[Adam Clayman]

What, if any, connection is to their (Behr, MacK & Jone's) belief's, and CBM's?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

There was a thread or two on this in the last few months but the apparent connection, or more accurately perhaps the primary one, between the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones was over their mutual disagreement with the developing philosophy of Joshua Crane on architecture and particularly on his estimation of TOC in that philosophy.

Bob Crosby thinks this alarmed them greatly and perhaps inspired them to write what they did and as much as they did on this subject around the mid to late 1920s.

I agree with Bob Crosby on that. It seems like it could've been a truly fundamental debate on golf course architecture or even the essence of golf but Crane may've pulled out of the impending debate early.

In the mid to late 1920s, C.B. Macdonald was apparently not very approachable on these kinds of things.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, I was wondering if the triumvirates philosopies were a continuation of Macdonald's earlier frustrations with the American influence on golf?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I think it was a wholly different issue.

[BCrosby]

Adam -

I think TEP is right. A different time, a different generation. Though some of the issues might have been similar.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE - thanks. My brain was turned off for while: I'd read your post #16 and noted the connection...but then instead of remembering it it led me to ask the question instead.

I didn't know about Behr's playing abilities. That's really interesting: that top-flight players like he and Bobby Jones could nonetheless decry "target golf" says a lot about how strongly they felt re: their vision of ideal architecture.  

TE, Bob

Could you explain/expand upon why "by the late 1920s MacDonald was not very approachable on these kind of things" and how "some of the issus might have been similar"?

Thanks
Peter  

   

[TEPaul]

"That's really interesting: that top-flight players like he and Bobby Jones could nonetheless decry "target golf" says a lot about how strongly they felt re: their vision of ideal architecture."

Peter:

It sure does say a lot. However, it obviously says a whole lot more in that they apparently didn't pull it off as they'd hoped to. The reasons why are frankly the things we are so interested in trying to discover now.

And ANGC's architectural evolution just may be the single most poignant and ironic example of both what it was they were trying to accomplish and how it didn't really catch on in the end. Golf and architecture just sort of went in another direction---the direction they seemed to want to prevent it from going in.  


"Could you explain/expand upon why "by the late 1920s MacDonald was not very approachable on these kind of things" and how "some of the issus might have been similar"?"




Why Macdonald wasn't particularly approachable from the 1920s on seems to be something that is not well known now. It's a long and complicated story but I'll try to get into some of the reasons I believe he wasn't very approachable from around the early 1920s until he died in 1939.

We think of C.B. Macdonald as the "Father" of American golf course architecture but there's no question he either was or was definitely in a position to be a whole lot more than just that. A closer examination of the historical record may show that Macdonald was the "Father" of American GOLF itself.

I think in a real way Macdonald felt he was the man who was bringing golf itself from Scotland to America in a formal sense, and in a real way I think he was probably right about that.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
thank you.

Just one last question: do you have an idea of when it was that Jones-Behr-MacKenzie "gave up the fight" (that's not quite the right phrase, I think).

What I mean is, was there some point at which, looking back now, we can say "ah, THAT'S when they knew they weren't going to pull it off"?  

'Poetically' it seems like Macdonald's death in 1939 could almost be used as the 'marker' (even though he wasn't part of the triumverate).

From some of the quotes included in this thread, it's clear that Jones was still writing about that early period many years later -- but it has a poignant tone, as if talking about things that once were but were no more.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Just one last question: do you have an idea of when it was that Jones-Behr-MacKenzie "gave up the fight" (that's not quite the right phrase, I think). What I mean is, was there some point at which, looking back now, we can say "ah, THAT'S when they knew they weren't going to pull it off"?"

Peter:

I doubt one could ever make a good case that they "gave up the fight" at some point. In the first place whatever their mission may've been in that vein it probably was looked at back then as somewhat philosophical at best---and again, that's what's so ironic about the original design of ANGC---eg it wasn't philosophical, it was actual and still wasn't able to endure as Jones may have wanted it to. I think you can tell that some of us are saying that ANGC as Jones and Mackenzie envisioned it and originally built it probably was the best example there ever was that was purposefully built as to what their architectural philosophy was all about----other than TOC of course.

