Adam,

If the golfer so chooses, the so-called strategic school becomes the penal school. It is in challenging the hazards to reap a reward that they become penal. Based on the definitions generally accepted, the penal school eliminates the choice to varying degrees over the strategic.

Therefore, I'd say the difference lies with the golfer.

Kyle, I'd only add the word 'freedom' to the end of your last sentence.

Sounds good.

Adam -

This is a tough one for me. I want to say the two schools share much in common, but I can't quite make myself say it.  

On the one hand, I'll defer to those who say the debate wasn't then and isn't now as black and white as I make it, and that both sides of the debate were/are more nuanced than I'm able to see; and I'll accept the consensus opinion that penal and strategic architecture are points on a continuum rather than polar opposites.

But on the other hand, here's how Crane ends his essay (the one I quoted from earlier):  

"Possibly when the shock of the public disclosure of the many faults of certain famous courses has become softened by time, those golfers who have known it for years but who have only whispered it with bated breath heretofore to close-mouthed friends, will find that after all they have not been in the minority. Let us hope that a new era of open, fair, and unbiased discussion of merits and faults be inaugurated, to the betterment of the game."
 
So here's my problem:

When Crane says 'certain famous courses' he has in mind St. Andrews.

St. Andrews, because of its width and big greens and changing wind and random bounces says "strategic" to me; in fact, it almost defines strategic.

Crane wants very much for the golf course that defines strategic to be the subject of an "unbiased" discussion, by which he means a "scientific" and "objective" discussion. (But remember, by this point he'd already put the Old Course through his scientific ringer and had found it lacking...dead last in fact.)  

Crane believes that this objective discussion will expose publicly all of St. Andrews' faults...and to the betterment of the game no less.

In short, Crane thinks that a high opinion of St. Andrews (as held by Jones and Mackenzie) was neither merited nor good for the future of golf course architecture.  
 
In other words, he believes (and deep down thinks he's proven via the scientific method) that the elements of TOC others see as the ESSENCE of good golf architecture are in fact the ANTITHESIS of good golf architecture.
 
I don't know how we can find 'common ground' there. In fact, it seems like TOC is the 'uncommon ground' in more ways than one; and that if you try to apply to TOC any of the conventional/consensus opinions about penal vs strategic you end up more confused than ever (or at least I do).  

Yes, there may be more nuance than I'm seeing/understanding, but I can't escape the feeling that, on Crane's part, most of that nuance was just window dressing; he doesn't really believe it, nor does he think there's much common ground at all.

It's as if it took us 80 more years to come to the enlightened conclusion that penal and strategic architecture are in fact simply points on a continuum. But, since I can't believe that I understand golf architecture better than did Bobby Jones or Mackenzie or Max Behr, that tells me that I'm missing something much more fundamental than just some argumental nuance; THEY seemed to think it was about something more fundamental.  

Peter

St. Andrews, because of its width and big greens and changing wind and random bounces says "strategic" to me; in fact, it almost defines strategic.

Peter

Could you please elaborate on that thought?  It is too "Behrish" in its generality to have any meaning to me.  Even if you believe those criteria (and the fallacy that a course can be "strategic"), there are many other and better "definitions" of "strategic."  IMHO, of course.

Rich

Would #14 at St. Andrews ever yield 4 different playing options to one type of player?

Am I really standing on that tee choosing among 4 fairly equal distance/direction combinations for that shot?

Or is it that a foursome of players with varying abilities might choose their own direction from the tee?

JES
the way I read the quote, Jones seemed to be talking about himself/his own game. For HIM, the 14th could be played 4 different ways...all of them legitimate and correct depending on conditions.

You will know much better than I -- have you played many holes that you could say the same about?

Peter

 

Thanks for the replies, Peter

A few random and tentative responses:

1.  Crane "ranked" the Old Course dead last of a very short list of the greatest courses in the world, not of all the courses in the world

2.  My objection to Jones' quotes is that they could really apply to just about any golf course.  To say that only the Old Course requires one's brain to be used is not correct; most courses (and all courses in areas with heavy and variable winds) play differently from day to day, many much more dramatically and interestingly than the Old Course; the Old Course has far less width than most people think, and what width it has is deceiving.

