Courses considered great with fewest bunkers...

[TEPaul]

"TE
If it was a most important crossroads could you tell us how this great debate manifested itself in golf architecture?"


Sure.

A dedicated effort in golf and architecture to minimize luck at all costs, to create far more and comprehensive "fairness" and equity through increased consistency of surface, much more exact and distinct divisions between where to hit the ball and where not to, a consequent increase in penality shot by shot through the comprehensive use of rough, less width/greater narrowness, far more shot by shot dictation (Crane referred to this as "control"), less freedom of choice with a consequent reduction of options, alternative strategies, less reliance on thought/more reliance on dictated execution, a concerted effort to remove interesting aspects of blindness, doubt, deception, a philosophy that everything should be visible (probably promoting the idea that the ideal in architecture should be "everything is right there in front of you" etc, etc, etc for starters.

Just a few little trivialities, I guess, that may've made no real difference for golf's future other than to probably reduce interest and enjoyment over what might have been. Including in this was the increased inclination towards mathematical and scientific analyses leading to greater standardization in the mentality and approach to the game. Somewhere along the way to some degree or another golf may've lost what once was its soul, its spirit, its natural randomness and unpredicatableness. According to the articulatons of some of Crane's philosophies all this was necessary to more exactly compare a golfer to another golfer much like other ball or stick and ball games in which the ball his almost always vied for. As Behr said, it was the "Game Mind of Man"----eg to tear the sport's component parts to pieces to more scientifically and logically analyze what they must and should mean.

But other than those kinds of things the camps of Crane et al on the one side and the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones on the other, were probably in almost total agreement.   

The truth is, perhaps without ever truly realizing it Crane and most of his philosophies won the day and the future, and that is why some of us would like to rerun that great debate which never really took place as it should have or as well as it should have back then. 

But do not concern yourself with it if you don't see it, Tom MacWood. I think others who do feel they see it are pretty capable of carrying it on without you. The truth is a good deal of what has gone on in golf architecture in the last 15-20 years, certainly in some areas of golf and architecture has rekindled much of the essence of that debate anyway. But perhaps you haven't noticed.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Are there some courses you can point to that were a result of the debate?

[TEPaul]

“TE
Are there some courses you can point to that were a result of the debate?”

Tom MacWood:

Of course there are, perhaps many thousand of them on the one side of the ledger but once again not as the result of the debate itself but because of the inclination of golf and architecture to follow some of the particular philosophies articulated by Crane on the one hand. I’ll do it or Bob Crosby might too but for my part not until you can show either of us that you have some modicum of understanding of the meaning of the following remark. And it will take more than just a “yes” on your part, or just another of your questions!  If it simply confuses you which it probably will judging from past experience with you on this subject I suggest we just drop this particular subject between you and some of us, as I’m afraid there is nothing to be gained from trying to explain it to you.

“The truth is, perhaps without ever truly realizing it Crane and most of his philosophies won the day and the future, and not some of the philosohical ideas of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al and that is why some of us would like to rerun that great debate which never really took place as it should have or as well as it should have back then.”

(Max Behr's coigned term, the "Game Mind of Man" that he used and couched as a negative reference in the context of golf course architecture and which just might be the most accurate and prescient idea I'm aware of in the modern evolution of GCA and golf. But, Tom MacWood, I would not expect that you would understand much of what he meant by that. However, if you would care to try to explain to some of us what you think he may've meant by that I'm quite sure we'll be all ears. If you can somehow conjure up some understanding and explanation of it, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to try to carry on a discussion on this particular subject. However, I'm sorry to say that we may be getting away from the realm of newspaper and magazine articles and even books and such that you seem to identify as "facts" and with which you seemingly feel comfortable with, and into the realm of golf architectural philosophy, in which and with which you apparently do not feel comfortable. I can certainly understand that and I sure will say you are not the only one---as it probably is and probably always will be slightly outside the box and most people probably only understand or even want to try to understand those things inside the box  ).

[Thomas MacWood]

A dedicated effort in golf and architecture to minimize luck at all costs, to create far more and comprehensive "fairness" and equity through increased consistency of surface, much more exact and distinct divisions between where to hit the ball and where not to, a consequent increase in penality shot by shot through the comprehensive use of rough, less width/greater narrowness, far more shot by shot dictation (Crane referred to this as "control"), less freedom of choice with a consequent reduction of options, alternative strategies, less reliance on thought/more reliance on dictated execution, a concerted effort to remove interesting aspects of blindness, doubt, deception, a philosophy that everything should be visible (probably promoting the idea that the ideal in architecture should be "everything is right there in front of you" etc, etc, etc for starters.

