelled him to walk off The Old Course in 1921 (?) due to his thinking it was unfair then he might have sided with Crane (who rated The Old Course as one of the worst...if not the worst golf course in Europe) and shared a belief that golf courses should be more standardized and reward good shots and punish bad shots...rather than require unique thoughts and strategies to play each and every one of them.
If this was the case, then he most likely would not have choosen Mackenzie to help him with Augusta...as Mackenzie was on the oppposite side of the argument as Crane.
And the entire history of golf course architecture would be completely different.
I hope you see what I am saying as I don't think I can type it much better in a limited space.
EDIT...also Tom M. I think re-reading some of the previous posts on this thread will bolster some of the thoughts I have outlined and answer some of your questions.
-
Your one of the biggest and most defining moments is based 100% on speculation. There is no evidence this 'debate' had any affect on golf course architecture, or Bobby Jones for that matter. To my knowledge Jones never mentioned Crane or Behr in any of his writing.
Crane's ideas were a reflection of American ideals of golf architecture, this was not something he developed. He was a product of American architectural thought; his ideas were mainstream American ideas on golf architecture, and this is where Bob missed the boat. And they continued to be mainstream American ideas long after the 'debate'. The affect of the 'Crane-Behr debate' has been over blown IMO - it was a minor blip on the radar screen.
[edited from 'biggest' to 'one of the biggest']
-
Tom M...
fair enough.
but you should be aware that the first sentence of your last post in inaccurate. You say, "Your biggest and most defining moment is based 100% on speculation"
I did not say it was the defining moment in golf course architecture history.
Here is precisely what I said, "these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history"
which is why I wanted to post it and discuss it...to learn more about it.
It is fine to disagree that is what these discussion boards are all about, but when you misrepresent what is said perhaps that leads to some issues.
EDIT..."then" changed to "when" in last sentence.
-
Tom M…
I thought a lot about your post over the morning and I wanted to include a longer post in response to it.
First, and foremost, I love what you bring to the discussion group and you are one of the main reasons for me wanting to get involved with Golf Club Atlas. I think your research is quite phenomenal and I hope that one day I have same level of knowledge related to golf history as you have. However, for now I don’t…but I am really interested to learn. This is why I read so much, ask questions, etc.
Secondly, I think you and I, potentially, go about things (or look at things) differently. Perhaps this is due to our backgrounds/professions. From your posts and writings on the site, it appears to me that you are a golf historian and an author. You research past records, find evidence, and report on it. As you are an historian and author, that is what you must do and it makes total sense.
I on the other hand am a portfolio manager. I do research and try to piece together a variety of data from a variety of sources to derive a mosaic picture in order to infer a conclusion (or an educated guess) as to what might happen in the future. From this I take investment actions. In your words, I speculate. In my world, there is nothing definitive…you simply do the best you can to figure out what might happen.
A recent an example of this is a trade I executed on a stock. In March, when the whole world seemed to be falling apart my research led me to believe that the core earnings of the stock were around $2.74 after all the dilution. But the stock was trading at almost the same price, which equates to 1 times earnings. In my world, that is absurd unless the company is going out of business. BUT, if the company is going to make money how can it go out of business? So, after more diligence, double and triple checking, I loaded the wagons with the stock when the price was around $4/share. Now, did I know for sure (did I have verifiable evidence) that the stock would rise in value? No. I simply made the best guess I could. And fortunately that stock is about $16 to $17 per share as I type this.
So, this is where I come from and how I think. Is it “right” for an historian to think this way? No, you can’t speculate on what might have occurred in the past. You can’t say that even though Joe Schmoe is the architect of record on Course X, I think it Jane Doe had something to do with it even though there is no evidence to support it. I get that. And I get that you are trying to find evidence to support the claims that you make and you like to see similar evidence when others make claims as well.
But in this instance regarding Joshua Crane, I did not make a definitive claim. Rather I said, “ (it was)…perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history"
“Perhaps” was used purposefully to open it up for debate
And
“one of the biggest” was used to put a qualifier on it.
I can see by using my regular thought processes how this MIGHT be true. And it is interesting for me to wonder about it and the entire “Golden Age” for that matter, which is the reason why I put this paragraph in my opening post…
“how wonderful it must have been to be an active participant in the "Golden Age" of golf course architecture. CB MacDonald develops his ideas and models, Mackenzie takes an almost opposite stance, Colt makes major steps forward, and Joshua Crane takes an entirely different view on what a golf course is supposed to be. No clear direction had been established concerning what the fundamentals of golf course architecture were and all of these guys (and some more) were putting into writing their formal thoughts. How cool!”
In closing, I see clearly where you are coming from and I respect it very much. In fact, I would like to see more of your work and if there is anything I can do to help facilitate it…I am simply an email or post away.
However, understand I am seeking to learn about golf, golf architecture, and its history. I rarely make definitive claims. Instead, I generally think out loud and wonder openly…in hopes that others will join in provide extra research, color, background, and opinions.
I could go on…but I will stop now.
Later,
Mac
-
I've spent the last "some" hours reading (again) and rereading Bob Crosby's "In My Opinion" essay entitled Joshua Crane (In the Golden Age). In my opinion, it is the most elucidating, edifying, historically educational and immaculately written piece ever put on Golfclubatlas.com, and by a minimum factor of a least ten.
However, what seems to be saddening is at least one semi-preceived prominent contributor to this website who had some critical opinions on the gist of this essay either didn't read it very carefully or didn't understand it very well after having read it or else just simply miscontrued the meaning of it for God only knows what reason. He actually said he thinks Crosby missed the boat on some significant point that the author never even came close to trying to make in the first place in this wonderful essay.
I suggest those truly interested in the complex nuances of the evolution of American architecture take the time necessary to read and fully digest the fascinating albeit complex meaning of this wonderful essay.
-
TEP
I agree with you, the essay was very well written and well researched. And Joshua Crane was a fascination character, and an interesting subject for an essay. The issue I have with the essay is the idea that Joshua Crane and 'the debate' had some major impact on golf architecture. Joshua Crane and the Crane-Behr debate had a little or no impact on the development of golf architecture. I'm finishing up my alternative account of the essay, which I believe will give some historical perspective to what was actually going on in architecture at the time.
-
From Post #43:
"Nevertheless, Bob and I (we’ve been discussing this subject for some years now) feel that even though the most important points of the debate were broached fairly well on both sides and by both sides, unfortunately the actual debate itself by the three of them back then was not particularly well joined or developed. That particular aspect we feel is perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the entire so-called MacKenzie/Behr vs Crane debate on golf architecture and golf and/or what both are, what they should be back then, and what they should be in the future. The reason the debate was never well joined and developed appears to be that it rather quickly became personal or ad hominem. The latter may even be the primary reason why Bob Crosby wrote his essay on this subject and why he feels (as I do) that the entire subject of the debate should be reprised and joined again."
-
"The issue I have with the essay is the idea that Joshua Crane and 'the debate' had some major impact on golf architecture."
If that is your take on my Crane piece, I urge you to read it more caefully. Regarding the causation claim you think I was making, let me quote my last two paragraphs.
"The claim here is not that Crane is somehow responsible for the most widely held modern views about golf architecture. He's not. Golfers aren't thinking of Crane when they say that "fairness" and resistance to scoring are the sine qua non of good golf design. Nor is the claim here that the USGA, the PGA or Augusta National all have Crane in mind when preparing their venues for golf competitions, even if the ideas on which their preparations are based are remarkably similar to Crane's. By the time golf architecture awakened from its long sleep during the Great Depression and World War II, Joshua Crane was a forgotten figure of a bygone era.
The claim being made here about Crane is not a causal one. The claim is rather that, first, Crane and other the proponents of equitable architecture all draw on similar intuitions about "fair play". Second, that Crane helps to see why importing such ideas from other sports into golf architecture seems so natural and how central they are to the most widely held views about golf design. And finally, that the responses of Behr, MacKenzie, Croome and others to Crane's project give us the clearest, most thorough articulation we have of why taking equitable concerns appropriate to other sports and importing them into the design of golf courses is a problematical enterprise. Which is to say, if you want to understand the real points of friction in disagreements over foundational issues in golf architecture since the Golden Age, you would do well to use Joshua Crane and the fuss he stirred up in the 1920's as your starting point."
Let me try to be as clear as I can. Because I guess I need to. The Crane debates didn't "cause" anything as far as I can tell. The debates were important, however. For the reasons given above.
Bob
-
Bob,
These guys argued in the late twenties. What courses, and what style of golf course, hadn't appeared before these arguments even commenced?
I think too much is made of Crane, and although he created a fuss, his high marks for the holes which made up the "Ideal Golf Course" don't seem to be any different than ones that would make that list today.
His rating of the ideal course:
Hole #1 is PV's #1 - 95.3%
#2 is NGLA #10 - 94.5%
#3 is Kittansett #3 - 95.6%
#4 is PV's #16 - 96.6%
#5 is a combo of
Essex #10 & Myopia #14 - 97.0%
#6 is Essex 4 - 96.5%
#7 is Merion #12 - 96.8%
#8 is PV's #12 - 94.8%
#9 is Brae Burn #4 - 95.3%
.and here's the link to the back side if anyone wants it: http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1927/gi282g.pdf
The questions of fairness and equity predated Crane, and as it can be seen in the modern arena, they will also outlive him.
