Richard Farnsworth Goodale said:
"Bob
If you think of golf as a game in which a player intereacts with a playing field, the player chooses and executes some sort of strategy on every shot he or she plays. Depending on his choice, his execution and pure chance, he finds himself in another position and the process begins again. The penal aspects of the playing field, which exist on all courses are just a part of the landscape, and affect the strategy of all players differently, depending on thier skill, their propensity for risk, and what side of bed they got out of that morning. So do the non-penal aspects (the Elysian Fields of golfdom).
To call a golf course penal is tautological. Of course it is. They all are, in some way or other. To call a course strategic, even using your meaning of the word, is also tautological. They all are.
If you amended your last sentence to read...
"Nonetheless, all courses contain elements of both."
...I'd be happier, but I'd still wonder what all the fuss is about."
Richard the Magnificent:
That post is positively fantastic and it is one of the reasons you truly are (or can be) magnificent!
However, it most certainly is a bit depthy----perhaps too depthy for this board---but that is one reason you can sometimes be pretty magnificent--eg because you can get depthy in a productive and intelligent way.
In my opinion, the word "tautological" is the meat of the idea that holds this sticky (or contrary-wise eely) subject of "penal" vs "strategic" either together in the minds of some or at bey in the minds of others, and you were very clever to use it in your post.
(I'm afraid that most contributors to and viewers of this thread will need to look up first the definition of "tautological" and following that to have to very seriously consider the meaning and applicablity of the word in this thread and subject. Nevertheless, your use and inclusion of it in this thread and discussion is most appropriate).
However, (if we are still on the same page, at this point
) I think, once again, you misread both Bob Crosby and others who are making points about the differences and distinctions between "penal" vs "strategic" architecture or even what Crane or Behr may've meant by either penal or strategic.
The point that Bob Crosby made above in that vein is this stuff, and this debate, in the minds and times of Crane and Behr (and certainly in our times) are not just simple examples of black and white---but that they really do fall into that area between them of gray.
And what does that really mean if one applies the concept or definition of "tautology" to all this?
(Let me supply a pretty good definition of tautology at this point---eg "Logic: a law that can be shown on the basis of certain rules to exlude no logical possibilities".)
So what does that definition mean to this subject and discussion?
To me it means that Crosby is right (and so probably are you)---eg that this debate about "penal" vs "strategic" in golf architecture and even in the debate between Behr and Crane is definitely NOT a black and white kind of thing and that there are elements of both the penal and strategic in all holes and all courses but the ultimate point is that this idea is a matter of DEGREE in any hole or course and that IS the real point of their argument with each other whether they fully realized it or not. I'm afraid this ultimate point is one that you are not seeing, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
The trick is for us is to figure out what those strategic elements in architecture were that both Behr and Crane philosophically agreed upon and what the penal elements were that they disagreed on, and why. Or perhaps I should even go and and say that we need to figure out what the strategic elements were that Behr and Crane disagreed on and what those penal elements were that they agreed on!
I have just reread the appropriate articles of both and I think I have AN answer on those questions. Perhaps maybe not THE answer but AN answer nonetheless.
And perhaps it is even possible that both Behr and Crane (and people like them in either camp) were looking at the very same things---in this case either "penal" OR "strategic" architecture and understanding that even if they were agreeing that they were seeing the very same things they were NOT agreeing on what the meaning of them was to the golfer!
I think we just might find when this discussion is done that this debate between the likes of Behr and the likes of Crane (penal vs strategic) was really something of a "glass half empty vs a glass half full" kind of thing.
And on some reflection I think by tomorrow I will be ready to explain why I think that may be true.
In my opinion, the nub of all of this is simply how one looks at the concept of "penalty" in golf and golf architecture. I think the fact is that Behr and his kind looked at it very differently than Crane and his ilk.
Later