TE
That is one long sentence. Don't you think you are being too hard on Crane? Less freedom of choice, increased penalty shot by shot? Anyone with an open mind who studied Crane's plan to redesign the 1st at the Old Course knows you are distorting his ideas. His plan is superior to anyone with an appreciation for strategic golf.

The truth is, perhaps without ever truly realizing it Crane and most of his philosophies won the day and the future, and that is why some of us would like to rerun that great debate which never really took place as it should have or as well as it should have back then. 

You give far too much credit to Crane. The truth is Crane was not the first person to come up those ideas. Colt and Ross were all promoting the very same things years before. William Flynn is cut from the same cloth as well...which is nothing to be ashamed of.

“TE
Are there some courses you can point to that were a result of the debate?”

Tom MacWood:

Of course there are, perhaps many thousand of them on the one side of the ledger but once again not as the result of the debate itself but because of the inclination of golf and architecture to follow some of the particular philosophies articulated by Crane on the one hand.

Wow!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I'm pretty much with Behr, Mackenzie, Jones and Ambrose that TOC doesn't need its holes to be redesigned, not then and not now. Interesting to note you seem to be with Crane that redesign of TOC is the way to go.

I'm not for a dedicated effort to minimize luck and constantly promote definition and fairness in golf and architecture either but it's interesting to note that you seem to be with Crane on that too.

I think blindness had and very much still has a real place in architecture but seemingly you think Crane's ideas that visibility is a must in golf an architecture is the way to go. "Everything right there in front of you" What a great idea that really mimics the realities of Nature and its topographical interest  

I'm really not for greater "control" in golf and architecture as proposed by Crane but apparently you are.

I'm not for a philosophy on penalty in golf as Crane was but it's interesting to see you are.

I'm not for subjecting architecture to mathematical and scientific analysis but apparently you are hence all your recent lists.    Emotion pretty much works for me in analyzing architecture.

It interesting to see you have what Behr referred to as a real "game mind."

Congratulations on all that and isn't it comforting to know you have plenty of company? 

I don't think I'm hard on Crane and I don't think they were either. It's merely a matter of disagreement with some of his fundamental philosophies on golf and golf architecture. Had the two sides managed to continue to debate their particular philosophies the world of golf would have been treated to a pretty significant crossroads, in my opinion. But apparently some thought then and still think now it was only about his low ranking of TOC. It's too bad so many back then like so many today never really read or appreciated what was written particularly by the Behr, Mackenzie, Jones side.   

Hopefully Bob Crosby's essay on that debate and the particulars of it can shed some important light on the subject for the future.

[Thomas MacWood]

I have what Behr referred to as a "head ache".....caused by reading too many rambling semi-coherent historically challenged posts.

I enjoy going in and out of many camps: the Colt, Ross, Crane, Flynn camp; the Behr, MacKenzie, Ambrose, Jones camp; the Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, Langford, Alison camp; the Barker, Macdonald, Whigham, Wilson et al camp; the Simpson, Wethered, Campbell, Hutchison, Darwin camp; the Watson, Bell, Thomas, Hunter camp; the S.Thompson, RTJ, N.Thompson camp; the Tilly, Strong, Emmet, Low camp; etc. I'm an equal opportunity camper.

I wrote Crane's planned redesign was clearly superior strategically to any person with a shread of architectural intellegence. As far as my thoughts on if the TOC should be redesigned we'll save that for another time. Whatever the case, your analysis of Crane's plan proves you are not capable of looking at Crane with the least bit objectivity (and unfortunately this not the first time you've had this problem).

I too look forward to Bob's long awaited essay. Any idea when we might expect it?

[TEPaul]

"I wrote Behr's planned redesign was clearly superior strategically to anyone with shread of architectural intellegence. As far as my thoughts on if the TOC should be redesigned we'll save that for another time. Whatever the case, your analysis of Crane's plan proves you are not able to look at Crane with the least bit objectivity (and unfortunately this not the first time you've had this problem)."

First, apparently you're even worse in the writing department than you are in the reading department. I doubt Behr offered a redesign plan for TOC  as he and Mackenzie, Jones, Ambrose et al didn't seem to believe in that for TOC but apparently you're confused about that too. Even if any course or hole can probably be improved somehow, apparently they felt, as I do, that some courses have probably earned the right to be left alone architecturally and TOC is one of them!