His was an era of amateur sportsmen whose ideals were molded on an Olympic model of an equal and fair playing filed. Our modern era is one of cash for play, and a fair playing field is the 'ideal' because 'I' don't want to lose big bucks because of an errant bounce.
-
Jim -
On the other hand Crane disliked the Eden, the Road Hole and lots of other holes we (and others like CBM) think highly of.
Yes, the issue of "fairness" predated Crane. By decades. I think I was clear about that in the piece. The real value of the Crane debates is the way they brought disagreements over that issue to a head. It's much more complicated (and interesting, I think) than most people assume.
Bob
-
Bob,
Well, I've never heard anyone call the Eden hole 'fair', and the Road hole isn't probably too high on Duval's list. ;D
I read your entire piece and, for what it's worth, I thought you did a very good job with it, I just don't come to the same conclusion about the meaning of their discussions. Everything they were arguing was, necessarily, done prior to the discussion, and nothing changed going forward, at least not until after WW11, and then for completely different motives.
Having said that, I think the whole discussion was important and not something that should be forgotten.
-
I agree that the Crane discussions were very important. But perhaps the ideas represented by each side are more important than the actual particpants in the discussion...since they seem to pre-date Crane/Mackenize, etc and they continue to this day.
There is perhaps an issue with this thread and how it relates to Bob's piece. I made the statemtn regarding the relevance and effects of the debates in the context of golf course arhcitectural history and I am not sure that Bob did. I will have to re-read it to be sure.
So, if people take issue with that portion of this thread, I think they take issue with my statements and not Bob's piece.
FYI.
Another mistake I may have made is assuming that Crane lost the arguments and, therefore, lost the hearts and minds of golfers. Perhaps golf course architecture has been primarily in sync with his thoughts through out history and most golfers want fair and equitable golf courses.
Anyway, I look forward to Tom Macwood's article on the topic.
Again, great work Bob. I think this topic is fascinating!
-
Why was the Crane discussion important? Can anyone point a concrete result of the discussion? Was Crane the father of equitable architecture...if so, what are examples of equitable architecture?
-
Tom M…
I haven’t read all the articles and writings on the Crane/Behr debates, but from reading Bob’s article(s) it is clear that he thinks the following were concrete results of their discussions…
1) Penal vs. Strategic discussions;
2) shaping modern understanding of the terms;
3) clarify what’s wrong with the distinction;
4) they suggest a better way to parse fundamental differences in architectural philosophies;
5) The debates tell us that seeing fundamental differences in design philosophies as turning on a distinction between
strategy and penalty is misleading, both conceptually and as a matter of history;
6) And they provided for a better framework for seeing historic debates over basic design philosophies. That is to see
them as debates between, on the one hand, strategic architecture and what might be called “equitable architecture”
on the other.
FYI…these are cut and pasted directly from Bob’s piece.
One question I have regarding this time frame is this…prior to Crane did anyone ever do golf course ratings or rankings?
Also, it appears you edited your last post while I was responding…you added was Crane the father of “equitable architecture”? Frankly, I don’t know…but I would say no as he didn’t design anything and wasn’t “penal” or “equitable” architecture already prevalent in golf, highlighted by Oakmont? But like I said…I really am not the guy to answer this definitively.
-
Your six points are one or maybe two points rephrased six different ways.
The concepts of penal and strategic predate the very brief Crane-Behr debate. It is true Crane tried to clarify what was wrong the term penal (when the term was used against him like reactionary or ultra-conservative is used in political discussions today), but no one took him seriously so it had no impact. As far as suggesting a better way to parse the fundamental differences of those terms, that was Bob's parsing 80+ years after the fact not Crane-Behr.
What were the concrete results of the 'debate'...what work or works of architecture can you point to that was/were impacted by the debate?
-
Don't know...not educated enough on the topic.
Were there ratings or rankings before Crane did his? Just curious.
-
Your six points are one or maybe two points rephrased six different ways.
The concepts of penal and strategic predate the very brief Crane-Behr debate. It is true Crane tried to clarify what was wrong the term penal (when the term was used against him like reactionary or ultra-conservative is used in political discussions today), but no one took him seriously so it had no impact. As far as suggesting a better way to parse the fundamental differences of those terms, that was Bob's parsing 80+ years after the fact not Crane-Behr.
What were the concrete results of the 'debate'...what work or works of architecture can you point to that was/were impacted by the debate?
Tommy Mac
Does an impact on architecture have to take place to make the "debate" important from a historical perspective? Additionally, your question is an impossible one to answer just as are the questions of influence on architecture. I can look back to your Art and Crafts piece and justifiably conclude that the movement had no effect on architecture, but so what? What is important is the question(s) was asked and someday the search for the answers to those questions may lead to all sorts of interesting tid bits which help fill the gaps of history. History isn't about making accurate, firm conclusions. History is about filling in the big picture with little pictures, connecting the dots and trying to recreate an overall landscape of what was happening, why and how all the different aspects of that landscape are connected - or not. That isn't to say making conclusions isn't important, but conclusions change with every little picture gathered and to find these little picture folks have to ask questions. This is why I think your A&C piece is fantastic. You are trying to connect the dots.
Ciao
-
Does an impact on architecture have to take place to make the "debate" important from a historical perspective?
If the debate had no impact on architecture, one way or the other, why would it be considered an important event in the history of architecture? Do you think Crane-Behr debate had an impact on golf architecture, if so what was it?
The A&C movement was an aesthetic movement in the late 19th and early 20th C, that directly or indirectly impacted a very broad spectrum of creative disciplines (from architecture to metal work to gardening and textiles), it was especially impactful among educated middle and upper middle classes in the major cities of England, London being the hub. The men who revolutionized golf architecture at the turn of the century were from the educated upper middle classes living in and around London. Of all the creative disciplines why would golf architecture be immune from this powerful aesthetic movement?
-
Does an impact on architecture have to take place to make the "debate" important from a historical perspective?
If the debate had no impact on architecture, one way or the other, why would it be considered an important event in the history of architecture? Do you think Crane-Behr debate had an impact on golf architecture, if so what was it?
The A&C movement was an aesthetic movement in the late 19th and early 20th C, that directly or indirectly impacted a very broad spectrum of creative disciplines (from architecture to metal work to gardening and textiles), it was especially impactful among educated middle and upper middle classes in the major cities of England, London being the hub. The men who revolutionized golf architecture at the turn of the century were from the educated upper middle class living in and around London. Of all the creative disciplines why would golf architecture be immune from this powerful aesthetic movement?
Tommy Mac
I didn't say the debate had an impact on architecture, but that doesn't mean it didn't. There is an awful lot out there we don't know and never will know. To me it is plausible that this debate could have had an influence on Dr Mac in some way and he in turn could have had an influence on others.
As for your piece, I am not at all certain all creative disciplines were influenced by A&C. Additionally, I am not certain gca wasn't influenced by A&C, but it strikes me as plausible. But to definitely claim there was an influence, one must show what that influence was and how it couldn't have been the product of some other factors. As I said, I am not hung up on the conclusions because they are necessarily largely based on opinion. What is far more interesting and satisfying is the attempt at connecting the dots and therefore giving the reader a wider scope and how archietcture fits into that scope.
Ciao
-
To my knowledge there has never been aesthetic movement quite like the one that took place at the turn of the century in England, one that affected such a broad spectrum of unrelated disciplines. Do you know of a comparable aesthetic movement?
I take it you read the Crane essay, in your opinion what plausible impact did the debate have on golf architecture? And if had little or no impact, why should it be considered an important event?
-
I take it you read the Crane essay, in your opinion what plausible impact did the debate have on golf architecture (or specifically on Mackenzie)? And if had little or no impact, why should it be considered an important event?
-
To my knowledge there has never been aesthetic movement quite like the one that took place at the turn of the century in England, one that affected such a broad spectrum of unrelated disciplines. Do you know of a comparable aesthetic movement?
I take it you read the Crane essay, in your opinion what plausible impact did the debate have on golf architecture? And if had little or no impact, why should it be considered an important event?
Tommy Mac
It sounds as if you are asking me which is more plausible; the possible impact of A&C or the Debates? That is something I can't answer. As I said earlier, neither may have had an impact, on the other hand, both may have had an impact. I just don't know. I wasn't privy to conversations and internal thoughts of these guys. What I will say is because a direct causal link cannot be found written in dusty old Minutes or magazines doesn't in the least mean there wasn't one. Can you agree, despite no direct proof, that both A&C and the Debates could have had an impact on architecture?
Ciao
-
Sean...
for the record I agree with you completely and I think others do as well.
The points Bob Crosby makes at the end of this article(s) are extremely important to golf course architecture. And anyone reading those debates would certainly be impacted by it...assuming they had the mental capacity and interest/passion to understand what was being said. And what I mean by this is that the average golfer of the day reading these debates most likely wouldn't be interested, but an architect or aspiring architect might have eaten them up.
I made a point a few posts ago about how Tom M and I see things/think differently. I'll make it again and then fade away on this thread. In my mind, I can easily see connections between things and visualize possibilities. I think this type of thinking is vital to understanding the potential for these arguments and the debates to have a huge impact on the golfing world.
However, Tom M., given his background and style, seems to want to find an article or written document that says that Architect X built the bunker in the middle of the fairway because he was reading the Crane/Behr debates about equitable golf....or something along the lines of verifiable evidence. I think that finding this type of evidence is very unlikely to happen.
