Part IV - Crane in the Golden Age

[Rich Goodale]

Croome and Crane, as well as being contemporaries and born with silver spoons in their mouths, were both accomplished multi-sport athletes, both including track and field and rugby (US football was much like rugby when Crane played at Harvard, prior to Teddy Roosevelt rewriting the rules of the game in 1905 or so).  Crane was a well known court tennis player and was runner up in the British Amateur in that sport in 1914.  I would be very surprised in Croome did NOT know of Crane, possibly very well, in 1924.  I would also doubt that he never played golf in the UK prior to 1924, given that he took the game up well before then and made trips to the UK before then.

[Tom MacWood]

Rich
Where would the two men have crossed paths? Crane took up golf in 1917, and didn't play golf in the UK prior to 1924. Croome wrote about golf and cricket. I don't believe Croome ever traveled to the US. You're right Crane was very well know in tennis circles, but to my knowledge Croome had no connection to that sport, and even if had why give someone with so little golfing experience a platform in a British golf magazine?

[BCrosby]

Please Tom. This is silly.

In the spring of '24 Crane began publishing his ratings in Field. At that time he had already completed at least some (hard to know exactly how many) of his ratings of UK courses. But TOC was certainly one of them. He had been living in London, Paris and Provence at the time for at least parts of the early 1920's. Note the date on his rating checklist. It is 1923.

I'm curous about why you think Croome would have commited Field to a long term project to rate UK courses in early 1924 if Crane  had never played golf in the UK? It it just me or does that sound crazy to you?

I am also curious - on what set of facts do you base your idea that Crane didn't play any UK course until 1924? As they say in law school, please cite your sources. I'm always happy to learn new things.

But the larger point - and this is classic TMacW - why would it matter if Crane started playing courses in the UK in 1924? As highly improbable as that is, what would have turned out differently if it were true? We have a clear, unambiguious historical record. In short, this is a silly issue.

It's a form of gotcha argumentation you really need to try to get beyond.

But, again, I'm pleased you are taking your valuable time to look into a minor sideshow.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

David - Thanks for the comments. Your statement:

"Where I think Behr and MacKenzie and Macdonald and others fundamentally differed with Crane wasn't with the severity of hazards, but was rather with the proper role of hazards and other features in the first place."

.. is correct. If you thought my point was something different, you might relook at those parts of my piece.

Then I'm glad I understood it correctly.  Unfortunately the essay itself becomes a bit confused on the this point when it argues against the use of the term "penal" to describe Crane's approach in Part IV. , beginning with:

"To call such views “penal,” however, is misleading at several levels."First, it’s not as if one school of architecture employs penalties and the other doesn’t. Penalties and hazards are essential to both. All good strategic designs penalize missed shots, though sometimes the punishments are deferred.[4] Nor are strategically designed courses defined by kinder, gentler hazards. To the contrary, hazards on such courses are often more “penal” than those on “penal” courses.[5] In fact dramatic, unforgiving hazards were important to Behr and MacKenzie because of the added drama only draconian hazards could provide. Consistent with such views (and contra Crane), strategic architects in the Golden Age did not worry overly much about graduated hazards proportioned to fit the degree of a foozle.  

If I understand this paragraph correctly (and I may not) the argument here is that "Penal" is not the proper terminology because "penalties and hazards are essential to both" the Penal school and the Strategic school.  But the point above was not whether both schools use hazards, but why they use hazards.   Likewise, your discussion of the severity of hazards is only tangentially related to the real distinction between the two schools, which is a fundamentally different view on the proper role hazards and features play on a golf course.   

You then go on:

Another, perhaps bigger, problem is that the two concepts – strategy and penalty – operate at different levels of abstraction and as such fail to engage each other properly. Behr’s and MacKenzie’s favored “strategic school” defines a type of golf architecture in terms of its ultimate ends – the creation of strategic playing choices for the golfer. The disfavored “penal school” is defined by one of the means – penalties – used to achieve its goals – equitable venues for competitions. In long-running debates over architectural philosophies, the mere act of naming one camp as “penal” was to put its adherents at a disadvantage from the very outset.

"Two different levels of abstraction?"   Again, the essay seems to have lost track of what I thought was Behr's main point, which was to highlight the fundamentally different views on the proper role hazards and features play on a golf course.  Besides, it seems the "problem" in levels of abstraction could easily be resolved by noting that the strategic school of design was a means to an end as well; to challenge the golfer mentally as well as physically.  (In other words, to make the golfer think.)   

[Rich Goodale]

 to make the golfer think.)  

David

If you know of any golf course that does not make the golfer think, please let us know.

----or any golf hole or any golf shot, for that matter....

[Adam Clayman]

Rihc, When the landing area, or task at hand (especially from level lies) is blatantly obvious, as with most modern designs, who needs to think about where to hit it? It's all right in front of you.

The level of thought (and Fun) is where the two schools really diverge.

If I understand the distinction Crane was trying to make, (questionable) and the impetus for his system of ranking, it strikes me as a typical reaction people have to this sport before they take the time to either learn or feel more about the subject. It's a subjective view based on fairness. Which IMO, is a rather unsophisticated approach to how one looks at the grounds for golf.

[DMoriarty]

 to make the golfer think.)  

David

If you know of any golf course that does not make the golfer think, please let us know.

----or any golf hole or any golf shot, for that matter....

