News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #100 on: November 26, 2007, 12:26:28 PM »
Have to agree with Rich and Sully here. Behr premises his whole essay with a bunch of unbelievable nonsense about the credibility of Jones, because Jones as an amateur plays only for the love of the game. I would suppose a writing professor would give a C at best for such a poorly reasoned lead in to the primary points of the essay which are much more "reasonable".

"But one can see from Crane's responses that he was particularly mad that those who opposed him did not choose to debate him using basically a mathematical or "scientific" construct or format for testing the quality of architecture that he was proposing."

I think you have this wrong Tom. It appeared to me that he was upset because his opponents appealed to emotion instead of reason in their arguments. Or, if they did attempt reason, it was such a poor attempt as seen by the likes of the intro in Behr's essay.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #101 on: November 26, 2007, 02:05:38 PM »
Garland:

On your above post, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. And if Rich and Sully feel exactly as you do, I suppose the same will have to go for them.

I should ask you if you've carefully read any or many of Crane's responses or are you just filtering what they were from what's been written on this thread?

As for Jones' opinions and sentiments about golf and architecture being some result of the fact he was an amateur and didn't play for money and Behr's lead in with that to his premise, perhaps you should simply look again at what Jones himself said about TOC vs American championship courses and architecture and not so much about what Behr said about Jones.

Perhaps what most of us should do anyway is try to determine what the similarities of opinion were between Behr and Mackenzie and Jones et al and to try to look at those similarities of opinion in as much detail as possible.

Having done that we should then look to see what differences of opinion they may've had about TOC and then look at those differences in as much detail as possible.  ;)

And in the meantime it might be best to dispose of superficial remarks such as what kind of grade a writing professor would give Max Behr.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 02:09:45 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #102 on: November 26, 2007, 02:13:28 PM »
"I think you have this wrong Tom. It appeared to me that he was upset because his opponents appealed to emotion instead of reason in their arguments. Or, if they did attempt reason, it was such a poor attempt as seen by the likes of the intro in Behr's essay."

Garland:

That is precisely what Behr was trying to do and trying to explain. Most all of his premise was that golf and golf architecture SHOULD appeal to a golfer's emotions, period. That's why he said it was mostly all about "FEELING".

And that's also why he said he didn't believe one could reduce emotions and feelings to some mathematical or scientific formulae---as Crane was attempting to do.



JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #103 on: November 26, 2007, 02:59:51 PM »
Tom,

Did it all boil down to the fact that Joshua Crane was a very analytic sort of guy that needed to compute everything and these other fruitcakes liked everything very touchy-feely?

Actually a serious question in there, so please, I'm curious if you think I am oversimplifying this whole issue.

As we all know, opinions can be (wink) very personal...this site is as good an incubator as any to illustrate what can happen when two different opinions on the same subject are stated and defended...I think a big key in all of this (that might be THE THING I am missing) is whether or not any of this goes beyond OPINION.

Peter Pallotta

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #104 on: November 26, 2007, 03:10:03 PM »
JES
I'd like to see TE's answer to your question too. In the meantime, something you said about TOC on the other thread struck me:

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

Yes; and it sounds to me like Crane's scientific criteria for ideal golf courses (TOC wasn't one of them) would remove/mitigate that very option

Peter

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #105 on: November 26, 2007, 03:29:48 PM »
I knew you'd nibble on that...and the follow up is...do you need Jones' ability TO EXPERIMENT at TOC? I think you'd agree that it would be a negative if the answer is an affirmative...

Is this just one man's (the best player in the game) opinion of a course that especially appeals to him? Does he have writing that indicates it is more than that?

At some point here we'll merge with his writings on what his goal was for Augusta and how that related to, or was born from, his feelings about TOC, but I want it to be more than the typical challenge the good and appeal to the no-so-good...

I want an architect to tell me they can design a course that engages the mind and ability of all levels of serious players to a high degree. I haven't seen that written yet.

Peter Pallotta

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #106 on: November 26, 2007, 03:49:09 PM »
JES
I feel like Don Corleone when he chose a life of crime so he wouldn't have to dance like a puppet on the strings held by the pezzanovanta (the big shots)...you with your leading bits of insights dropped here and there to drive me crazy....