Therefore, I think on this issue the two types of thinkers will be in direct disagreement and that is fine...as that is what makes the world go round. However, that will not stop me from believing that these debates (or maybe more importantly the type of thinking each side represents) are very important to the hisotry of golf course architecture. Especially, since it seems like the type of thinking pre-dates these specific debates and continues to this day.
But in closing, I'll ask again...were they any type of golf course rankings before Crane did his lists?
-
Mac,
I do believe that Crane was the first to assign numerical values, but there have always been those who were ready to give their opinions, individually or as a group, about the relative qualites of golf courses.
-
Tommy Mac
It sounds as if you are asking me which is more plausible; the possible impact of A&C or the Debates? That is something I can't answer. As I said earlier, neither may have had an impact, on the other hand, both may have had an impact. I just don't know. I wasn't privy to conversations and internal thoughts of these guys. What I will say is because a direct causal link cannot be found written in dusty old Minutes or magazines doesn't in the least mean there wasn't one. Can you agree, despite no direct proof, that both A&C and the Debates could have had an impact on architecture?
Ciao
You interjected the A&C essay into this discusion, not me (the comparison is apples and oranges IMO, comparing the affect of a well documented & influencial aesthetic movement to the affect of relatively obscure short lived debate between two mostly obscure individuals).
My question to you was specific to the Crane essay. I take it you read the essay. What was its possible impact on golf architecture? You menitoned Mackenzie may have been influenced, specifically what do you believe was the impact on Mackenzie?
-
Sean...
for the record I agree with you completely and I think others do as well.
The points Bob Crosby makes at the end of this article(s) are extremely important to golf course architecture. And anyone reading those debates would certainly be impacted by it...assuming they had the mental capacity and interest/passion to understand what was being said. And what I mean by this is that the average golfer of the day reading these debates most likely wouldn't be interested, but an architect or aspiring architect might have eaten them up.
I made a point a few posts ago about how Tom M and I see things/think differently. I'll make it again and then fade away on this thread. In my mind, I can easily see connections between things and visualize possibilities. I think this type of thinking is vital to understanding the potential for these arguments and the debates to have a huge impact on the golfing world.
However, Tom M., given his background and style, seems to want to find an article or written document that says that Architect X built the bunker in the middle of the fairway because he was reading the Crane/Behr debates about equitable golf....or something along the lines of verifiable evidence. I think that finding this type of evidence is very unlikely to happen.
Therefore, I think on this issue the two types of thinkers will be in direct disagreement and that is fine...as that is what makes the world go round. However, that will not stop me from believing that these debates (or maybe more importantly the type of thinking each side represents) are very important to the hisotry of golf course architecture. Especially, since it seems like the type of thinking pre-dates these specific debates and continues to this day.
But in closing, I'll ask again...were they any type of golf course rankings before Crane did his lists?
I'm not asking for how golf course X or golf hole Y was affected by the debate. I'm asking how did this debate change golf architecture, what affect to it have on the philosophy of a group of architects or even on a single golf architect.
There were course rankings that predate Crane, and numerical measuring systems for judging golf courses that predate Crane. I will go into that in more detail in my alternative account.
-
Tommy Mac
It sounds as if you are asking me which is more plausible; the possible impact of A&C or the Debates? That is something I can't answer. As I said earlier, neither may have had an impact, on the other hand, both may have had an impact. I just don't know. I wasn't privy to conversations and internal thoughts of these guys. What I will say is because a direct causal link cannot be found written in dusty old Minutes or magazines doesn't in the least mean there wasn't one. Can you agree, despite no direct proof, that both A&C and the Debates could have had an impact on architecture?
Ciao
You interjected the A&C essay into this discusion, not me (the comparison is apples and oranges IMO, comparing the affect of a well documented & influencial aesthetic movement to the affect of relatively obscure short lived debate between two mostly obscure individuals).
My question to you was specific to the Crane essay. I take it you read the essay. What was its possible impact on golf architecture? You menitoned Mackenzie may have been influenced, specifically what do you believe was the impact on Mackenzie?
Tommy Mac
I believe I am well documented for not buying the "apples and oranges" excuse for not comparing/contrasting whatever rests under the sun. The reason we CHOOSE not to do so is more associated with laziness or inability - myself included. In other words, anything can be compared/contrasted with anything else. All that aside, your question is a good one, its well stated and deserves an answer. However, I have already stated that I don't know the answer either way. I have also stated there may well not be an answer to that question. Well, at least the answer may be buried, as are countless other answers to speculative queries such as this and any possible influence A&C may have had on architecture, with primary subjects. At some point you will have to accept that a great many of the "answers" we come up with on this subject of golf architecture are based in subjective analysis simply because we don't have all that many straight forward answers to what are often not straight forward questions. It isn't as ideal as a yes or no, but it is what we have to work with.
Ciao
-
In the spirit of being helpful, let me note:
1. Crane and Behr were both relatively obscure men. To the extent people knew about them in th 1920's, they were quickly forgotten thereafter. Or as I say in the piece, they soon became "forgotten men of a by-gone era".
2. Historical causation is a very tricky issue. In the case of Crane I have no idea what impact, if any, the debate had. My essay assumes that there was none. At least none that is provable.
3. There were course ratings before Crane. There were also many people who held ideas similar to Crane's who pre-dated him. Crane's originality was in the way he applied those older ideas.
4. The debates were nonetheless very important for the reasons given in my excerpt above and in more length in my piece. My hope is that after reading my piece you will have learned something about about the tangled mess lying behind many commonly used architectural concepts. That is worth the candle, I think, because most people assume those concepts are much clearer than they in fact are.
I had thought the above was reasonably clear in my piece. But from a number of responses here and elsewhere, perhaps not.
Bob
-
Perhaps this doesn't answer Tom M's question directly, but as I clearly stated previously I am not the expert on this matter. However, here are some of the questions and possible impacts that Bob's piece (and the underlying ideas of the Crane/Behr debates, which I have not read in their entirety) touches on...
1) penal vs. strategic discussions and hashed out defintions and ideals of each (very important to me)
2) forced proponents of each to formalized their thoughts...this might have been the catalyst for some of the great writing in golf course architectural history. (As I am at work and only have a few seconds, can some one help me on this one...when were these debates started?...when were the great books written? Mackenzies' Golf Course Architecture, Colt's essays, McDonald's Scotland's Gift, Thomas' Golf Architecture in America, Mackenzie's notes which were used for The Spirit of St. Andrews, and the other great books of that era.)...this entire time along with its writing are regarded as some of the most important in the history of golf course architecture.
3) Again, I bring up Bobby Jones. He walked off St. Anderws I think in 1921 proclaiming it unfair (I believe that is right). But Mackenzie defneded it as the greatest golf course, a direct contrast to Crane who rated is as the worst. Then Jones chooses Mackenzie to help him with Augusta. Again, what were the dates of these debates? Weren't they published in golf magazines? When did Jones pick Mackenzie? Might these debates influenced him? Isn't Augusta an important golf course? Wasn't Augusta built with St. Andrews in mind? Why would Jones emulate a course he didn't think fair (or worthy)?
4) Now golf course ratings and rankings are prevelant. Is it possible that these debates were a catalyst for this proliferation?
In a nutshell, what were the potential imacts of these debates on golf course architecture? formal defiition of architectural concepts, catlysts for some of the great writings on the topic, a hand in one of the greatest courses of all time, help proliferate rankings.
Anyway, I've got to run...but this should be a good food for thought.
-
Tommy Mac
I believe I am well documented for not buying the "apples and oranges" excuse for not comparing/contrasting whatever rests under the sun. The reason we CHOOSE not to do so is more associated with laziness or inability - myself included. In other words, anything can be compared/contrasted with anything else. All that aside, your question is a good one, its well stated and deserves an answer. However, I have already stated that I don't know the answer either way. I have also stated there may well not be an answer to that question. Well, at least the answer may be buried, as are countless other answers to speculative queries such as this and any possible influence A&C may have had on architecture, with primary subjects. At some point you will have to accept that a great many of the "answers" we come up with on this subject of golf architecture are based in subjective analysis simply because we don't have all that many straight forward answers to what are often not straight forward questions. It isn't as ideal as a yes or no, but it is what we have to work with.
Ciao
It would lazy man's out if the person simply said apples & oranges and ignored the comparison. I addressed the comparison and answered your question. I still think its a poor comparison.
Although I believe the Crane-Behr debate was an interesting debate and worthy of an essay, my point has been it had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history, and I believe the fact that most are having difficulty answering my question about its impact confirms my point.
-
Perhaps this doesn't answer Tom M's question directly, but as I clearly stated previously I am not the expert on this matter. However, here are some of the questions and possible impacts that Bob's piece (and the underlying ideas of the Crane/Behr debates, which I have not read in their entirety) touches on...
1) penal vs. strategic discussions and hashed out defintions and ideals of each (very important to me)
2) forced proponents of each to formalized their thoughts...this might have been the catalyst for some of the great writing in golf course architectural history. (As I am at work and only have a few seconds, can some one help me on this one...when were these debates started?...when were the great books written? Mackenzies' Golf Course Architecture, Colt's essays, McDonald's Scotland's Gift, Thomas' Golf Architecture in America, Mackenzie's notes which were used for The Spirit of St. Andrews, and the other great books of that era.)...this entire time along with its writing are regarded as some of the most important in the history of golf course architecture.
