From Sean Arble;
"Tom P.
I never wrote that Behr claimed penal vs strategic architecture was a black or white issue. I don't think I have even seen a Behr article. My remarks were directed at Bob who was structuring his comments (presumably based on Behr's comments) as one school vs the other. I can see where trying to paint the two schools of thought as distinct from each other could facilitate a discussion on a forum such as ours. However, in the real world these distinctions are very much blurred and therefore often meaningless."
Sean:
I can see that your remarks were directed at Bob, and I know you've never seen a Behr article on this subject. I'd like to get the two that do have to do with this subject linked onto a thread but I'm not capable of doing that. Others are though.
Obviously Behr did not think the subject of penal vs strategic golf was completely black or white either or he never would've made the remark I quoted above. But that does not mean he did not think there was real importance in making a distinction between what he viewed as strategic architecture and golf and what he referred to as penal architecture and golf.
It also seems Tom MacWood likes to play the so-called "black and white" card when he doesn't agree with something. Essentially he asks others to produce written evidence that someone said something specific about some subject. If you produce evidence, he wants more or he wants it to be more specific. If there is no written evidence or if it isn't specific enough he seems to suggest that whatever is being proposed or suggested could not possibly have happened or be true (if it wasn't actually specifically written down somewhere).
Of course this is an odd and rather foolish way of looking at history and treating history. Taken to its logic conclusion it would mean that if someone like Crump never wrote about his opinions for what Pine Valley should be, consequently he couldn't have had any opinions on what it should be. Or, at least, one should never try to surmise what his opinions were, even if his opinions were recorded by his friends and those who knew him and knew what his opinions were. To do such a thing would be way too "black and white".
Obviously Behr particularly had some strong opinions on what he called "penal" golf and architecture. And he had strong opinions on what he called "strategic" golf and architecture or he wouldn't have written about both as he did.
It is up to us to figure out just what he meant by "penal" golf and architecture. It would also be nice to figure out just what he meant by "strategic" golf and architecture. For that obviously his articles on the subject have to be linked or posted on here.
I would very much contend that if those reading Behr's articles on this subject took the time it seems to take to let his ideas sink in they just may find that what he meant by penal golf and architecture was not exactly what most of us mean by it. And I believe the same could be said for what he meant by "strategic" golf and architecture.
What Behr meant by penal golf and architecture, in my opinion, was so much more, so much deeper. What Behr meant by it was something that went to the very psyche of the golfer, to his most fundamental emotions, in other words, and what it did to them, Behr felt, was not at all positive.
Furthermore, to really understand where Behr was coming from on golf and architecture, golf rules, and a number of other connected subjects, one needs to read all his articles on the broad subjects of architecture and golf. The reason for that is his articles actually connect to one another in what I call "a priori" reasoning. In other words each of his assumptions connects to another to arrive at his final conclusions on architecture which were essentially two.
If this is the way he did it, and Bob and I (and GeoffShac) believe it is, one does need to also understand what Behr actually meant when he used the words "penal" or "penalty" and that is precisely why he wrote another supporting article to all this entitled "The Nature and Use of Penalty".