I should bow out of this - I've worried for most of this thread that I'm just mucking up the discussion with my ramblings and little-bit-of-knowledge-about-Behr-Crane..but I'll say this:

If anyone was seeking 'conformity' in great golf courses I don't think it was Jones/Behr/mackenzie...and if anyone was seeking to make courses less enjoyable for the average golfer it wasn't Jones/Behr/Mackenzie...and I think if anyone was interested in a course that could challenge the great player (above and beyond just calling for him to "make the shots") while being a unique and pleasurable test for everyone else, it was Jones...and I'm almost sure he makes explicit in his views about Augusta that this idea was based on TOC

So, yes, in the context of TOC, you DO need Jones ability to able to experiment like he could and might...but that doesn't in fact detract from what TOC offerred anyone else...and THAT was its glory

Peter

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #107 on: November 26, 2007, 03:59:15 PM »
By the way...when I say "serious players" I am in no way talking about skill...my only qualifier is that you be an avid, interested golfer...

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #108 on: November 26, 2007, 06:11:31 PM »
"Tom,
Did it all boil down to the fact that Joshua Crane was a very analytic sort of guy that needed to compute everything and these other fruitcakes liked everything very touchy-feely?
Actually a serious question in there, so please, I'm curious if you think I am oversimplifying this whole issue."

Sully:

As you probably can tell by now Joshua Crane was undeniably a very analytic guy and he apparently relied on mathematics and the so-called "Scientific Method" (a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevent data gathered, a hypothesis formulated, and the hypothesis empirically tested) in many of the things he thought about. The guy went to both Harvard and MIT and I guess most people who ever went to MIT are pretty much deep into things like mathematics, science and scientific analysis. ;)

I very much doubt Crane ever thought of the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and particularly Jones or even Charles Ambrose as fruit-cakes so I'd assume it must have virtually stunned him when they all basically FAILED TO ACCEPT his entire premise that the quality of golf architecture could be or should be subjected to mathematical formulae and some scientific analysis relying on mathematics.

He may've been ready for them to question the criterion of his mathematical formulae but they, or Behr at least, didn't even do that. Behr basically responded that mathematics just doesn't and frankly can't work with such a thing as how one perceives golf architecture because it is essentially based on feelings and emotions and that one cannot mathematically analyze feelings nor mathematically quantify feelings.

I dont' really feel one can mathematically analyze and mathematically quantify feelings and emotions. Do you think one can Sully?

You said:

"As we all know, opinions can be (wink) very personal...this site is as good an incubator as any to illustrate what can happen when two different opinions on the same subject are stated and defended...I think a big key in all of this (that might be THE THING I am missing) is whether or not any of this goes beyond OPINION."

That's an excellent analogy and point. Does any of this go beyond opinion? Should any of this ever go beyond opinion?

Well, I suppose if you take a look at what is absolutely necessary about the game of golf in relation to its playing fields, it's architecture, what we know is you must have a series of starting points, the tees, and you generally have 18 holes that have a hole in the ground at the end of each on a places we generally call greens.

Other than those few standardizations necessary for a golf course what else do we have but a whole holy host of OPINIONS, personal opinions of all kinds about the way the rest of it should be?

Apparently Crane wanted to direct golf and golf architecture towards more standardizations----eg to find ways to eliminate luck to make the game fairer, to rid golf courses of blindness to create greater visibility, to define areas more clearly and exactly where one should hit the ball and to arrange the areas more appropriately where one would be more consistently penalized for failing to hit the ball where he was supposed to.

Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al apparently didn't like that or didn't want to see golf go in that direction.

It may even be true to say, Sully, that the opinions of the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Ambrose and Jones et al are the opinions of the true "naturalist". Obviously not everyone or perhaps not even most agree with them. Perhaps many or even most may not have even agreed with them back then when this debate took place and most golfers may never agree with them.

All I know is my opinion, and I agree with them as I understand them and as I understand what they were after.

But one thing I believe I can tell you with almost total assurance and that was Behr was not trying to advocate that golf and golf architecture should return to the way it once was in perhaps the 18th century and most of the 19th century. I say that because he said that.