3) Again, I bring up Bobby Jones. He walked off St. Anderws I think in 1921 proclaiming it unfair (I believe that is right). But Mackenzie defneded it as the greatest golf course, a direct contrast to Crane who rated is as the worst. Then Jones chooses Mackenzie to help him with Augusta. Again, what were the dates of these debates? Weren't they published in golf magazines? When did Jones pick Mackenzie? Might these debates influenced him? Isn't Augusta an important golf course? Wasn't Augusta built with St. Andrews in mind? Why would Jones emulate a course he didn't think fair (or worthy)?
4) Now golf course ratings and rankings are prevelant. Is it possible that these debates were a catalyst for this proliferation?
In a nutshell, what were the potential imacts of these debates on golf course architecture? formal defiition of architectural concepts, catlysts for some of the great writings on the topic, a hand in one of the greatest courses of all time, help proliferate rankings.
Anyway, I've got to run...but this should be a good food for thought.
The concept of penal and strategic had been hashed out prior to the debate. There were no golf architects or golf architectural critics who identified with penal golf architecture, so there were no proponents of penal architecture around to formalize anything. Supposedly one of the reasons Jones chose Mackenzie was his admiration for Cypress Point. I suspect the heavily bunkered CPC would have finished near or at the top Crane's ranking had he evaluated it. Modern golf rankings began with Golf Digest in 1965 or 1966, it seems to me that trying to trace that ranking to Crane 40 years earlier is a major stretch.
-
Tommy Mac
I believe I am well documented for not buying the "apples and oranges" excuse for not comparing/contrasting whatever rests under the sun. The reason we CHOOSE not to do so is more associated with laziness or inability - myself included. In other words, anything can be compared/contrasted with anything else. All that aside, your question is a good one, its well stated and deserves an answer. However, I have already stated that I don't know the answer either way. I have also stated there may well not be an answer to that question. Well, at least the answer may be buried, as are countless other answers to speculative queries such as this and any possible influence A&C may have had on architecture, with primary subjects. At some point you will have to accept that a great many of the "answers" we come up with on this subject of golf architecture are based in subjective analysis simply because we don't have all that many straight forward answers to what are often not straight forward questions. It isn't as ideal as a yes or no, but it is what we have to work with.
Ciao
It would lazy man's out if the person simply said apples & oranges and ignored the comparison. I addressed the comparison and answered your question. I still think its a poor comparison.
Although I believe the Crane-Behr debate was an interesting debate and worthy of an essay, my point has been it had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history, and I believe the fact that most are having difficulty answering my question about its impact confirms my point.
Tommy Mac
Or, it could be that few people have the driving need to show causation between the Debates and architecture. Many may be satisfied that it is quite possible the debates influenced architecture, perhaps through Dr Mac. At any rate, he would have had to spend a great deal of time in the course of these debates on the subject matter and he was very good friend's with Crane. It seems to me anything conencted with this siubject stands a good chance to have made Dr Mac at the very least give his ideas some thought.
Bob already stated that his premise was not to show causal link between the Debates and you have stated that the topic was interesting enough to warrant an essay. What exactly is your beef?
Ciao
-
In the postscript of the essay there is defintely an attempt to tie Crane to the ills of modern post-WWII golf architecture, RTJ, USGA set up, etc. I don't believe Crane or the Crane-Behr debate had any affect on any of those things.
-
KBM
You are right on the money, that is exactly what Bob wrote after six pages of showing a direct parallel to Crane's philosophy. He doesn't provide an alternative theory as to why things developed as they did, therefore the reader is left to conclude Crane is to blame, despite his brief claim to the contrary. And he goes on to say Crane and other proponents of equitable architecture all draw on similar intuitions about fairplay (which is at the root of the evils of post WWII golf architecture as described in the postscript). Who are the other proponents of equitable architecture?
In addition to my not agreeing with the attempt to blame Crane for the ills of modern architecture, I think generally he was a little unfair to Crane. He didn't really go into the fairly dramatic transformation Crane made after the debate, and the likely reasons for that transformation. And my biggest issue is one of historical perspective, there was an important debate taking placing at the time that did have a real impact on golf architecture (and on Crane and Behr), but it was ignored in the essay.
-
Tom M...
I, for one, love it when you give more verbose answers to questions posed rather than simply responding with more questions. I learn a great deal from those reponses. Thanks!
On my last post, question #2 was not answered. Any insight into that?
Great stuff guys!!
-
Ok...
I finally had a few minutes of down time at work and I dug up the answers to my second reason regading why these debates might have been important to golf course architecture and the dates of the arguments and books.
First off, on Ian Andrew's website under the "Books that Shaped the Game", he says the following...
"I can not express how important this part of the Golden Age influenced future architects. It is the single most important decade in shaping most of the latest generation of architects."
Given this quote and the fact it is in the "Books that Shaped the Game" portion of his website, I have to believe that the writing of the Golden Agers were important to golf course architecture and its development.
So, 1924 Crane's rankings are unvield. Almost immediately debates break out. Then from 1926-1927 Behr and Crane confront each other in magazine articles and debate penal/equitable architecture vs. strategic.
1926 "The Links" is released by Hunter. On his website, Ian says the following about the book..."Hunter slowly educates the reader about golf architecture, particularly pointing out the failings of penal architecture and the elements of architecture that add the greatest interest"
1928---"Scotland's Gift" is released. Another classic book on architecture.
1929---"The Architectural Side of Golf" by Wethered and Simpson is released. Ian Andrew describes this book with htese comments..."This is perhaps the most thorough analysis of the strategic school of design. The book is very poignant and full of strong opinions particularly from Simpson when it comes to penal architecture."
1931(?) Mackenzie takes the notes which are used to make up The Spirit of St. Andrews. Crane is mentioned specifically in this book.
So, were these debates which centered on the Crane the most significant moment in the entire history of golf course architecture? Probably not. But were they significant and important? I say yes. Very much so.
Again, these is only a direct mention of Crane in "The Spirit of St. Andrews", but since the debates were so heated and published in Golf Magazeines, I have to assume that the authors of the other books had to aware of them and, therefore, had to be influenced by them.
Given Ian Andrews' profession and his comments on the importance of these books, they are still influencing golf course architeture to this day. Which makes them very important to the history of golf course architecture.
Anyway, I have to get back to work. But, these are my thoughts.
I anxiously await Tom M's newest piece on the subject as I hope to learn more about it.
-
“KBM
You are right on the money, that is exactly what Bob wrote after six pages of showing a direct parallel to Crane's philosophy. He doesn't provide an alternative theory as to why things developed as they did, therefore the reader is left to conclude Crane is to blame, despite his brief claim to the contrary.”
Please try to give the general reader of Crosby’s essay more credit than that. Bob Crosby offered the following to not only explain Crane’s philosophy but perhaps the philosophy of the vast majority of all golfers before, during and after Joshua Crane.
“Behr grasped more clearly than most the significance of how Crane had framed the debate. As will be recalled, Crane had given to his CP&P principles a central role in his analysis of golf design. His justification for that role was that those or similar principles were the keys to equitable sporting competitions generally and, as such, should also apply to the design of golf courses (mutatis mutandi). It was a simple and highly intuitive proposition. After all, Crane asked, golf claims to be a sport doesn’t it? That was at the heart of Crane’s rationale for making his CP&P principles the relevant metric in assessing the quality of a golf course.”
“And he goes on to say Crane and other proponents of equitable architecture all draw on similar intuitions about fairplay (which is at the root of the evils of post WWII golf architecture as described in the postscript). Who are the other proponents of equitable architecture?”
Who are the other proponents of equitable architecture (the term “equitable architecture” was created by Bob Crosby to better explain Crane’s and the philosophy of many others before him of the idea in golf and in golf architecture of “control,” “predictability,” “proportionality” (“CP&P”---an acronym also created by Crosby)? I would say probably over 90% of all golfers before, during and after Crane and I would also say the reason they are all probably proponents of equitable architecture in golf is simply because all intuitively link golf to all other stick and ball games which utilize a common ball for their very structure, as Crane so prominently did on his side of the debate.
To link golf to all other stick and ball games in this way is obviously a very intuitive thing to do, not the least reason being very few probably ever even considered that golf is in fact perhaps the only stick and ball game in the world which does NOT use a common ball between human opponents or allow for a ball to be vied for by human opponents and/or their equipment and ball.
In my opinion, the articulation of that distinction between golf and all other sports or games----that fundamental uniqueness about golf, may’ve been the most important thing of all from Max Behr. It may even be the fundamental bedrock reason why golf was never meant to be fair or equitable in the context of its playing field as all other sports and games necessarily are and have to be simply because their very structure depends upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents-----completely UNLIKE golf!
I admit this idea, even if fundamental to golf is incredibly counter-intuitive to the vast majority of golfers of any era probably because it is so unique (Bob used the Latin term “sui generis”) compared to all other stick and ball games and sports, and I also note that when Behr clearly pointed this out to Crane in the debate-----ie this fundamental difference with golf to all other stick and ball games or sports as well as what it meant to golf's playing fields and why Crane's proposals were fairly anathema thereto, Crane fairly ignored it and failed to respond to it. Crane was apparently not a dumb guy. He probably understood very well that if he took that point up at all in response to Behr his entire side of the debate would be severely weakened regarding his reasons to want to make golf fairer by striving to remove luck from it and make it more “equitable” as is frankly necessary both to and in all other games and sports which use a common and vied for ball-----completely unlike the very structure of golf itself!
-
Ok...
I finally had a few minutes of down time at work and I dug up the answers to my second reason regading why these debates might have been important to golf course architecture and the dates of the arguments and books.