I'd like to see what Bob Crosby has to say about this. Most of this has always been his discovery and idea.

[BCrosby]

My understanding is that by the mid-20's MacD had ceased to be interested in designing new courses and that Raynor and Banks took over for him. (When was Lido built?) He seems to have had something of a volcanic, even manic-depressive personality. That the game had evolved to the point where his leadership was no longer needed probably didn't help his mood any.

The issues he dealt with were similar to the issues MacK, Jones and Behr were dealing with because down through time the main issues in gca have remained largely unchanged. Some eras have delved into them more deeply than others (read: Behr and MacK in the mid-20's), in some eras the issues ere more hotly debated (read: ditto), and some eras show no sign that anyone thought there were such issues (read: the RTJ era when the notion was to build bigger and harder).

One way or another the core debate always seem to come down to a battle about the primacy of strategic design principles. That's pretty much a matter of the public record. The really interesting question is why the greatest architects in the history of the game were (and are) always having to defend strategic design principles? Against what and whom? From whence the resistance?

Bob    

[BCrosby]

On the "give-up" issue, I think it was a combination of things, most of them outside their control.

First, the Deprssion and WWII meant that for about 25 years gca ground to a halt. Virtually no new courses were built. The GA generation died off, and by the time gca resumed, America had a very different mindset

(I have this internal monologue trying to imagine the mindset change. I goes something like this (and is based loosely on the way my father thinks): We - in 1955 - aren't going to make the same mistakes those guys in the 20's made. Look what they got us. They got us into a devastating depression and a world war. Because they weren't tough enough. They were soft, they lived for the day. We are going to be tough and vigilant. There is evil out there. We'll build our new golf courses accordingly, thank you very much.)

Another (related) reason they ultimately failed to change the direction of gca is because so much of their thinking relied on UK models. They were saying - essentially - that courses like TOC, Deal, Rye, Woking, etc., are models for good gca. But MacK/B/Jones alliance went further than that. They were saying that Americans had failed to grasp WHY those courses ought to be models for US designs. In short, Americans had learned all the wrong lessons. And that, I think, is at the heart of why they were controversial in their own time.

Put differently, they were promoting in some respects a deeply un-American kind of golf.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents,
terrific posts all around. Thanks for the education.

Bob and Sean,
you both have very plausible and interesting answers to Bob's question about why the greatest architects in history have always had to defend strategic design principles. I think I agree with all of them; and yet, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the question and about a possible 'fundamental' answer all day (meaning, I think there IS some underlying 'answer' -- but that's probably just the way my mind works, as it's certainly not based on much knowledge of the facts)

Ah, who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? Perhaps only The Shadow knows (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Peter

 

[TEPaul]

"and yet, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the question and about a possible 'fundamental' answer all day (meaning, I think there IS some underlying 'answer' -- but that's probably just the way my mind works, as it's certainly not based on much knowledge of the facts)

Peter:

In my opinion, the way your mind works is going to turn out to be one of the most interesting assets on this website.

Like you, I believe there is a "fundamental" answer to Bob's question----and I mean a truly fundamental answer.

I'll give it a shot tomorrow but I think in the end---in the final analysis, it's going to come down to a very simple question, and that is;

What is skill?

Does it involve simply physical execution or does it also involve a good deal of thought (intelligence)?

At the moment, and for all time in golf leading up to this moment I think golf's administrative organizations have always viewed the essence of golf (and how architecture deals with it) as physical execution----if they have thought of the question at all.  

But what if they finally decide skill is more than just physical execution and perhaps involves a good deal of intelligence---eg choice, freedom, a form of finding one's own way?

What then? What will or what should the layout of golf course architecture look like and be like then?

This is where I think the likes of Jones, MacKenzie, Behr et al were trying to go back then.  

And I think they had come about half way---which was to say that Nature itself was never prepared or designed to show a golfer the way---it was only for him to find it on his own in every sense of what "on his own" really means.

[TEPaul]

"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

Peter:

Do you see that remark from the thread "Who Said if First; Roll Back the Ball"?

What is the common word in that remark?

And what are "sportsmen" in other sports or recreations?

What does a real sportsman in hunting do even if 20 gauge shotguns are available? Does he use a 20 gauge shotgun to shoot a dove?

