Tom Paul,
You wrote, "Come on Phil, can't you see that the likes of Behr et al were simply worried about golfers supporting some of Crane's ideas or misinterpreting them which could be dangerous to the future of architecture and golf? Bob Crosby's remarks above are right."
Wait a minute, if you go back and even just glance through this discussion quickly you will see that it has devolved into two "groups" who are advocating diametrically opposed views that not only boil down to, but have been specifically mentioned as one that took Crane's views so seriously as to consider them a danger to the growth of the game and the other that he wasn't taken seriously at all but was even viewed by some of these critics in a near humorous light.
I believed the 2 questions I asked are highly important to help most on here who have never read any of the mentioned articles and books, and even for many who have, to aid them in forming their own opinion as to whether either view is correct or if there may possibly be a middle ground.
I asked "What was it about Joshua Crane that Behr, Mackenzie & the rest felt so threatened by? I am not refering to his ideas, but rather to the man and his sphere of influence."
This was followed in another post by, "If he was not taken seriously, then why would anyone keep publishing his views?
If he was taken very seriously, then there had to be a number of influential people who supported and defended his ideas with so many prominent architects, etc... writing in opposition to them."
Bob responded with, among other points, "But in many ways, he didn't need a lot of allies. He was a personality. People knew the name. It appears they were familiar with his ideas, both the kooky ones and the not so kooky ones. He was the roving expert critic of golf architecture for one of the largest golf magazines on the era. Think Ron Whitten, with, at least during the early years of his public life, a very definite ax to grind. He seemed to temper his views later on."
Now I like this answer and illustration a great deal, yet it goes to the core of the problem of this discussion as I see it - regardless of the stand one takes on Crane and/or architectural standards today, it is still just a limited group of people who see the issues as important.
Consider, if you ask any ten golfers who Ron Whitten is, I would be stunned if 3 would know and I would wager almost anything that possibly 3 out of a hundred could give any dtails about his writings on golf course architecture and actual history designing courses.
Similarly, by a vast majority, most people who play the game don't give a pitoot or two whether a course is "penal" in nature or "strategically tough" but rather just whether it is too hard for them to play.
They give no consideration to the strategic nature of the design or why the architect decided to build a Redan hole or even what it is.
It was the same way back then. That is why I don't see the danger to the game that Bwehr, Mackenzie, etc... felt that Crane represented nor do I see it as an issue today that might actually threaten it.
Now, do I see an inherent dangerous course that has eveolved in USGA course setups for the national championship? Yes, I do, and not because of the brutality of the finished product. Rather I believe that they [USGA & others] have gotten so far away from the architectural challenge design intent of these great courses that it may cause architects to stop imbuing their new work with the subtleties of design that so moves us when we see the great courses that have been created by the past masters.
Yet is this really the fault of the course setups as they are meerly trying to ultimately challenge the great players of our time? In some ways no, because the real problem goes back to what everyone knows - equipment. With clubs designed for monumental distance hitting balls that refuse to fly in any other direction than straight, how can we really hold the USGA and others accountable for course setups where the fairways are 25 yards wide thereby taking away the true challenge and beauty of the course design?
No, condemn the sports governing bodies for not controlling equipment. There are those on this site who are part of this group in both minor and even major ways. To them I say grow some balls! Take a stand! Protect the integrity of the game!
The danger, at least as I see it, is not in those who design brutal courses without subtlety, but in those whose lack of action and foresight, and on this issue it only takes open eyes to see, are literally endagering the ability to play the game.
Like it or not, land is too valuable and growing more so.
So Tom, when you ask me how I can't "see that the likes of Behr et al were simply worried about golfers supporting some of Crane's ideas or misinterpreting them which could be dangerous to the future of architecture and golf?" I believe that you are missing the boat with the amount of danger you ascribe to both the influence Crane wielded as a single person view back then and likewise in a similar vein today.
I believe that only after realistic controls are placed upon the technology and equipment used to play the game, that issues such as those raised in the Crane/Behr, Mackenzie. etc.. debates will be germane to the future good of the game.
Just my rather long opinion.