First off, on Ian Andrew's website under the "Books that Shaped the Game", he says the following...
"I can not express how important this part of the Golden Age influenced future architects. It is the single most important decade in shaping most of the latest generation of architects."
Given this quote and the fact it is in the "Books that Shaped the Game" portion of his website, I have to believe that the writing of the Golden Agers were important to golf course architecture and its development.
So, 1924 Crane's rankings are unvield. Almost immediately debates break out. Then from 1926-1927 Behr and Crane confront each other in magazine articles and debate penal/equitable architecture vs. strategic.
1926 "The Links" is released by Hunter. On his website, Ian says the following about the book..."Hunter slowly educates the reader about golf architecture, particularly pointing out the failings of penal architecture and the elements of architecture that add the greatest interest"
1928---"Scotland's Gift" is released. Another classic book on architecture.
1929---"The Architectural Side of Golf" by Wethered and Simpson is released. Ian Andrew describes this book with htese comments..."This is perhaps the most thorough analysis of the strategic school of design. The book is very poignant and full of strong opinions particularly from Simpson when it comes to penal architecture."
1931(?) Mackenzie takes the notes which are used to make up The Spirit of St. Andrews. Crane is mentioned specifically in this book.
So, were these debates which centered on the Crane the most significant moment in the entire history of golf course architecture? Probably not. But were they significant and important? I say yes. Very much so.
Again, these is only a direct mention of Crane in "The Spirit of St. Andrews", but since the debates were so heated and published in Golf Magazeines, I have to assume that the authors of the other books had to aware of them and, therefore, had to be influenced by them.
Given Ian Andrews' profession and his comments on the importance of these books, they are still influencing golf course architeture to this day. Which makes them very important to the history of golf course architecture.
Anyway, I have to get back to work. But, these are my thoughts.
I anxiously await Tom M's newest piece on the subject as I hope to learn more about it.
Are you under the impression there were no heated architectural debates prior to 1924? There were a number of debates that were much more heated and involved a much larger number of high profile participants. The golf ball controversey is one that comes immediately to mind (actually more than one). The Berh-Crane debate was a minor debate historically.
You are ignoring all the books written before 1924 written by or with contributions from Low, Hutchinson, Darwin, Hilton, Hutchison, Fowler, Bauer, Ross, Colt, Alison, Mackenzie, Campbell, Hotchkin, Beale, the Suttons, etc. Not to mention the huge number articles written on the subject in magazines and newspapers prior to 1924.
The idea that this short lived debate spurned an architectural book movement is ridiculous IMO.
-
There were golf books, magazines, and debates before 1924? Huh? Really?
I guess you don't see my point at all. Frankly, I think it is pretty easy to piece together and see...but you choose not to.
That is fine.
I look forward to your upcoming article on this topic.
-
“Although I believe the Crane-Behr debate was an interesting debate and worthy of an essay, my point has been it had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history, and I believe the fact that most are having difficulty answering my question about its impact confirms my point.”
This point, termed above as “my point” (that the Crane-Behr debate had little or no impact on the course of golf architecture history), is, in my opinion, fairly misleading at worst and unnecessarily limiting at best (to a discussion) of the actual subject and issues articulated back then from and within the so-called “Crane-Behr debate.”
It is rarely, if ever, denied (by those who have comprehensively studied what Crane said, proposed, claimed, on one side of the debate and what particularly Behr said, proposed, claimed, on the other side of the debate) that those ISSUES they articulated are not interesting and potentially maximally important to not just golf architecture but to golf itself. The point is----do those issues (articulated in that debate) offer a good framework with which to better understand golf architecture principals or even the unique structural principals of golf itself?
It is frankly irrelevant if that debate and the issues articulated in that debate did not have much of an impact on golf and architecture back then-----eg there are numerous reasons an important impact from that debate on golf and architecture may not have resulted and been forthcoming back then and even up until today (that in and of itself is a subject for another highly important and interesting essay).
The real point (question) is----if the specific issues (subject) of that debate (what either side was saying, proposing and claiming) could be and were to be comprehensively and intelligently reprised and analyzed and discussed today COULD it result in an interesting and maximally important impact today and particularly on the future of golf architecture and even golf?
From having discussed this subject and so many of the details of it with Bob Crosby (and a few others who have studied it all very carefully) for a number of years, I believe that was and is Bob Crosby’s hope, his intention and his ultimate goal. I certainly know it is mine. I also believe Bob Crosby did a truly marvelous job of articulating in his essay the issues contained in that actual debate back then. Frankly I think he did a far better job of articulating and explaining the real issues within that debate back then than the actual debaters did.
I do not suggest that some of the issues on their own face within that debate back then, even the most fundamental issue contained in that debate (in my opinion and apparently in Behr’s opinion perhaps the absolute basic fundamental issue being the fact that golf may be the only stick and ball game in which the ball cannot be vied for between human opponents) are easy to embrace or appreciate or even understand. And consequently they are definitely harder still to embrace, appreciate and understand if one has not comprehensively read and considered them all as well as both how and why they were articulated in that debate.
However, that does not mean they are not or may not be maximally important to golf architecture and particularly golf both before those debates, during those debates and afterwards and into our future.
I would suggest for those interested in this subject and thread (which appears to be about Bob Crosby’s four part essay entitled “Joshua Crane in the Golden Age”) and in discussing the specifics of it that they go back and read and reread Parts III and IV, and particularly consider the following quotation from Max Behr in Crosby’s essay:
“In a game the contest is for control of a common ball. Skill is opposed to skill, and hence is relative to the tasks which the opposition creates. But in all sports skill is expressed along parallel lines. That is to say, in sports there is a conceivably ideal way in which the task of skill might be accomplished by all contestants. We are conscious of this in the playing of a golf hole, and according to our abilities, we succeed or fail in paralleling this line. Thus golf belongs within the category of a sport. And in sport skill is comparative in solving similar problems. The actual opponent is golf is nature, the human opponent being merely a psychological hazard….”
I’ve long felt it was truly unfortunate and roundly misleading that Behr chose to make a distinction in this debate that golf should be considered a “sport” and that all other stick and ball games where a common ball is vied for between human opponents (unlike golf---eg apparently being the only stick and ball game where a ball is NOT in some way vied for between human opponents (or their ball) should be considered “games”). I think that distinction that Behr made while interesting and even maximally important (apparently he was the first one or even the only one who ever made that interesting distinction) unfortunately never advanced beyond general semantic confusion.
Behr's interesting point of the vast and fundamental importance to both golf and golf architecture that the structure of golf is that a ball in golf cannot be vied for between human opponents (or their implements and balls) unlike every other stick and ball game would probably have produced far more mileage in general understanding had he simply made that point, and the fundamental importance of it, and not attempted to categorize it (golf) with a different term----eg “sport.”
I say that because Crane had predicated his side of the debate on the fact that golf, and golf architecture, should be viewed and approached with the very same philosophy and goal of perfection, more standardized definition of “risk/reward” areas for fairness and lack of luck to serve the purpose of “competitive equity” (that Bob Crosby terms “CP&P”= equitable architecture) as all other stick and ball games whose very purpose and structure depend upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents------eg completely unlike golf and its very structure and purpose.
-
This thread has been pushed to the backburner recently, but I have been thinking about it continuously ever since I first started it.
Joshua Crane was brought to my attention while reading “The Spirit of St. Andrews” by Alister Mackenzie. He mentions Crane and Behr very early on in the book and has some interesting things to say about him/them.
This inspired me to begin to search for more information on Crane and this search immediately led me to Bob Crosby’s piece on Joshua Crane which is posted in the “In My Opinion” section of this site. Reading that proved to be an eye opening experience for me and led me to think about golf on an even deeper level.
As I’ve written on this site before that I think golf is a magical game. And reading about the Crane vs. Behr debates led me to believe that I am correct in that thought. It is not a game like any other. In fact, it is quite unique. Adam Clayman, Jim Sullivan, and Tom Paul all made comments on this very thread that seem to back that statement up.
Adam said in reference to golf, “The game mind is more complex then the difference between the confines of a pool table and the freedom and variety of nature.”
While Jim Sullivan followed that up with the following, “I think Adam touches on another real distinction between Golf (and all other Sports) and "Games"...the player is not competing against another. Whether it's a mountain, or a fish, they are on their own.
And much later Tom Paul said the following, “In my opinion, the articulation of that distinction between golf and all other sports or games----that fundamental uniqueness about golf, may’ve been the most important thing of all from Max Behr. It may even be the fundamental bedrock reason why golf was never meant to be fair or equitable in the context of its playing field as all other sports and games necessarily are and have to be simply because their very structure depends upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents-----completely UNLIKE golf!”
So, I think it is quite clear that golf is entirely unique in the sports world. However, it appears that many, many people (Joshua Crane included) want to minimize that “uniqueness”. They want fair and equitable courses. They want the element of luck removed. Now, do I have factual empirical evidence to support my claim? No.
But I do know that Tom Fazio is one of the most prolific golf course architects in the history of the game. Inherent in that fact is that there is a high demand for his product. But what is the main complaint that golf course architecture experts say about his work? Well, Ian Andrew for one said, “Tom’s work can be characterized as too safe and too fair to be great.” But if Tom Fazio is in high demand, doesn’t that mean that most golfers desire “fair” and, therefore, equitable golf courses? And then, doesn’t that mean that Crane was right? It probably does.