Second, I have never said a word about Crane's plans for redesigning TOC. That's just one other thing you've dreamed up about what I've said that of course I never have. I can certainly see someone misunderstanding something someone said but to just dream stuff up on a subject that someone has never been mentioned is really astounding. I've often wondered how you can be so off the mark on the way you deduce things and I think you've pretty much just proven, AGAIN, why that is. 


"I too look forward to Bob's long awaited essay. Any idea when we might expect it?"

Why don't you ask him that yourself? Do you think you can figure out how to do that? By the way, his name is Bob Crosby, not Tom Paul. Perhaps you've not heretofore been aware of that---also not surprising considering your constant confusion.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Charles Ambrose is apparently an important member of your supposed camp. What can you tell us about him? His background? His architectural thoughts and opinions? His designs?

Isn't Crane's redesign of the 1st a reflection of his architectural thoughts and ideas?

[TEPaul]

“Isn't Crane's redesign of the 1st a reflection of his architectural thoughts and ideas?”

Tom MacWood:

Another very odd question indeed! Since he offered a redesign plan for TOC’s first hole I can’t imagine why the plan he offered wouldn’t be a reflection of his architectural thoughts and ideas. Can you? Is that a rhetorical question on your part? Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Consider this from another recent thread:

“DanK:

I have not seen before those remarks of Mackenzie's you inluded in post #51. I think that adds a lot more corroboration and evidence to what those guys were thinking at that time.

To me, even more interesting are some of the things that Joshua Crane was thinking at this same time. It seems to me we can see (particularly from his article recently posted on The Lido) that there were many similarities in his philosophical thinking about architecture with the contingent of Behr/Mackenzie/Jones et al but there definitely were some very notable differences, perhaps the primary one being Crane's idea of maximum or perhaps total visibility in golf architecture. Also, this idea which Crane frequently refers to as "control" is most definitely a departure from the philosophies of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones. I think Crane's idea of "control" goes right to the heart of what "penalty" should be in golf and architecture and the fact is those others were very much of a vastly different opinion on that most important concept in golf and architecture.”


On second thought, perhaps belay the above as you don’t seem to either understand or appreciate these kinds of distinctions. 
 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
You wrote Crane promoted less freedom of choice and a reduction of options, alternative strategies, less reliance on thought/more reliance on dictated execution. Yet his plan to redesign the 1st at TOC is about giving more freedom of choice, introducing more thought, new options and alternative strategies where none had existed before. It would seem Crane was not the antithesis of strategic thought as you would have us believe.

Let us review.

1. You claim the debate surrounding Crane went on indefinitely, although in reality it lasted only a few months

2. You claim that the debate was a great crossroads in design but you can not cite a single golf course that was a result of this great event, on either side of the debate

3. You claim that although this was a great event or turning point, it had no apparent effect on the writing or architecture of Max Behr, one of the primary debaters, with one exception Behr's "most interesting articulation of the basic and fundamental differences between them in the context of trying to mathematically or scientifically approach or analyze golf and golf architecture." Behr would go on to found a religion based on numbers.

4. You claim Crane was the antithesis of strategic thinking, despite the fact that he promoted strategic thinking in his writing/critiques and in his plan for the 1st of TOC.

5. You claim the architectural camp opposing Crane was made up of Ambrose, Behr, MacKenzie and Jones. Yet you have no knowledge of Behr's architecture. You have no knowledge of Ambrose and his architectural opinions. You have little knowledge of MacKenzie's architecture. And there is no evidence Jones was involved at all or even knew of Joshua Crane.

Other than these minor issues your theory appears to be rock solid.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M -

I'm not sure the debate lasted only a few months, or that Crane quickly abandonded his ranking system.  As you know, in the November 1927 Golf Illustrated he has his long "ideal course" article. Yes, the precise calculations/marks for everything from bunkers to teeing grounds are gone (replaced by a selection of the best holes from across the country), but he is still able and willing to produce quite specific numbers and rankings, i.e.

The Ideal American Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95.9%
Muirfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86.5
Gleneagles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84.6
Prince's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83.8
Troon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
The National . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.7
Merion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.6
Sandwich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.1
Hoylake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.5
Pine Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80.9
Lido . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80.7
Walton Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80.4
Suningdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80.1

I'm guessing TOC was still in the 70s, and low on the list for him. So I'm not sure that focussing on one hole -- i.e. Crane's suggestion for the 1st at TOC -- is the best way to get a picture of what he was thinking and what the debate was about.