As is usually the case Rich, you've taken what was written almost entirely out of context to make your pithy semantical point.   Crane's methodology relied on posing a physical test within a certain "control" resulting in proportional penalties (dished out by hazards and features such as rough) for the degree of divergence from this "control."   Not a lot of cognitive decision-making required on the part of the golfer.  Either hit the shot or be punished for not.  

By design, some golf courses leave more decisions to the golfer than others.   Even you agree with this, don't you?  Or are you going to go on your silly tangent about how the golfer can always make any choice no matter what the course presents?   You remember, from the discussions about the meaning of the term strategy from about 5 years ago?

[Peter Pallotta]

This and the other thread on Strategic vs Penal seem to prove Bob's contention, i.e. that the distinction isn't a very good way to frame a discussion. Look at the USGA's much vaunted graduated rough. I'm not a USGA basher, but initially I couldn't figure out what bothered me about the idea. And then it hit me: it was a 'solution' to a non-existent 'problem'...with the 'problem' being engendered only by a now-implicit set of assumptions.

(Btw, most of the 'strategic' golf courses I see profiled around here still manage to scare the hell out of me, which is not a very nice thing for them to do...).

Peter

[DMoriarty]

This and the other thread on Strategic vs Penal seem to prove Bob's contention, i.e. that the distinction isn't a very good way to frame a discussion. Look at the USGA's much vaunted graduated rough. I'm not a USGA basher, but initially I couldn't figure out what bothered me about the idea. And then it hit me: it was a 'solution' to a non-existent 'problem'...with the 'problem' being engendered only by a now-implicit set of assumptions.

(Btw, most of the 'strategic' golf courses I see profiled around here still manage to scare the hell out of me, which is not a very nice thing for them to do...).

Peter

Peter,

I don't think Bob likes to apply the term "Penal" to Crane's approach, but unless I am mistaken I think he sees the distinction between Crane's approach and Behr's as a good way to frame the discussion.  

It seems the graduated rough would be right up Crane's alley, given that it makes the side penalty more proportional to the miss.  

[Tom MacWood]

Please Tom. This is silly.

In the spring of '24 Crane began publishing his ratings in Field. At that time he had already completed at least some (hard to know exactly how many) of his ratings of UK courses. But TOC was certainly one of them. He had been living in London, Paris and Provence at the time for at least parts of the early 1920's. Note the date on his rating checklist. It is 1923.

I'm curous about why you think Croome would have commited Field to a long term project to rate UK courses in early 1924 if Crane  had never played golf in the UK? It it just me or does that sound crazy to you?

I am also curious - on what set of facts do you base your idea that Crane didn't play any UK course until 1924? As they say in law school, please cite your sources. I'm always happy to learn new things.

But the larger point - and this is classic TMacW - why would it matter if Crane started playing courses in the UK in 1924? As highly improbable as that is, what would have turned out differently if it were true? We have a clear, unambiguious historical record. In short, this is a silly issue.

It's a form of gotcha argumentation you really need to try to get beyond.

But, again, I'm pleased you are taking your valuable time to look into a minor sideshow.

Bob

Bob
Crane was not living in London, Paris and Provence in the early 20s. When he introduced his system he made no mention of the British courses, in fact the only courses he mentioned were those around Boston. He made one trip to Europe between 1917 and 1924. That was in 1922 with a few of his Boston buddies on a well publicized hunting trip.

Even though I have disagreed with your Crane take for several years now, you appear to be especially annoyed by my recent questions. I guess you figure your essay should be the last word on the subject. So instead of posting on this thread (and annoying you further)  I will take your essay and add my own footnotes (in effect creating an essay within an essay), which will present my alternative view on the subject or subjects.

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

What is the point of your line of questioning?  As others have pointed out, it would be very beneficial if you would reveal where it is (or what you are trying to say) you want to go rather than go off on tangents from the main points all the time.

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
I disagree with Bob's conclusions about Crane and his influence. Its no mystery, if you are interested there a several old threads where he and I debated the subject in the past. This is a discussion group where we ask questions...do you have problem with my questions?

[Sean_A]

Sean
I disagree with Bob's conclusions about Crane and his influence. Its no mystery, if you are interested there a several old threads where he and I debated the subject in the past. This is a discussion group where we ask questions...do you have problem with my questions?

Tommy Mac

Of course I don't have problems with questions, but I often get the impression that your questions are not really directly related to the matter at hand.  In which case, if you want to ask the questions, please explain their importance to the matter at hand. Otherwise, as is patently obvious, folks grow tired of the questions and eventually become frustrated.  For instance, why is the 1924 date important in terms of Crane playing in the UK? If it is important, how do you know Crane didn't play i the UK before 1924?  For the purpose of Bob's piece, why is it important how Crane was able to write his initial story?  How do you know Crane wasn't well known enough to grab the attention and befriend influential people to enable Crane to kick start his campaign?  You obviously have a different view of things - what are they?

Give a bit more background to your probing and maybe, these threads won't head in the same direction they nearly always seem to - down the toilet.

Ciao

[john_stiles]

TM,

Without going back to your previous post,  can you expand on what you mean as Sean asked ?

Maybe add to the discussions (my education) in a few days or so ?

Given that the Crane discussions, or any results of those discussions were at the end of the golden era by the 1929 depression, what do you think of the discussions started by Crane, debates with others in the articles, carried through after WWII when new courses finally began to be constructed ?

Bob C,

What do you think carried through from those Crane debates, carried through into the post WWII era ?