3.  The real differentiating factor of the Old Course (and probably the reason that it hasn't been copied more) is it's almost relentless blindness, particularly off the tee.  This is what makes the course a mental strain, particularly for the best players, as they can't see what they have to do, and get limited feedback on what happens after they hit the ball since they can't see it land.  Some people call that "strategic."  I call it quirky, but overdoes of quirk, particularly one kind of quirk, is a serious flaw in my book.

4.  You and Jim are both right vis a vis the 14th.  Four players of different abilities and swing patterns will have (at least) 4 diffeerent ways to play the hole on the same day, and the same player (i.e. Jones or you) will have some number of different ways to play the hole on different days.  Both of these phenonema are true for just about any golf hole, however, although I will admit that for the 14th it is more so, because of the design.

That's all I have time to write now.

Cheers

Rich

PS--I actually agree with Tom Paul (don't tell him!) when he opined on another thread that the reason Crane got so much flack for his system is because it ranked the Old Course so relatively low.  If his system had confirmed Mackenzie and Behr's and Jones' preconceptions, I doubt if they would have come down on him so hard.

R

"PS--I actually agree with Tom Paul (don't tell him!)"

Well, at the very least, that, to me, is cold comfort.  

JES
the way I read the quote, Jones seemed to be talking about himself/his own game. For HIM, the 14th could be played 4 different ways...all of them legitimate and correct depending on conditions.

You will know much better than I -- have you played many holes that you could say the same about?

Peter

 

Peter,

After re-reading the quote you are correct...Jones was referring to an individual person (himself) playing the hole 4 different ways depending upon the conditions (wind).

That being said...do we give credit to the architecture? To the conditions (variable wind)? Or...to the individual players perception, imagination and, most importantly, ability?

It sounds like this course might LET a player like Jones experiment more...

I think width is the thing that makes these tee shots feel different (better?)...I try to hit the ball several different distances on most holes I play depending on the conditions, but rarely is there more than a 15 yard difference in my target width-wise...right pin I go for the left side of a fairway and vice-versa etc...

You know in a real way I've always thought of myself as one of those people who REALLY would like to have a time machine and use it---if for no other reason than to just go back and ask some people questions they may've never been asked or felt compelled to explain their answers to.

I've also felt I am one of those people who is bothered most by "The Great Divide". I think anyone truly interested in history probably is bothered by that more than most.

The reason I say those things is it seems to me to be a damn crying shame that the likes of Joshua Crane, Max Behr, Alister Mackenzie and Bobby Jones et al can't be here to read the questions and opinions on this thread and be able to respond to them!!  

But unfortunately there probably never will be a true bridge across "The Great Divide".

In my opinion, as apparently in theirs, all good things in golf and architecture if not completely overused.

This raises an interesting question - when does a particular aspect/feature of a golf course become overused?

If the golf is always interesting and fun and gives you different shots to hit, couldn't you say never?

Dornoch has mostly plateau greens - are the few that aren't -
8, 16 and 18 tosome degree, from memory - enough to render that particular feature not tiresome?

What is the line between variety, and thematic consistency?

"2.  This hisotry of the Old Course and it's width (or lack thereof) is well documented."

Richard:

You can just keep throwing out horseshit remarks like that apparently hoping it will cover some of the things you say on here but I think anybody on this website with half a mind can understand that the way the course was when Bobby Jones played it was a whole lot more accurately described by him than by you through whatever kind of documentation you think you may have.  

"3.  I never made any connection with Jones' temper and his credibility."

That's true you certainly didn't. And you didn't make any connection between Jones's temper and anything else that has anything to do with this thead either. And so one wonders why you even mentioned it.

"At Jones peak, most great golf courses were trying their damnedest to eliminate blindness, because it was increasingly out of favour.  That's what Harry Colt did to Portrush and Ounty Down."

I realize blindness was going out of favour and that may've been one of the issues the likes of Behr and Jones et al had at that time.

I do know Portrush and County Down. I thought particularly County Down had a ton of blindness and frankly I just loved each and every instance of it. The only thing I questioned at County Down is how in the world many of those golfers back in the old days got the ball up high enough and quick enough to carry over the ridge on #11. Some of the rest was simply selective.