Furthermore, I have played Cuscowilla 5 times in my brief golfing career. And every time I play the 5th hole with its shell-backed green, at least one of my playing partners will chip on to the green and watch his ball roll off the other side and exclaim full of frustration, “this just isn’t fair!!!”
But what is even more interesting to me is that these very same players who think the 5th isn’t fair, can’t wait to play the course again and specifically talk about wanting to make par on that hole.
Wasn’t it Mackenzie who said that great holes/courses will initially be criticized before they are understood and then loved? I think so. Doesn’t Mackenzie have 6 of the most highly regarded courses in the entire world? Yes. Weren’t Mackenzie’s ideas on golf course architecture in direct contrast to Crane’s? Yes. In fact, Mackenzie thought St. Andrew’s Old Course was the greatest course in the world and Crane thought it was the worst.
So, who is right and who won the argument? Well, I think Mackenzie and Behr were right…but perhaps Crane won the arguments as more people can grasp the ideals he espoused more readily. According to my research, most people don’t “get” St. Andrews right away. In fact, most don’t see what the fuss is about at all. But, most great architects and golfers LOVE St. Andrews.
However, all of these points can be debated and discussed for many, many more years to come. Just like they’ve been debated for the last 85 or so years since the original Crane debates first started. Also, some on this site have said they don’t see how these debates were important. Well, sometimes you can’t convince someone of anything if they don’t want to believe it. Using the economy/markets as an example, you couldn’t convince most people that tech was a bad investment in the late 90’s…but the 2000’s proved it was. You couldn’t convince most people that stocks were a good investment in March of 2009…but since then the S&P 500 has experienced an historic run up in value. And it seems to me that the simple fact that we are still discussing these debates which took place over 80 years ago would prove their importance, but perhaps I am wrong. I think the fact that one of the greatest architects of all time mentioned the debaters specifically by name in his notes/book would be further proof of their importance…but perhaps not. Either way, it doesn’t matter to me. I was under-weight tech stocks in 2000, I bought stocks in March of 2009, and I think these debates are important.
Furthermore, there has been a lot of discussion on this thread about “card and pencil” golfers in contrast to golfers simply playing the game. For the record, I don’t care how you play the game…do what is right for you. But I did stumble across this quote by John Low recently,
“The pity of golf today is that men play entirely to win and are afraid that they may be defrauded by some inequality of penalty from gaining the end of their desire. It would be happier for golf if we would only remember that the true good is in the playing, not in the winning.”
Take the quote or leave it, I simply thought it was interesting and applicable to our previous discussion.
In conclusion, I go back to the Tom Paul quote I posted earlier...
“In my opinion, the articulation of that distinction between golf and all other sports or games----that fundamental uniqueness about golf, may’ve been the most important thing of all from Max Behr. It may even be the fundamental bedrock reason why golf was never meant to be fair or equitable in the context of its playing field as all other sports and games necessarily are and have to be simply because their very structure depends upon the vying for a common ball between human opponents-----completely UNLIKE golf!”
Is this why you can play while focusing on your stroke play score, your match play standing, or not worry about your score at all? Is this the fundamental reason for the games magic?
Anyway, that is what I got thus far…but I will continue to ponder why this game has such a hold on me!
-
Mac,
It's probably corerect to say that the discussions are worthwhile from a historical point, but I can't see that they changed anything at the time and they haven't changed anything today.
No one started building eminently fair golf courses in the late '20s, and what came after WW11 was the commercial golf course, built for volume.
I don't think there is a whit of difference between sport or game, not where there is some athleticism involved, and what makes golf so attractive has to do with the many ways in which it can be enjoyed, i.e. alone, in a group, against an opponent, against many opponents, against no one but yourself, an easy walk, a hard test, a commune with nature, a commune with yourself, and the list goes on and on.
-
Mac:
I’m glad to see you’re interesting in carrying on with this subject!
“However, all of these points can be debated and discussed for many, many more years to come. Just like they’ve been debated for the last 85 or so years since the original Crane debates first started. Also, some on this site have said they don’t see how these debates were important.”
I’m not so sure some on this site said that debate (or its subject matter) was not important although at least one kept questioning what impact it had or kept claiming it really had little impact and consequently it must not be very important to reprise or discuss now. The impact the actual Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates had on golf and architecture very well may be somewhat irrelevant providing the subject matter and the points made in that debate can be considered fundamentally important to discuss henceforth. I think that is one primary reason Bob Crosby reprised that debate and wrote about it in the way he did----including changing some of the terms used that may’ve originally served to simply confuse many people back then. I think Bob’s creation of the terms “CP&P” (Control, Predictability and Proportionality) is brilliant because those terms much more accurately reflect what Crane was actually saying and proposing, as opposed to the “Penal” label (penal vs strategic) that was perhaps somewhat unfairly thrust on him in that debate. And I think the resulting term “Equitable Architecture” that directly results from a far greater application of CP&P as Crane was proposing is really brilliant on Bob’s part.
“So, who is right and who won the argument? Well, I think Mackenzie and Behr were right…but perhaps Crane won the arguments as more people can grasp the ideals he espoused more readily.”
I think that question of yours is a natural one to ask and your quick answer to it is very accurate particularly the last part of it after the ("....."). Who actually won the argument or debate is probably a truly slippery item to pin down and it too may be somewhat irrelevant, again if the subject matter and points made are fundamentally important and relevant to discuss henceforth, particularly if they were not particularly well engaged or developed by the debaters back then.
So were the points well made and developed by the debaters back then and if not then why not? I don’t know that they were very well made or developed by Crane. But that might have had to do with the fact that he was attempting to do something somewhat different than Behr and Mackenzie claimed he was actually doing or ultimately going to do if his ideas were carefully followed of wrapping golf architecture in some context of formulaic and mathematical analysis. Behr and Mackenzie responded that they felt golf was wholly unable to be subjected to this type of mathematical and formulaic analysis simply because of what golf fundamentally was (its structure of an unvied for ball which essentially and effectively creates an additional "opponent" that frankly relies on a form and playing field of natural randomness) compared to other stick and ball games that depend on exact linear dimensions for their very purpose of making the vying for a common ball between human opponents more efficient in both time and space!
On the other hand, I think Behr developed some truly remarkable points in this debate and to a depth of explanation and insight (incite? ;) ) that had probably never been done before. Despite that Behr was a writer who was notoriously complex and difficult to understand and the other problem with that debate having a wider and better and bigger impact both back then and today is unfortunately the entire debate that was carried on over an extended period of time in a number of periodicals does not seem to have been compiled into one single place or volume where anyone back then or any or all of us today can read it and consider it carefully. Frankly one of the real drawbacks to discussing this debate or this subject on here is so few have access to what-all Crane wrote and particularly what-all Max Behr wrote, not to mention what Mackenzie wrote about it.
I’ll add more later…..
-
Mac
Cypress Point, Pasatiempo and Royal Melbourne were all laid out around the time Crane's system was under attack. How do you think those courses would have faired under Cranes rating system, and why?
-
Tom...
I am certainly interested to hear your "I'll add more later..." comments.
In the meantime, the point you make that the subject matter and the points made in that debate can be considered fundamentally important is what I have been trying to describe throughout this thread as opposed to the actual debates themselves, but apparently I've been doing a bad job at that. Anyhow, the subject matter of the debates is what I am most interested in as they are what I think are vitally important.
Jim Kennedy mentions...
"what makes golf so attractive has to do with the many ways in which it can be enjoyed, i.e. alone, in a group, against an opponent, against many opponents, against no one but yourself, an easy walk, a hard test, a commune with nature, a commune with yourself, and the list goes on and on."
Jim's detail of all the ways golf can be enjoyed is potentially due to the fact that the ball isn't fought for (vied for) by opposing players/teams. And isn't this what makes the game unique?
Interesting to think about.
-
Tom M...
I have no clue. Never played those courses.
Have you? What are your thoughts regarding the same question?
-
Tom M...
I have no clue. Never played those courses.
Have you? What are your thoughts regarding the same question?
I've played CPC and Pasatiempo. Even if you haven't played any those courses I assume you know what characterizes them, and Mackenzie's other well documented designs in the mid- to late-20s. I also assume you know Crane's system.
Based on that knowledge how do you think those courses would have rated out?
-
Tom M...
I suppose I don't see the value is offering up a speculative analysis of a course I haven't played according to a formula for rating courses that I didn't construct or agree with. In fact, if you read up on Crane's method he states clearly that a thorough study of the elements of sound layout and upkeep are required. Again, I haven't played the courses or studied them thoroughly.
However per your own words, you have. So if you deem this important to our discussion, please detail your thoughts and explain to us how they might be useful in our discussion.
Furthermore, you mentioned you were preparing an essay in response to Bob's. As I stated previously, I would be very interested in reading that. Any progress updates?
-
"Jim Kennedy mentions...
"what makes golf so attractive has to do with the many ways in which it can be enjoyed, i.e. alone, in a group, against an opponent, against many opponents, against no one but yourself, an easy walk, a hard test, a commune with nature, a commune with yourself, and the list goes on and on."
Jim's detail of all the ways golf can be enjoyed is potentially due to the fact that the ball isn't fought for (vied for) by opposing players/teams. And isn't this what makes the game unique?
Interesting to think about."