What about the fisherman who fishes for real sport? What does he do to catch his fish? Does he use 20 lbs test to catch a bonefish or does he use 5 point test to excentuate his intelligence and physical skill?

What is "skill"? What is "Nature"? And what is the place of "intelligence" in sport involving either one of them? Do the ruling bodies even contemplate such things when they legislate and monitor their game, sport or recreation?  

[David Stamm]

Tom, I love digging into these types of discussions. I look forward to what you come up with to add to this topic tomorrow.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE,
Thank you. Like David S, I'm really looking forward to more of your thoughts on this. Meanwhile, just some ideas that your back-to-back posts brought to mind (but that are probably not very helpful to the discussion):  

A sportsman (like the fisherman) can use the equipment and find a setting that gives him the fullest possible experience of the sport, or not: either 20 lbs test in a bathtub, or 5 lbs test in the ocean.  If he chooses the latter, he can more fully participate in Nature, while still being clearly engaged in a "sport".

Nature’s not constrained by concepts like fairness, nor constructed to serve any specific purpose: it just exists; it simply is. There are no signposts; and so the sportsman has to rely on those things that are, interestingly, most natural in himself: his capacity for choice, his intelligence, his desire for self-mastery and self-discipline, his deep-seated need for freedom, and his manual/physical skill.  

In other words, a true and full test of himself as a sportsman; there’s no 5x3 bathtub dictating where to drop his line, and no 20 lbs test to ensure success.  

In short, nature begets a natural (and more expansive) response. Why would anyone want to reject that?

Peter  

[TEPaul]

"All else is far removed from science, which is where fundamental answers lie - unless, of course, you are religous!"

Sean:

It's cool with me if that's the way you want to look at golf or architecture but I know I can have a great time in a natural setting, be it a golf course or whatever without feeling either scientific or religous about it.  

[Peter Pallotta]

"All is relative where people are concerned and despite how wishy washy that sounds, it is in truth the strength of gca."

Sean - I'm just not sure about that. I think I understand your post, and this sentiment, but here's a poor analogy:

All over the world, people from different cultures and walks of life sit down periodically throughout the day and put into their mouths anything from meat and fish to grains and fruits and legumes, and then wash it all down with a variety of liquids, both hot and cold. The variations are endless, as are individual preferences, and some even write books about why one variation or preference is better than another. What does this all mean? Can we say anything fundamental about it? Is there a basic 'answer' underlying this behaviour? Well, yes: human beings have to eat.

Is there an underlying and fundamental answer to Bob's question about the fate of strategic design principles? There might be.

(edit: And that answer, just a guess, might be found in the 'science' of human psychology. I think TE asked a question in another thread that's crucial: was Behr wrong in his view/understanding of that psychology, as it applies to the golfer?)

Peter

[TEPaul]

"One way or another the core debate always seem to come down to a battle about the primacy of strategic design principles. That's pretty much a matter of the public record. The really interesting question is why the greatest architects in the history of the game were (and are) always having to defend strategic design principles? Against what and whom? From whence the resistance?"



I want to take a shot at those questions of Bob Crosby's, as I said I would.

I think they are a couple of really fundamental questions about the evolution of golf and golf course architecture in the 20th century.

I've been thinking about those questions for the last couple of days but unfortunately the answers aren't easy, in my opinion---at least not to me. I think there were a lot of factors going on regarding why the "pro-strategy architecture" and "anti-penal architecture" articles by the likes of Behr happened in the first place and more importantly why the the subject and issue didn't take off more or become better understood.

I just got out everything I have on him and read it all over again (this is about the 20th time). The man definitely had some extraordinary opinions and even more extraordinary ways of presenting them but there is little doubt he looked deeper in golf course architecture and probably golf and the golfer too than anyone else ever did and probably by about 8 1/2 miles!!

The more I read him the more I'm becoming convinced that he may've very much OVER-estimated the sensibilities of golfers generally. Mind you, this doesn't make Behr wrong in my opinion, just perhaps a bit less realistic than I was hoping for.

PS:

Sean Arble, one always finds some new nuances in Behr's articles and I think I did today on something that you and I have discussed or disagreed on. I hadn't picked up on it before, but to give you a hint, you're right and I'm wrong.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()