I've learned here that the Crane-Behr debates were not as black and white as I first thought. But it seems to me that the ideas that Crane and Behr happened to represent and articulate are still with us today (if in more banal and yet more practical terms) -- every time we complain about what the USGA has done to prepare a classic to hold the Open, every time an architect talks about pressure from developers for a 7,400 yard championship layout, every time we wonder about the latest set of changes to the Augusta that Jones and Mackenzie started designing about two years after Crane's "ideal course" article....

Edit - Interesting to note that in 1927, Crane's "ideal course" would measure 6604 yards, which seems quite long to me. Joshua makes no mention though whether that's with the prevailing wind or against it, or some less than ideal combination.....

Peter 

[TEPaul]

"TE
You wrote Crane promoted less freedom of choice and a reduction of options, alternative strategies, less reliance on thought/more reliance on dictated execution. Yet his plan to redesign the 1st at TOC is about giving more freedom of choice, introducing more thought, new options and alternative strategies where none had existed before. It would seem Crane was not the antithesis of strategic thought as you would have us believe."

Tom MacWood:

I've never said Crane's ideas were the antithesis of strategic thought. Where do you come up with this stuff? Why not for a change try showing anyone where I said that? This is the kind of blatant misrepresentation you've become so well known for. Why don't you try to read this correctly for a change?

Let us review.

"1. You claim the debate surrounding Crane went on indefinitely, although in reality it lasted only a few months."

I have said the dynamic over the ideas expressed by either side have essentially never ceased. A good deal of it is a whole lot of what has been discussed on this website for years but perhaps you missed that too.

"2. You claim that the debate was a great crossroads in design but you can not cite a single golf course that was a result of this great event, on either side of the debate."

I have cited the best example of what I believe were some of the new ideas of architecture from the philosophies of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones about half a dozen times already and you continue to ignore it or miss it. What is the matter with you anyway?  Are you incapable of reading or do you just want to try to deny it?   Much of the architecture done in America is a representation of the ideas promoted by Crane. Can you even name for me, at this point, what those ideas were articulated by Crane? Probably not.

"3. You claim that although this was a great event or turning point, it had no apparent effect on the writing or architecture of Max Behr, one of the primary debaters, with one exception Behr's "most interesting articulation of the basic and fundamental differences between them in the context of trying to mathematically or scientifically approach or analyze golf and golf architecture." Behr would go on to found a religion based on numbers."

If you've actually bothered to read the articles from Behr in response to Crane and his ideas you couldn't help but know what I'm talking about. You say you've read those articles but I can't help but think there is no way you could have or there is virtually no way you'd continue to say what you have or continue to ask the really dumb questions you do. What does Behr say about "penalty", about "blindness" about "luck" in golf and architecture? What does Crane say?

"4. You claim Crane was the antithesis of strategic thinking, despite the fact that he promoted strategic thinking in his writing/critiques and in his plan for the 1st of TOC."

Again, I never said Crane was the antithesis of architectural thinking. Do everyone a favor and show us where I said that or just quit saying it.

"5. You claim the architectural camp opposing Crane was made up of Ambrose, Behr, MacKenzie and Jones. Yet you have no knowledge of Behr's architecture. You have no knowledge of Ambrose and his architectural opinions. You have little knowledge of MacKenzie's architecture. And there is no evidence Jones was involved at all or even knew of Joshua Crane."

I have no knowledge of Behr and Mackenzie's architecture? Where do you get that? I have never seen a Max Behr golf course but that doesn't mean I have no knowledge of his architecture. You've never seen Merion but that sure hasn't stopped you from thinking you know as much or more about it and its architect than practically anyone else, has it?   What I have done is very carefully studied Behr's philosophy on golf architecture and that is certainly more than you've done!


You have also continued to ignore the real differences in the philosophies of Behr et al and Crane---eg the issues of luck, fairness, the concepts of penalty, blindness, emotion vs scientific and mathematical analysis, all specific subjects and issues that Max Behr wrote eloquently and persuasively about, many in counterpoint to the ideas of Crane and also all subjects of his articles you have apparently failed to read or understand----and all very fundamental issues pertinent to golf course architecture.  
 

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
I believe that article was the last time Crane used his grading system. Interestingly he moved at St. Andrews that summer. According to MacKenzie, he and Behr visited him there, either that summer or the summer after. They were friends, not enemies.

Crane only used his grading system half dozen times in a period of less then three years. The debate began in response to his grade for St. Andrews at the end of 1925 beginning of 1926. The controversay lasted a few months. No one took the grading system that seriously. MacKenzie and Darwin joked about years later. It turned out to be much to do about nothing.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Continue to think the issue with Behr and Mackenzie et al that was generated by Crane's ranking system and his ranking of TOC was all it was about. That's just your opinion but it wasn't the reality back then and Behr's articles and those of others is ample evidence of it. The issues were not just about mathematical ranking that's for sure.

