[Geoff_Shackelford]

I wonder what the governing bodies and their staffs think when they read something like the following, which was written in 1927:

"The deterioration of skill brought about by the present ball has caused a mischievous reprecussion throughout the length and breadth of golf. The inordinate distance the ball can now be driven has caused in golf architecture a very definite infirmity of principle as all deductions from quantity values are apt to induce. Quantity must be opposed by quantity. Consequently the size of our greens and the width of our fairways have become restricted, and the rough made damnable. Instead of being an art where the medium penalty is used to create ideas calling for intelligent application of skill, golf architecture has become a system of penology. Thus instinct is met by instinct, and under the stimulus of impulse the mind is subject to the delusion that two wrongs can make a right. Little is being done to curb instinct; our fairways are mere troughs through which it is allowed to vent itself. We are locking up this wild desire for distance just as we cage wild animals.

And a further effect, especially noticeable in the United States, is the demand to keep the greens in a soft condition. The golfer cannot stop the ball so the greens must. This has caused overwatering which has seriously damaged the health of turf. Indeed the evil ramifications caused by the present ball would fill a book.

The problem of the ball is the most serious that golf has ever been faced with. It is one that our authorities must solve successfully. And while they are about it, the question before the golfers of the world is plain as a pike staff. Are they going to be sportsmen and accept a ball that requires skill to propel, or, in their infantile worship of mere distance, are they going to continue to be downright game-hogs?
-Max Behr, The Country Club Magazine, January 1, 1927

Okay, what's a pike-staff?  

[RJ_Daley]

Geoff, I'll guess an instrument for steering sheep while they are grooming the turf...

[aclayman]

I'm guessing its a method of collecting/diseminating electricity.

[John_Sheehan]

Geoff,
My initial interest in MacKenzie led me directly to Max Behr. I have been interested in him and captivated by his design philosophy ever since. Unfortunately, I have found it difficult to find much about him, and sadly have never played one of his courses. Most of what I have found on Behr is in the writing of other architects, notably MacKenzie, who seems to credit Behr with influencing his own design philosophy.

I know that Behr designed Hacienda GC, Montebello GC, Rancho Park GC, Montecito GC, Lakeside GC, Oakmont CC, and that he redesigned Victoria Club and Brentwood CC. I also understand that he acted in a consulting capacity in the remodeling of the Olympic Lake course in 1926. I know his design philosphy was considered radical, and that he believed in the absence of rough, preferring instead that the course use natural terrain, contours and bunkers to defend the greens from all angles. I also know he was the editor or Golf Illustrated for many years, that his family was involved in the creation of St. Andrews GC in NY, and that he played golf for Yale.

If you have any suggestions on where I might find more information about Behr, or old issues of Golf Illustrated, which I understand contain quite a bit of his writings, I would appreciate it.  Failing that, I appreciate your adding to the forum with his writings. Thanks.

[John_Sheehan]

Oh yeah, a "Pikestaff" is a walking stick tipped with a metal spike. In the vernacular of Behr's day the saying "plain as a pikestaff" has the same meaning as our expression "as plain as the nose on your face," i.e., so obvious it warrants no debate.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John, You forgot Rancho Sante Fe CC as one of these.

Maxie was way ahead of his time, and I used to pinch myself everytime I walked into the Ralph Miller Library and delve into the old issues of Golf Illustrated with his articles and illustrations.

However, I wasn't the only one that did this and that person read them much more thoroughly then I ever could. So much, that Saundra, one of the libraians would tell me not to mess with the pieces of paper that were Geoff's bookmarks.

They were still there the day they closed the place.

Great piece Geoff. I'm glad you shared it.

[TEPaul]

OK BarnyF, you're on!!

Would you mind translating for us lowbrows EXACTLY what Max is talking about above in the first paragraph? No analogies to Manilow's Mandy this time, architectural explanations and examples please.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John,

Lakeside here in Los Angeles still has some great features left from Behr, though I doubt many there even know his name or what he was about.

