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.


TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #125 on: November 27, 2007, 08:18:00 PM »
"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)).
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 08:28:56 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #126 on: November 27, 2007, 08:42:32 PM »
"Here's another good one.  Hard to reconcile this with the view painted of oor Josh as Satan's handmaiden...."

Rich:

I'm most certainly not trying to paint Crane as Satan's handmaiden, and I truly doubt either Behr, Mackenzie or Jones were either. Actually if you keep reading the accounts to the end of this so-called debate issue they get pretty humorous about him and even call him their friend.

It was Crane's early reactions to their responses to his mathematical proposal that made it look like they were painting him as Satan's handmaiden but Behr, Mackenzie or Jones et al never did that. They did go to town on his mathematical formula proposal though. At least Behr did.

The truth is Joshua Crane was a pretty danged remarkable man with a ton of truly impressive accomplishments in both sports and other very diverse areas of life. According to Bob C, though, the word on the street about him from some who had to deal with him was he could be a real overachingly opinionated pain-in-the-ass.

By the way, interesting link you posted above. Did you catch the second page of that link? It mentions the death of George Herbert Walker, past USGA president who happens to be this f...ing little shrub of a president of ours grandfather!!  ;)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 08:50:26 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #127 on: November 27, 2007, 09:01:30 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."

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.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 09:31:51 PM by TEPaul »

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #128 on: November 28, 2007, 02:41:07 AM »
Tom

If only Crane lived in this day and age, he could have just added some sort of creative criterion like today's magazines do--"Tradition" and "Walk in the Park" come to mind.

A few pieces of extraneous information:

--GHW was not Shrub's grandfather but his great-granda.  Time must fly when you are having fun.

--I'm not sure if Josh was related to the Toilet Crane's of Chicago.  They bought property near Boston (Crane Beach), but not until 1910.

--The major toilet manufacturer selling in Scotland was called Shanks.  One is always advised to go to the toilet in Scotland after your round and not before it.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #129 on: November 28, 2007, 10:56:50 AM »
...
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.
"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 #130 on: November 28, 2007, 11:23:54 AM »

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.

The flow of every conversation is dictated by how the sides understand each other. If Behr misinterpreted what Crane was writing about, his responses would be out of context. When I ask how Behr "positioned" Crane what I really want is to see if Behr read Crane differently than I did.

In that piece Garland posted with the article Crane wrote about the methodology behind his ranking system I saw a whole lot of talk about emotions and feelings and pleasure. I also saw alot of scarry stuff about uniformity and the elimination of luck but the keys I took out of that one piece is that his end goal is to make the game as pleasurable as possible for everyone...sounds familiar doesn't it?




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.

This is priceless and probably worthy of being a tagline...
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 11:24:41 AM by JES II »

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #131 on: November 28, 2007, 04:43:05 PM »
"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.

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #132 on: November 28, 2007, 04:51:37 PM »
"The flow of every conversation is dictated by how the sides understand each other. If Behr misinterpreted what Crane was writing about, his responses would be out of context. When I ask how Behr "positioned" Crane what I really want is to see if Behr read Crane differently than I did."

Sully:

It did not sound to me like Behr misinterpreted what Crane was writing about. Anyone can tell Crane was writing about his mathematical formulae to test the quality of golf courses and their architecture. Behr simply did not think one could or should do that as it wasn't relevent, only feelings and emotions were important to him regarding the quality of a course.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #133 on: November 28, 2007, 04:53:06 PM »
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.
"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 #134 on: November 28, 2007, 05:42:06 PM »
"The flow of every conversation is dictated by how the sides understand each other. If Behr misinterpreted what Crane was writing about, his responses would be out of context. When I ask how Behr "positioned" Crane what I really want is to see if Behr read Crane differently than I did."

Sully:

It did not sound to me like Behr misinterpreted what Crane was writing about. Anyone can tell Crane was writing about his mathematical formulae to test the quality of golf courses and their architecture. Behr simply did not think one could or should do that as it wasn't relevent, only feelings and emotions were important to him regarding the quality of a course.




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..."[/i] 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?

TEPaul

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #135 on: November 28, 2007, 08:07:11 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 08:09:05 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #136 on: November 29, 2007, 09:48:07 AM »
Tom,

It is quite clear to me that when someone makes a statement like..."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."[/i]...they have successfully separated their emotions from their analytical process. That's a good thing if someone is going to go through an analytical process.

The next generation of his formula is what I'd be interested in. 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. This is where I think you and Behr are misreading him. You both criticize Crane for publishing a formula with the assumption that he created the formula with the sole intention of "backing into" his personal favorites at the expense of his least favorites.

Based on what I have read (only what's come on here), I think the fruitcakes dismissed him too soon. I think Crane could well come to learn that there really is value in uncertainty.

In a big world perspective just take his ideas about turning several small greenside bunkers into one large one for sake of predictability...there are several arguments for why the small ones are better in my mind, and only one or two against...I think he'd come to understand that...and would be open to it.

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #137 on: November 29, 2007, 09:57:03 AM »
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.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #138 on: November 29, 2007, 10:04:17 AM »
In this conversation I feel like I am walking down a strange hallway in the dark so I'm trying to do it carefully, but something else comes out of all this...how much blindness did MacKenzie design into his courses? Did he and/or Behr feel constrained to create courses withina tight range of total par figure (did they design par 67's or 75's?)? Even more to the point...would either of them criticize a course that consisted completely of holes that favored one particular style even if every hole was very good on its own?

Peter Pallotta

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2007, 10:25:42 AM »
"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

Rich Goodale

Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #140 on: November 29, 2007, 10:26:15 AM »
Jim

If you want to really know, they were groping about in the dark, just as we were, but without the burden of knoweldge and entrusted with far too much responsibility.

Rich

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #141 on: November 29, 2007, 10:58:31 AM »
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.  




JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #142 on: November 29, 2007, 11:26:46 AM »

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



This is the perception I am curious about...Tom Paul, Bob Crosby, Peter Pallotta...do you think this is about how those guys viewed Joshua Crane back then?

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #143 on: November 29, 2007, 11:39:46 AM »
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."
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #144 on: November 29, 2007, 12:15:52 PM »
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

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #145 on: November 29, 2007, 12:19:14 PM »
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?  

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #146 on: November 29, 2007, 12:41:36 PM »
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.  





And your credential to judge science is?
"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 #147 on: November 29, 2007, 01:03:41 PM »
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?

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #148 on: November 29, 2007, 01:19:50 PM »
JMorgan -

You got me. I do not have a quote saying Crane was not a knucklehead. I also don't have a quote saying that he was not the king of France. ;) But I will keep looking.

Bob

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Joshua Crane gets Mad…
« Reply #149 on: November 29, 2007, 01:23:36 PM »
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.          

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back