"However, they do not show Crane arguing against emotion and feelings towards a golf course, but against lack of reason (using emotion and feelings) in trying to make an argument."

Garland:

Joshua Crane made his own argument against the importance of emotion and feeling towards a golf course, although apparently completely unintentionally. And in my opinion, Max Behr caught him up on the lack of logic of doing that by using Crane's own stated personal preferences AND his own proposal to analyze architecture via a mathematical formula against him.

Behr said:

“It would not be so bad if Mr Crane's preferences coincided with his figures. At least he would have a personal opinion, and that is always interesting. But he has remarked: "In fact, I am often myself disappointed in finding that certain courses or holes of which I am particularly fond do not rate as well as others which are not as attractive to me."

"What a remarkable statement! in the first place, whence did his figures come if not from his feelings? They were but a mathematical assessment of his fondness for things. Which was wrong, his figures or his feelings, in the event thereafter that his figures failed to establish that which was attractive to him over that which was not? Perhaps in the world beyond there is some omniscient common denominator permitting a mathematics of emotions. But in this world we are all so differently constituted that such a scheme as Mr Crane's is just as chimerical as if someone were to set out to determine the greatest painting in the world by such a means" (a mathematical formula) (parenthesis mine)).

"I'll be visiting Happydale Farms shortly...in the meantime, could anyone produce some of Max Behr's writings through this debate? I'm curious just how he positioned the views of Crane."

Sully:

Producing Behr's articles and related info about him is something of a tricky business these days. I'd rather not go into the reasons why on here.  

What do you mean how he positioned the views of Crane? If I knew what you meant by that I'll try to tell you.

By the way, that is our Joshua Crane that was the US Court Tennis Champion (a couple of times). Most people don't happen to know though, that one basically can get ranked in court tennis if one simply buys a court tennis racket.  

I may be mistaken but I think I recall that Crane was big into things like Naval ordnance and stuff.

I believe it may've been his son or nephew I ran across in my yute when hanging around Isleboro Maine (we called it Dark Harbor).

This guy Crane was some kind of crazy yachtsman with all kinds of weird personally designed boats including one that was a relatively large yacht but it was, in fact, a completely scaled down exact replica of a destroyer. It was about 75 feet long and it looked like it was about 7 feet wide. He would take it out and do all kinds of wild turns heeling that thing over to what looked like close to 30 degrees.  

I could be wrong but it just may be that the Cranes made a lot of money in toilets and things which only goes to prove you really do get out of things what you put into them, as Max Behr mentioned about Crane's mathematical golf architecture testing system.

...
The man who made most all those remarks you listed above as unreasonable was Alister Mackenzie, by the way, not exactly someone whose opinions on architecture and certainly TOC should be considered chopped liver by anyone, including you.

Sorry Tom, but as my post above shows Alister's remarks are chopped liver in this case, because he didn't bother to investigate what he was critiquing and thereby wrote a bunch of nonsense about Crane's rating system that upset Crane.

Sure Alister had very valuable knowledge and opinions about TOC, but in this case he misapplied it by not knowing what he was using it to critique.

"Sorry Tom, but as my post above shows Alister's remarks are chopped liver in this case, because he didn't bother to investigate what he was critiquing and thereby wrote a bunch of nonsense about Crane's rating system that upset Crane.
Sure Alister had very valuable knowledge and opinions about TOC, but in this case he misapplied it by not knowing what he was using it to critique."

Garland:

I don't think your post above shows anything of the kind. Mackenzie was using the opinions he was aware of and obviously Mackenzie was aware of the opinions of plenty of worthy people.

And furthermore the likes of Mackenzie and Behr were critiquing Crane's mathemtatical procedure for testing the quality of golf architecture. Their critique of Crane's mathematical procedure was that it should not be used to test the quality of golf course architecture.

I don't see any point in trying to make it any more complicated than that because it wasn't.

Tom,

Let me put it another way. Had Alister MacKenzie submitted his April 1926, Golf Illustrated article to a peer reviewed scholarly journal, it would have been rejected, because of his obvious lack of knowledge of the subject matter he was critiquing. His peers would have known that material and would see that he didn't. Therefore, they would reject it with the suggestion that he familiarize himself with the material and revise accordingly before resubmission.

Tom,
What is interesting to me is that Crane "was writing about his mathematical formulae to test the quality of golf courses and their architecture..." with the goal being to show which courses should be the most pleasurable.
At least that was a frequently stated objective in the essay Garland posted on the other thread.
They just looked at pleasure differently, don't you think?”

Sully:

No, frankly I don’t. And as it relates to Crane (and Behr) I think the following statement essentially proves it.

Behr said:

“It would not be so bad if Mr Crane's preferences coincided with his figures. At least he would have a personal opinion, and that is always interesting. But he has remarked: "In fact, I am often myself disappointed in finding that certain courses or holes of which I am particularly fond do not rate as well as others which are not as attractive to me."

"What a remarkable statement! in the first place, whence did his figures come if not from his feelings? They were but a mathematical assessment of his fondness for things. Which was wrong, his figures or his feelings, in the event thereafter that his figures failed to establish that which was attractive to him over that which was not? Perhaps in the world beyond there is some omniscient common denominator permitting a mathematics of emotions. But in this world we are all so differently constituted that such a scheme as Mr Crane's is just as chimerical as if someone were to set out to determine the greatest painting in the world by such a means" (a mathematical formula) (parenthesis mine)).