Mac:
I think it unquestionably is what makes it unique as well as how and why it can be played and enjoyed in all those ways Jim Kennedy mentioned. I really do believe that this fundamental point that basically Behr made in that debate is the bedrock issue and idea of all of this----eg golf is essentially the only stick and ball game in the world where the very structure of it depends on the fact that the ball does not have to be vied for and in fact cannot be vied for without violating its basic rules and principles. The fact that all other stick and ball games rely on a common ball vied for between human opponents makes their very structure and the principle of their games just so distinctly different from golf.
I'm afraid this difference is just so basic that over time most golfers have become unaware of it and consequently tend to try to gravitate towards the equitability between human opponents vying for a common ball which all other stick and ball games rely upon with their structure and point.
It is interesting to me that it does appear that Joshua Crane never even bothered to intelligently acknowledge this point of Behr's and engage him in it in that debate. As I said earlier on this thread, Crane was apparently a pretty smart guy who probably understood what it would mean in that debate if he actually did acknowledge that particular point Behr made and tried to discuss it regarding golf and equitableness (compared to other stick and ball games).
On the other hand, and probably ironically, Crane did specifically ask why golf should not be treated as all other games in the context of equitableness. But he asked it obviously before Behr answered him with that particular point about the structure of golf uniquely NOT being a common vied for ball. After Behr gave that answer, I think Crane avoided the point altogether.
-
Tom M...
I suppose I don't see the value is offering up a speculative analysis of a course I haven't played according to a formula for rating courses that I didn't construct or agree with. In fact, if you read up on Crane's method he states clearly that a thorough study of the elements of sound layout and upkeep are required. Again, I haven't played the courses or studied them thoroughly.
However per your own words, you have. So if you deem this important to our discussion, please detail your thoughts and explain to us how they might be useful in our discussion.
Furthermore, you mentioned you were preparing an essay in response to Bob's. As I stated previously, I would be very interested in reading that. Any progress updates?
You've never had a problem speculating before.
Mackenzie is arguably the most famous golf architect in history, and his designs in the mid- to late-20s are arguably his greatest designs. If you are not familiar with Mackenzie's most famous designs why should we take anything you say on this subject seriously?
-
Tom M...
If you don't take what I say seriously, that is fine. Like I've said many times before, I have thick skin and my feelings don't get hurt easily. I'm not trying to impress anyone, I am trying to learn. If you don't want to partipate in the process...that is fine. However, if you want to particpate in the process...that would be great as well. As I've said before, if I can help you with your work in any way...I am an email or a post away. Either way is fine with me, regardless of your stance I wish you well and hope you have a great and fulfilling life.
I'm off to bed...have a great night.
-
“Mac
Cypress Point, Pasatiempo and Royal Melbourne were all laid out around the time Crane's system was under attack. How do you think those courses would have faired under Cranes rating system, and why?”
“I've played CPC and Pasatiempo. Even if you haven't played any those courses I assume you know what characterizes them, and Mackenzie's other well documented designs in the mid- to late-20s. I also assume you know Crane's system.
Based on that knowledge how do you think those courses would have rated out?”
“You've never had a problem speculating before.
Mackenzie is arguably the most famous golf architect in history, and his designs in the mid- to late-20s are arguably his greatest designs. If you are not familiar with Mackenzie's most famous designs why should we take anything you say on this subject seriously?”
First, I don’t believe I know who the “we” refers to in the third statement above but I do know it isn’t me, as I take Mac Plumart very seriously, as I understand Bob Crosby and some others do. I take him seriously if he answers some irrelevant questions about how he thinks some of Mackenzie’s designs “rate out” under Joshua Crane’s mathematical GCA rating system but I take him just as seriously, perhaps even more seriously if he chooses not to answer those questions above. I take him just as seriously or perhaps more seriously if he chooses not to answer those questions above because the gist and heart and meat of the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate had nothing to do with how Mackenzie’s courses “rated out” under Crane’s system.
Matter of fact both Behr and Mackenzie in the beginning and middle and end of that debate did not even address or discuss or debate the actual complex merits and details of Crane’s mathematical GCA rating system (as apparently Joshua Crane originally hoped they would); they constantly maintained that such a system had no place in golf and golf architecture simply because the point of Crane's system seemed to suggest and head towards establishing greater “competitive equity” (fairness) between human opponents in golf.
They, and others, felt very strongly that such a system had no place in golf and no application to GCA and that such a system even presented a very dangerous and deleterious prospect for golf and architecture for a very fundamental reason----eg golf’s structure did not utilize a common ball vied for between human opponents as other stick and ball games necessarily did! The very point and purpose of all the other games in which a common ball was necessarily vied for depended on strict dimensional standards that directly served the purpose of "fairness" (competitive equity) essentially to most effectively manage time and space for human opponents vying for a common ball. But to golf’s architecture and by extension to golf itself this was in fact complete anathema-----and the fundamental reasons why it was anathema were given to Crane by both Mackenzie and particularly Behr in fascinating detail and depth that constituted a bedrock fundamental principle of golf itself----the fact that its very structure and point was not the vying for a common ball but the playing of an individual ball often in a "comparative" or parallel contest over a natural or a largely unregulated landscape with or against other players or competitors.
I think understanding better the foregoing, and where it may lead and may apply, is what Mac Plumart is interested in learning and discussing and I think he feels that this particular subject offers that framework and opportunity and I take him very seriously because of it. For the benefit of others who have any interest in this subject it might be worthwhile to cut and paste onto this thread a few of the salient points Bob Crosby made in his excellent essay that pertain to various posts.
-
The silliness at the bottom of Crane's position stands out when you think of the near impossibility of constructing golf courses that would necessarily be similar to one another, outside of using a 'formula' for greens, placement of hazards and length and number of holes. What Mac and Behr knew (and I'm sure it wasn't lost on others) was that you won't get the individual human being out for a few hours to slap around a little white ball unless you offer him/her a different look, or at least the potential for a different look, every time out. They understood that golf is not just about winning or losing, it's about the playing. Taken to the extreme, Crane's view would have created an America dotted with golf courses that would almost meet Olympic standards of sameness.
Which is why I honestly don't place much stock on the 'vying for a common ball' premise. I think it's more akin to the different mindset of the cross-country runner vs. the track enthusiast, the enduro rider vs. the moto-crosser, the back-country skier from the lift rider, i.e. they are looking for variety as part of the test in the sport they play.
-
Jim:
Those are some good and important observations of yours in that post above.
I think the actual Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates, particularly the way Bob Crosby presented it or perhaps even improved on the explaining of the fundamental subject matter of it, is not so much about some debate between those three men only. I think we need to understand that all of them----Crane, Behr and Mackenzie were all highly educated, intelligent and thoughtful men----perhaps all some form of "renaissance" man.
I think we need to appreciate that to men like Behr and Mackenze, and a number of others who weighed in on that debate on their side, just felt that a mathematical (formulaic and standardized) system of analyzing golf architecture was just not a good road to turn down, perhaps not because of Crane himself but in how others in the future might apply it and use it or misuse it.
It just may be the supreme irony of all that in fact this very idea of trying to establish more and greater fairness in golf (Crane's motivation), this idea of "competitive equity or equitableness"----eg "Equitable Architecture" from a greater application of CP&P (Bob's terms) that was part and parcel of Crane's system was the road that golf and architecture generally did travel down in the future after that debate and that they are still largely traveling down both in fact with courses on the ground as well as with a philosophical goal.
Crane did not invent this idea or philosophy as Bob very clearly pointed out; he only articulated it best with and via his system----or so the likes of Behr and Mackenzie et al thought or feared. On top of that it is pretty undeniable to accurately conclude that his idea, this idea of much greater fairness in golf and GCA is pretty much a natural instinct amongst most golfers, unless and until they begin to truly appreciate the distinction such as Behr made for why it fundamenatally should never be this way for golf or its architecture.
-
“Which is why I honestly don't place much stock on the 'vying for a common ball' premise. I think it's more akin to the different mindset of the cross-country runner vs. the track enthusiast, the enduro rider vs. the moto-crosser, the back-country skier from the lift rider, i.e. they are looking for variety as part of the test in the sport they play.”
The reason I feel the "common ball not vied for in golf" distinction compared to all other stick and ball games where a common ball is vied for is probably a good and useful one is it simply serves as a better or closer analogy than if one uses as some analogy to golf other sports or games such as fishing or shooting or mountain climbing or enduro running or whatever none of which uses or contemplates a ball or a stick and ball as the fundamental tools of the sport or game itself.
-
Why I say that is because I think it's more about the variety found in these other types of sports that makes golf so attractive. Stick and ball games are necessarily played on fields or courts because the object is not to lose the ball, although in baseball you like to lose one over the outfield fence once in a while.
When we were kids we played football on an open stretch of unruly, obstacle laden ground that had a tremendous pitch from one end to the other. One of the objects of the game was to get to be the team that was playing downhill, not up. No first downs, no yardage markers, no refs.
In the winter we played hockey on a swamp in which hillocks of frozen earth poked themselves up through the ice. It was like skating on a bumper pool table. Heaven help you if you got knocked on your tail and went sliding into one of theose hillocks. No rules, no ljnes.
Same in the summer, stickball in the street or if we could put together enough guys, off to the park we went. The game in the street was my favorite, more scrambling.
So that's my point, variety of surface and a more adventuresome playing field are the elements found in golf that are lacking in many other sports, not just stick and ball games.
-
Jim...
that one of the true beauties of the game of golf, right. As you say, "variety of surface and a more adventuresome playing field" Take that away (or minimize it) and it looses it appeal.