I have put some of his writings in the forthcoming book with Mike Miller. Basically, I took some of the best sections of his long essays and made them sidebars. Someday I'd love to compile all of his writings, they are pretty incredible. The best are in Golf Illustrated and The Country Club Magazine, a western publication, though some great ones appear in the USGA green section bulletin and The Fairway. All are at Golf House, where I hope to go back and find some more besides those I have. Other than that, what you posted is about all I know. Ron Whitten has some interesting information on Behr in The Architects of Golf as well.

I think his philosophy was no different than MacKenzie, he just felt stronger about issues and delved into the question of what is "art in golf architecture." Here's another Behr gem that is a sidebar in the forthcoming book:

Naturalness in Golf Architecture
By Max Behr, 1926

The Nature the golf architect has in mind is one associated with golf, and this is linksland upon which golf has been played for hundreds of years, and remained through a major part of this time uncontaminated by the hand of man except for the cutting of the holes. Whatever beauty such land possessed was inherent in it, and those today who have played golf amidst such primeval surroundings are conscious of a certain charm wholly lacking upon a palpable man-made golf course.

In this country architects are presented with few locations the topography of which is ideally fitted for the playing of golf. Hence, the architect must improve upon Nature. But such improvements have primarily to with rendering Nature suitable for golf, and do not necessarily involve any improvement of Nature itself except for the definite purpose in hand.

Is it important that the architect should endeavor to go further and combine art with the utilitarian side of his work? It would seem so. And for this reason: Golf courses constructed with the limited idea of merely creating a playground around which one may bat a ball comfortably make possible only the efforts of one side of the contest, that of the golfer, and owing to this neglect, he finds himself confronted with a landscape brutalized with the ideas of some other golfer. Does he object?

Of course he does. He too has ideas of his own. Consequently the history of every artificial appearing golf course is one of continual change. There is a very practical lesson in this and one that can be translated into dollars and cents. And this is that golf architecture can only be rendered permanent by art. Art is usually associated in the mind with the aesthetic, but if we comprehend it in a larger sense, it will be seen that only by art is every walk of life rendered stable and enduring. If, then, for practical reasons we are justified in looking upon golf architecture as an art and not merely a means to an end, we shall find it closely akin to landscape gardening. What are the requisites to perfection in this art? Humphrey Repton, the great landscape gardener of the XVIII Century, has perhaps most concisely and perfectly stated them:

“First it must display the natural beauties and hide the natural defects of every situation. Secondly, it should give the appearance of any extent and freedom by carefully disguising or hiding the boundary. Thirdly, it must studiously conceal every interference of art, however expensive, by which the scenery is improved making the whole appear the production of nature only; and, fourthly, all objects of mere convenience or comfort, if incapable of being made ornamental, or of becoming proper parts of the general scenery, must be removed or concealed.”

If may never be possible to live up to such an ideal in golf architecture. In endeavoring to create an harmonious whole there are bunkers, greens, fairways and rough to be considered. Nevertheless where it is necessary to modify the ground to create these features, their contours can be made to seem as if they had always been, and their civilized aspect, because necessary to golf, will not be an affront to the natural beauty they reveal."

[Wayne_Tucker]

Geoff - what kind of Behr features are of interest at Lakeside, or for that matter at any of his other courses?  

I remember Ran posting the thread about Pine Valley a few days ago, and how he wonders why certain design features at PV weren't more widely copied -- similarly, are there any unique "Behr" features that would be worthy of adaptation to modern design?

He seems to be a big fan of reducing rough - a good start in my book.

[John_Sheehan]

Tommy-
You are right, I did forget Rancho Santa Fe! To atone for that sin of omission, I offer up a Behr quote I found regarding that course:
"A new principle of golf course design has been put into effect. Not a single hazard has been constructed with the idea of penalizing errors of skill. On the contrary, the hazards are located with the sole object of defending the hole."

Geoff,
Thanks for the posts!  Greatly appreciated. By the way, do you happen to know what specific changes Behr was responsible for at the Olympic's Lake Course?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John,
Your penance is accepted!