In my opinion, essentially after making a remark like that in the context of his own mathematical testing I just don’t believe Crane could possibly have it both ways and the somewhat humorous, and certainly revealing thing is he said so himself.

Sully

That last paragraph is very interesting.  What in fact seems to have happened (based on my limited exposure to Golden Age courses) is that the small numerous bunker idea (what existed and still exists in Old Europe) was somehow transmogrified to the "White Faces of Merion," or the "Endless Summer" Mackenzie styles.  The ODG's seemed to have followed Crane in this particular instance.

"He took a purely mathematical analysis to the first go 'round and realized he disagreed with the results...they did not support his personal opinions."

JES - that's where my trouble/question really sits. What does a purely mathematical analysis mean? How can you perform such an analysis on a golf course? How can you perform it, that is, without coming to it with some preconceived ideas and opinions and feelings about what a golf course should be or should ideally be, and how you will judge/score a green or a green complex or a hazard etc etc.  For example, I think that Crane scored high a golf course that had 3 sets of tees (in the tee category at least). Okay, that's fine; maybe I'd agree that 3 tees are better than on. Maybe. But it's still a subjective opinion, isn't it? e.g. why not say that 5 sets of tees are better than 3 in that they help ensure that more people/levels of golfers can enjoy the course.

What I'm saying is that Crane's analysis just doesn't strike me as all that objective or scientific at all, except in name; at least Behr etc admitted the subjective nature (feelings emotions) of his approach.

Peter

There's nothing scientific about weighting each feature of a golf course with a number that has no quantifiable value to begin with.    

Who decides that a tee is worth 10% in 100 percent, for instance -- all of the golf course characteristics being equal because I say so -- and uses the end percentage to determine ranking?  

How is that "scientific" in the same sense that emission spectroscopy can tell you exactly how much of an element is present in a metallic or non-metallic substance, for example?

Reification.  He was an interesting person.  But he was also a knucklehead.  

There is alot to digest in this thread and some very interesting  ideas.


Last night, I was reading The Links again and found it interesting that Hunter states in his book that TOC was one of the worst routed courses and then turns around waxes poetic about the virtues of the course.


"Such criticisms would be more than enough to destroy forever the reputation of any course in the universe exceppt SA. Upon her standing in the wrold of golf they seem to have no effect whatsoever. It is rather difficult to explain why SA shouldbe the one and only course which stands above and scorns all criticism. One can say evil things of Sandwich, Prestwick, Hoylake and any other course, and find some to agree; but if one assails the home of the R&A, one soon fins the atmosphere grows chilly."


 Although Hunter clearly expresses is affection for the course in his book, I found his thoughts here interesting. What exactly was he saying? He doesn't expound on it (the criticism). Perhaps he was saying that TOC follows no "formula", that a "balance" compared to later courses doesn't exist and yet is non the worse for it. His mentor, AM, certainly took this idea to heart in his courses.


"The strategy required to play some of the holes is so varied and so interesting. Pine Valley is a course where we hit with all our power, and if the high soaring ball plumps down on a bit of turf, we are immensely pleased; but we never have a sufficient variety of shots of quite enough skill and accuracy to play SA as we should like to play it, or indeed as we feel that one day we shall play it. At PV we feel that we lack power only, and no one thinks of committing suicide because Dempsey can lick him; but at SA our brains fail us. There is something in the very terrain which outwits us. That is, I think, what gives the old course its enduring vitality. It is the most captivating and unfair, the most tantalizing and bewitching, of all courses."

Sully -

Crane was a well known figure during the GA and later. He was taken quite seriously by MacK, Behr, Darwin, etc. They were right to do so. He raised some big issues. No one thought he was a knucklehead.

Bob

Bob, which guy told you that he wasn't a knucklehead?  

Thanks Bob, does it seem appropriate to you that his first run formula did not produce results that line up with his actual opinions of specific holes and courses?

Reading through all of those past issues of Golf Illustrated, I come across articles that are inspirational, those that are informative and knowledgeable, and then the subset where I know there is something amiss and wonder what was going on in the insular world of golf back then.  In the case of these latter articles, I wonder how the author was published in the magazine, save the editors' lack of knowledge in a particular area, perhaps, or maybe because the gentleman knew a friend of someone else or had society influence, etc.  

Crane's articles are intriguing but at the same time make me question what the staff was thinking in giving the ideas credence without any sort of serious refutation -- much like the examination on this discussion board.

Around the same time, for example, a F.L.O. Wadsworth wrote an article promoting his idea of the hexaplex plan.  The premise:  architects should adopt his routing method because it makes the best use of the least amount of acreage. It has merely been a "misapprehension" that after all these years, golf architects have gotten it all wrong.  Charles Banks responded in turn with an article that while decisively conclusive in his counterpoint contains enough sardonic wit and a "leave it to the pros" wink to make you chuckle.

So I find it very hard to believe that someone as intelligent as MacKenzie or Behr wouldn't snicker a bit and roll their eyes after looking at Crane's suppositions (which are purely subjective and no more scientific than finger painting) -- like an upstart who somehow got invited to their party.

That's not to say he's not a very interesting character and deserves research attention in an important era in golf history.  And knucklehead is not a scientific term.  It is my opinion.

Garland, if you really want my scientific credentials, I will IM them to you.