I've played a few courses that had flat fairways, flat greens, all fairways were open to the right to favor the slice, UGH...boring. But heck, I lit up the scorecard and had a few of my best rounds ever on these types of courses. But I don't want to play them again. I would rather play a challenging course like the Pete Dye Golf Club of WV. Quite a challenge, huge variation in challenges from hole to hole.
My understanding is that is the difference between what Crane and Behr were advocating. And to me that difference regarding ideals on what golf is all about is HUGE. Perhaps each has their own place however. Resort courses maybe Crane-esqe? Fair and equitable.
-
"My understanding is that is the difference between what Crane and Behr were advocating."
Mac:
I'd say you are exactly right about that----eg that kind of thing was a large part of the difference between what Crane was advocating and Behr was advocating (or at least what Behr said Crane was advocating. ;) ).
"And to me that difference regarding ideals on what golf is all about is HUGE."
I think it can be huge (at least in the context of an "ideal") or at least Behr and Mackenzie seemed to suggest it could be huge if the direction of golf and golf architecture generally turned down that road they feared Crane's ideas and ideals would take it vs the ideas and ideals they endorsed.
"Perhaps each has their own place however."
Perhaps each does have its own place and that is the reality of that idea of "The Big World Theory" that you asked me about yesterday. To me perhaps the ultimate goal for golf and architecture is that it never gets to a point of real homogenization or standardization of product. Variety, and the greater variety the better, in an overall spectrum context is probably a fairly ideal goal for golf and golf course architecture. Why? Because if one considers all golfers together there is arguably a very wide spectrum of taste amongst them and what they want from golf and golf architecture.
The only real problem with that, it seems to me, is when any one single course tries to satisfy too wide an opinion of taste and style.
-
Mac,
Crane was a 'parts' kind of guy, Mac and Behr were 'parts is parts' kind of guys, i.e., they saw the the whole stucture, Crane looked at the elements.
But, I also think I wouldn't be wrong in saying that no architect ever tried to create unfair or unbalanced situations on his/her courses.
-
Jim Kennedy:
The way you described football and hockey when you were a kid (and what it was you played on) is not much unlike the way Max Behr described golf itself when it was in what he called its "age of innocence," before it began to emigrate out of Scotland to sites that Behr said were unsuited to accept the game and the spirit of it as it had existed in Scotland. When it emigrated out of Scotland (arguably around 1850 and on and probably owing somewhat to the blanketing of GB by their railway system) he said those that inherited it began to take its pieces apart and try to analyze what they all meant so that they could put them back together again to make more scientific sense out of it all.
As I said on this thread in some earlier post, one of the problems with the Crane vs Behr (Mackenzie) debate is the whole thing was essentially a series of articles in various periodicals which has never been collected into one central place or offering. Therefore not that many people have had the opportunity to read the whole thing. I think the meat and crux of the entire thing basically came from Behr and his series of remarkable articles. How many of them have you actually read? If it is just a few I would be willing to make them available to you somehow or see that they are.
For those I know who really have read and considered Max Behr's writing they all seem to agree it takes a lot of time to consider and let it sink in. I've been doing it for ten or more years now and it is without question the most remarkable thoughts and series of them on golf and golf architecture I have ever read by a country mile.
However, I fear that too many who say they have read him but who really haven't just seem to pass him off as some kind of crackpot who wrote in a labrynthian, Edwardian style that is essentially meaningless to golf and architecture as we know it and think of it or should think of it.
-
Tom...
In my limited exposure to Behr, I agree with you. I find his writing excellent but difficult to read and comprehend. I have only read a few of his articles thus far, but am in the midst of digging into them.
I find them very interesting, but I find myself reading enough paragraphs to get the gist of a concept and then having to put it down and think about it for quite some time to let it sink in...and then pick it back up and continue on.
Given that I very much enjoy the topic and his style, I can stay focused long enough to work through his articles. Perhaps the people you refer to in your last paragraph, don't stick to it and miss out on some of his ideas?
But like I said, I am no Behr expert...yet! :)
-
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!!
-
Bump
-
Mac:
Thanks for bringing this thread back to the front page. In light of the current conversations taking place, the Crane/Behr/MacKenzie debates remain relevant, and there are lessons to be learned from a current examination of these "old" issues.
I still do not have a full grasp of what Crane meant by an "ideal" course. I understand his thoughts on fairness and equity, but in my mind he really seems to be arguing for conformity, such that the player knows what to expect on whatever course he chooses to play that day. This thought, while an admirable idea if one is seeking to perfect the competitive aspect of golf, runs counter to an ideal that I believe both you and I hold dear, which is that golf is just as much about a sense of discovery (or adventure) as it is about seeking perfection.
One interesting side note concerning the effect that Crane's writings may have had relates to course yardages during the 1920's. Up until 1923 or so, course yardages generally followed an upwards trend. Obviously the changes in the ball and in club technology had an effect on this, as most likely did the enhanced skill being demonstrated by a nation that had unequivocally taken to the game. But at some point during the 20's you start to see courses lose yardage. Not every course, but enough to make one wonder what was going on. I have no evidence that there is any connection to Crane, but the possibility does exist that there was a movement towards the "ideal" and that yardage adjustment downward was one symptom of a larger philosophical movement.
If anyone is interested in some examples of these types of adjustments, I'd be happy to put together a list.
Sven
-
Thanks for bringing this thread back to the front page. In light of the current conversations taking place, the Crane/Behr/MacKenzie debates remain relevant, and there are lessons to be learned from a current examination of these "old" issues.
Thanks, Sven. And, yes, I bumped it because I see this same "old" stuff coming to a head with The Old Course changes and the PGA Tour changes to classic golf courses.
I considered putting up a long post on this issue, but perhaps there is too much Old Course talk on GCA right now...so I'll put it up as a new article on my site in a few days.
Sad news for me is that I think the Crane mentality is winning out over the mainstream golfing public.
-
Mac:
When you write your follow up piece, I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have on how Crane's theories relate to the language Dawson used this week, that they were looking to make changes in line with the "essential strategy" of the course.
This thought, with its implication of one way to play a hole, runs contrary to everything I've ever thought about the Old Course.
Different golfers with different games will play different holes in different ways on different days with different weather. There is no other course that promotes this thought more than St. Andrew's.
Sven
-
Mac:
When you write your follow up piece, I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have on how Crane's theories relate to the language Dawson used this week, that they were looking to make changes in line with the "essential strategy" of the course.
This thought, with its implication of one way to play a hole, runs contrary to everything I've ever thought about the Old Course.
Different golfers with different games will play different holes in different ways on different days with different weather. There is no other course that promotes this thought more than St. Andrew's.
Sven
Will do.
You touch on what make The Old Course beyond brilliant, which is, as Mark B. calls it, equifinality. Multiple ways to play the same hole and reach the end in the same amount of strokes, if I understand the theory correctly. Of course, along the way of each separate route you'll face different decisions and execution risks each offering their own unique rewards.
-
Hi,
Thank you gentlemen for probably the most penetrating discussion I’ve seen on this board yet, and precisely the subject I’ve been thinking about for some time.
I have written a number of pieces on my blog, djlane.wordpress.com, on these very same subjects. In particular, you might be interested in the piece entitled, “The Occult Charm of Chicago Golf Club … And Why It Doesn’t Matter.” Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Joe
-
Joe -
Your thread raised the question - to change your terminology slightly - of the relationship between the quality of a shot and its outcomes. Should the architect have a duty to assure that such relationships are always "rational" or "fair"? That, I think is the nub of the issue you raised in your thread.
That same issue was at the heart of the Crane - Mack/Behr fuss in the mid-1920's. Crane took the view that the link between execution and outcomes should be tight, rational and predictable. MacK and Behr, following John Low, thought otherwise. They believed that an important part of a good course was that the link between execution and outcomes was sometimes irrational and unpredictable. All with the goal of making golf more interesting. It made for a game that forced players to "think" about what shots they were playing. (Early on Low was mocked for promoting "thinking golf", mostly because it broke with late Victorian assumptions that golf should be more predictable, something strongly favored by Taylor, Vardon, Hilton and many others.) MacK and Behr believed that golf, at bottom, should be about much more than simple athletic skill.
Those are still key issues in golf architecture, though they aren't talked about as much as I wish they were. I think Doak is getting at similar concerns with his "paradox of proportionality". By which I understand him to be saying that sometimes the punishment does not fit the crime, and that's not only ok, it can be a good thing because it makes the game more interesting. I would love to hear more of Tom's thinking about that.
Bob
-
Hi Mr. Crosby,
I really, really want to know about Mr. Doak’s “paradox of proportionality”—where did you see that? Also, I’m very, very much indebted to your presentation of this Crane fellow: indeed, I entirely agree with you that I do seem to be following his thoughts, although with an opposite conclusion. But what’s even more interesting to me is that Crane seems to have been part of a much larger movement at the time: so much of the first half of the twentieth century was about trying to be “scientific,” while so much of the second half of the century was about rejecting “science.” I could show you the New Republic’s 1941 obituary of the novelist James Joyce—surely the antithesis of the scientific—and sure enough, he’s called the “Einstein” of literature. Makes me think, anyway.
Thanks very, very much,
Joe
-
Joe -
The full TD quote is:
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture." - Tom Doak (11/20/05).
(BTW, Mike Whitaker uses it as his tag-line.)
It's a statement that can take you in all sorts of interesting directions.
Bob