“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."...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.”
Sully:
If enjoyment and pleasure are the things to be sought in golf architecture and pleasure and enjoyment are dependent on feelings and emotions why would one want to analyze golf architecture without considering one’s emotions and feelings? That was Behr’s point, and his point about Crane and his mathematical formula for rating architecture.
”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.”
What do you mean? I’ve never assumed Crane published his mathematical formula with the intention of backing into his personal favorites at the expense of his least favorites. Behr didn’t either. So where did you get that idea? Crane said he was disappointed to find that his mathematical formula low rated some courses and holes that he was particularly fond of and high rated some holes and courses that were not attractive to him. Behr merely said he thought that was a remarkable statement and asked if that was the case then what did Crane think was right---his mathematical formula or his feelings?
Furthermore, I don't know that there was any next generation of Crane's mathematical formula for testing the quality of architecture. Crane may've hoped that by promoting his formula and thereby having others discuss and analyze it that would help to perfect his mathematical formula (and ultimately to help improve golf course architecture) but I'm not aware that happened. Clearly Behr's point was that trying to use a mathematical formula for testing the quality of architecture should not be done, that it is of no real value, and that basically emotions and feelings are what's of value in determining what one thinks of the quality of particular architecture.
”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.”
Value in uncertainty? What do you mean by that ? Do you mean there is value in trusting one’s emotions about golf architecture without understanding why? Or do you mean there is value in trusting a mathematical formula for testing the quality of architecture without understanding why? Or do you mean there is value in not understanding what you feel and what you think?