What he really wanted to see was that somehow golf and its playing fields could be done in such a way that many more golfers could somehow have the FEELING that those golfers back in those days had for golf and the places they played it on.

This was the very same thing that C.B. Macdonald said and felt so strongly about, except he tended to call it "The Spirit of St Andrews".
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 06:32:13 PM by TEPaul »

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #109 on: November 26, 2007, 07:29:17 PM »
Crane published his scientific method in 1924 ?  I think it was 1924.

Two years later Crane's replies in 1926 GIs were not even replies.  He didn't offer much in response in the GI articles except to repeat the explanation and needs of his methods.

Crane also placed much too much importance of maintenance and fairness of the rough and the like.  Every mis-hit or wayward shot should be more or less penalized the same.

What was missing from his critique for a scientific method was how many holes favored the hook and how many the slice, either by hazards or favorable line of play.  That should have been balanced and fair as well.  I have not seen that mentioned.

Of course he wasn't really doing much except rating courses using his scientific method and in the meanwhile, cutting through the guts of the art involved.

Many of the GIs that published Crane's articles ran articles  about the art of golf course design.

It went against the grain of everything else. The initial article may have been a quaint look at a totally different way of looking at courses but the responses must have goaded the editors to continue articles by Crane and sell a few more magazines.

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #110 on: November 26, 2007, 08:15:35 PM »
John:

I think you're right---eg it sure did look like GI was trying to fan the flames of some kind of dust-up. Did you notice the GI note in one of Crane's articles ("Log Rolling" I think it was) where the editor said GI decided to forgo publishing Crane's formulas for testing architecture in favor of publishing his response to Ambrose and the criticisms his system had already evoked?

I read those Crane articles again tonight and I forgot how much he complained about everyone attacking him personally and offered little other intelligent response to his critics. His "Woe is me" attitude that everyone was attacking him personally instead of what he said reminds me of a few on here over the years.

Crane's writing style is a whole lot more bizarre to me than Behr's. I guess those highly educated Ivy League guys back then were just into some pretty odd styles of writing. To me Crane is almost unreadable.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 08:17:53 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #111 on: November 27, 2007, 11:04:40 AM »
Tom,

I'd be interested in reading some of these articles...I might have to make a visit to the farm some time soon.

I don't know much about the work of MacKenzie or Behr, tell me...Do their courses have as much blindness as St. Andrews?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #112 on: November 27, 2007, 11:08:37 AM »
"I think you have this wrong Tom. It appeared to me that he was upset because his opponents appealed to emotion instead of reason in their arguments. Or, if they did attempt reason, it was such a poor attempt as seen by the likes of the intro in Behr's essay."

Garland:

That is precisely what Behr was trying to do and trying to explain. Most all of his premise was that golf and golf architecture SHOULD appeal to a golfer's emotions, period. That's why he said it was mostly all about "FEELING".

And that's also why he said he didn't believe one could reduce emotions and feelings to some mathematical or scientific formulae---as Crane was attempting to do.




Tom,

You don't understand my point. I will admit that I have not read the writings other than those replicated here. However, with these examples I can demonstrate what I mean.

"Any architect in Great Britain or U. S. says St. Andrews is better than Muirfield."  This is not a reasonable argument. I suppose a lawyer might say something like "Objection! Facts not in evidence." Did they personally contact all architects in GB and US to determine this? I think not!

"St. Andrews needs years of play to appreciate it." What is this? An appeal to nostalgia? It says nothing about whether it is a better course or not.

"Old champion still formidable at St. Andrews." What is this? An appeal to kindly feelings towards old gentlemen? It says nothing about whether it is a better course or not.

"It is not difficult to create holes on any inland course of similar character." Anyone capable of logic and reason would swear this is an argument that St. Andrews is rather run of the mill.

Unfortunately, the above quotes are taken out of context by Crane (perhaps purposely so) so a reader has no understanding why the authors of such quotes would make such meaningless statements. 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.

Peter,

Did the article that you took the quotes from provide anymore context, or reference a particular article by the other side?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #113 on: November 27, 2007, 11:57:11 AM »
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=32246

Gives the Crane rating method.