There is little doubt in my mind that Max Behr is one of the games great voices. It is ashame that there is so little left to quote him on or even to research his life. (that is if Ron Whitten isn't hiding anything on him)

I live 5 minutes from Hacienda GC and they don't give one iota that he had anything to do with the course. In fact they have tried to prove in the club history that he didn't.

I don't beleive it though. this course has too many different characteristics that are far different then Billy Bell, whom I'm sure built it.

[kilfara]

Actually, Geoff, I think the governing bodies should be kept AWAY from articles of this sort (the one on golf ball distance, I mean).

Max Behr was a smart guy who thought, not unreasonably, that the golf ball of 1927 was flying too far, and that drastic modifications should be made to the ball. Nothing happened; by most accounts, the progression of the game from 1927 into the modern era was an undiluted triumph. Do you see the problem? The talking heads might be persuaded to believe that every generation has its prophets of doom, and that the current prophets (who think - I believe rightly - that this current crisis is the "real" one) will be proved no more prophetic than the Max Behrs of the past. The whole cycle of crying wolf may yet allow the ball and architecture to get fully out of control....  

Cheers,
Darren

[John_Sheehan]

Geoff (and Tom Doak),
In his recent interview on this site, Tom Doak was asked if he though Harry Colt influenced MacKenzie's "style." Doak's printed answer is, "I don’t think anyone influenced MacKenzie’s design ideas all that much."

Perhaps I have read too much into MacKenzie's commentaries, but I was left with the impression that Behr and Mackenzie had frequent discussions about architecture. In the "Spirit of St. Andrews," MacKenzie tells a story about an argument where he and Behr, as team mates, gang up on Joshua Crane in a debate that raged over a couple weeks about different courses (and Crane's mathmatical approach to the rating of courses! hmmmmm...). One of their arguments is about the idea that a hole should be able to be played with nothing but a putter. The also debate the use of rough and the concept of fairness in design.  He also makes mention of his admiration of Lakeside, calling it "one of the word's greatest golf courses." He attributes the excellence of California golf courses to "architects like Behr and Hunter."  Perhaps it was MacKenzie who influenced Behr; or perhaps they infuenced one another - I don't know. But given the fact that the writing (1933)of "Spirit" coincides with the construction of ANGC, and that Lakeside (1924) pre-dates AGNC, I inferred that Behr did in fact have an influence on MacKenzie's design style. The design philosophy of ANGC and of Lakeside seem amazingly similar in style (lack of rough, the use of contours to defend angles to the green, etc.). Of course, my inferences are based solely upon reading about, and never having played Lakeside, in any of its incarnations.

I know from reading your own books, of your love and knowledge of MacKenzie's designs. This post is evidence that like me, you are also an admirer of Behr. I am just curious, what are your thoughts?  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Darren,

An undiluted triumph? The list of "dilution" is too long to start. I think you equal growth with progress, I don't. Max B and Bobby Jones and MacKenzie were right back then for the same reason Nicklaus is now, because we'd be talking about 6,300 yard courses being obsolete now, instead of 7,000 yarders. These 7000 yarders may not be obsolete for 99% of golfers, but the perception is that they are and thats deadly for architecture. So again, when does the lengthening of the game end? All I know is, I like the company I'm in with all of those crying wolf and who have cried wolf.
Geoff

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John,

I would think the two were pretty similar in philosophy, as similar as two architects can be. They both did in fact team up on Joshua Crane, Behr more than MacKenzie. Their articles and feud was everywhere! Golf Illustrated, The Country Club Magazine, just incredibly entertaining back and forth for months.

So I don't know who influenced who, I would like to think their philosophies evolved from discussions at St. Andrews (we know they played there together based on the famed photo walking down #1) and here in California.

Lakeside had to have been fascinating when built based on the imitation dunes he created and contours around the greens, along with the two holes that crossed the wash. The aerials of it look super. I forgot to answer Wayne on this, character at Lakeside is still evident around the greens and in some of the contours and crowns and little bumps and swales. But as you'd expect, too many trees and there were some serious changes caused by the flood that also got Riviera in 38 that did the most damage, and neglect since.
Geoff

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()