To it I would say, golf courses are better when the provide different challenges on each hole. Crane's rating method and prescriptions for improvement would move all holes towards a uniformity that would devalue the golfing experience on a course composed of them.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #114 on: November 27, 2007, 12:25:45 PM »
Garland,

Thanks for posting Crane's methodology...I am working through it and something occured to me that I wanted to put on here...

If it is the opinion of Jones, Behr, MacKenzie et al that a scientific formula for rating golf courses is unfounded because it is the "FEELINGS" and the "EMOTIONS" that matter...how can Jones and Behr presume to tell me what is "the greatest golf course in the world"?

What if TOC sucks for me personally? Am I wrong to dislike it? Do I have to like it because Bobby Jones said so? Even if they are in the minority, and even if I also think the same way they do about all of this, I have a real problem with someone telling me not to scientifically evaluate something when they themselves rank it in their own way.


Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #115 on: November 27, 2007, 01:03:49 PM »
http://www.britannica.com/magazine/print?query=genteel&id=29&minGrade=&maxGrade=

In trying to find out a bit more about Crane, I came upon this.  Ah, that we were a phsyical "Conversation Club" rather than a hit and run society of time stressed indivduals.....
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 01:05:36 PM by Richard Farnsworth Goodale »

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #116 on: November 27, 2007, 01:18:20 PM »
http://newenglandgreenkeeper.com/Documents/Crane%20wins%20at%2083.pdf

Here's another good one.  Hard to reconcile this with the view painted of oor Josh as Satan's handmaiden....

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #117 on: November 27, 2007, 01:28:41 PM »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #118 on: November 27, 2007, 01:43:06 PM »

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #119 on: November 27, 2007, 01:56:58 PM »
Jim

Pretty sure it's oor Josh.  He only coached Harvard for one year (1907) and his team finished 7-3.  Other searches have revealed that he was a top class polo player and devised a once widely used bidding system for bridge which was the first to allow points for distributional values.  I do not think that he would have been awed by Bobby Jones at Augusta, nor at all intimidated by Behr or Mackenzie.

Peter Pallotta

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #120 on: November 27, 2007, 01:57:58 PM »
I think so, JES.

Bob Crosby will know for sure; but I think Crane was a fine running back there, and then coached the football team (but for only one year, leaving for unexplained reasons).

Yes, a facinating guy, and well-rounded athlete, and no one -- I don't think - is demonizing him or taking him lightly (certainly no one did back then)....but he wasn't as good a golfer as Behr :o

Peter

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #121 on: November 27, 2007, 02:01:52 PM »
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.

Thanks.

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #122 on: November 27, 2007, 02:08:25 PM »
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9801E1DE1239E133A25750C0A9679C946395D6CF

Here's one on another issue that shows that Maxie can get mad too!

PS--I'm searching for video references to either Behr or Crane in the "Girls Gone Wild" archives, but no luck yet....

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #123 on: November 27, 2007, 06:50:04 PM »
I have located the MacKenzie article that Crane was responding to with the comments that begin this thread. It is in the April 1926 issue of Golf Illustrated. It reads like MacKenzie is dumb as a post in his criticisms. Clearly MacKenzie is not dumb as a post. However, what is obvious is that he has no idea what Crane's rating system is. Therefore, he fires criticisms that agree with many of the factors that Crane has taken into account. So Crane did not take his comments out of context. MacKenzie's comments were simply made in ignorance of the subject. Therefore, they had no real meaning when used to critique Crane. They were quite nonsensical as Crane aptly seems to point out.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #124 on: November 27, 2007, 08:07:41 PM »
"Unfortunately, the above quotes are taken out of context by Crane (perhaps purposely so) so a reader has no understanding why the authors of such quotes would make such meaningless statements. 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:

Maybe you think it shows a lack of reason to make an argument that emotion and feeling towards a golf course are perhaps of primary importance but I most assuredly do not, and obviously either did Mackenzie, Jones and particularly Max Behr. But if you feel that way, no problem, everybody has an opinion, although if that's yours I sure don't agree with it.

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.