Also that you actually say they were not enemies but friends is pretty illogical as well. I've never seen anyone say they were enemies and if one simply reads the articles of Behr or Mackenzie that's obvious to see--eg they actually say they were friends. But that certainly does not mean they did not strongly disagree with a number of things he was proposing for golf and architecture. Perhaps you think someone has to automatically be someone else's enemy to disagree with them. That would not surprise me either.

And that you mentioned Behr developed his own religion later in his life based on numerology (which is true) is a totally illogical response as well. Do you actually think that has to mean he repudiated everything he said about the drawbacks of relying on math and scientific analysis only in analyzing golf courses and golf course architecture?     

The fact is Behr continued to write iterations of those articles from the 1920s for many years afterwards. He was consistent throughout with his beliefs and principles on golf architecture.

Furthermore, Behr's real problems with Crane's philosophy mostly had to do with Crane's philosophy on penality, fairness, equity, the minimization of luck, his condemnation of blindness, and his inability to appreciate the value of emotion in analyzing and appreciating golf architecture. Their ideas on architectural arrangements may not have been that different (Crane actually wrote he did not disagree with Behr's articulation of the concept of "indirect tax" or "line of charm") although I'm pretty sure Crane would not have supported Behr and Mackenzie's new idea to create golf architecture almost devoid of rough. That would've definitely countered Crane's fixation with what he referred to as "control", a concept Behr and Mackenzie did not support as it was articulated by Crane.

None of these things were in any way insignificant even if you seem to constantly ignore them and their ramifications or almost entirely misunderstand them. Honestly, what you need to do is read and reread Behr's articles as such as Shackelford, Crosby and I have done for years. It is extremely clear you have not bothered to do that sufficiently, because if you have there truly is something quite wrong with your comprehension of what he said---and it was a lot, that's for sure. The only real drawback to his articles is they are most definitely not uncomplicated! 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M -

Let me be clearer about why I disagree that the debate was short-lived. My feeling is that the specifics of the Crane-Behr debate were just one manifestation of a deeper and more fundamental debate/question. And from what I can tell from reading Behr, he was asking that fundamental question everytime he put pen to paper, whether in response to Crane or not. (I don't know enough about Crane to say if that was true for him too.) And that question was and is, what does the game of golf MEAN, and how does/should golf course architecture support that meaning? As I suggested earlier, that question -- consciously or not -- is still being debated today. My guess is that one of the reasons that trying to piece together what the Crane-Behr debate was actually about is hard is because the main proponents might not themselves have been completely aware of what they were grappling with.  In other words, I used the example of Crane's 1927 grading exercise just to suggest that the debate-proper wasn't as short-lived as you'd suggested. I don't believe that the rankings themselves (just like rankings today) were the substance of the debate -- they were and are the most superficial way possible to express an answer to the underlying question.

Peter

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
The debate was not short lived? What do you base that conclusion on?

For a debate to take place you must have two parties expressing opposing views. Clearly that was the case for few months in 1926, when they went at one another, are you saying it continued in 1927? Can you point to any articles?

[BCrosby]

Tom Mac -

To set the record straight, Crane first published his rankings in Field in late 1924. Crane had been working on his rankings for several years before that. He followed his first essay with course by course break downs of his rankings published over the next several months. That all created a big fuss involving Ambrose and others lasting more than a year. Hilton came out swinging. The anonymous golf corresponded for Field took some swings too. (Anyone know who he was? He was very good.) Ambrose did a counter list of inland courses, interviewed Colt, MacK, Abercrombe and others for their suggested courses and their take on Crane. Ambrose wanted to articulate different criteria for measuring the quality of gca. MacK actually submitted some proposed changes to the 1st and 18th at TOC as part of that conversation. Fascinating.

The fuss continued in the US through late 1927 in various US magazines. Crane, Behr, MacK and others went at it. Then there was a lull. But people were still pretty upset in the summer of '29 because MacK made a point of discussing Crane's ideas with him that summer and using that conversation in the opening chapter of SofSA, a book he probalby wrote about 1932. Crane did course reviews for the US GI until about 1929. Crane was Ron Whitten before Ron Whitten. (He was in fact, a better Ron Whitten than Ron Whitten if for no other reason than because he was more open, honest and consistent about his preferences.)

Crane continued to publish pieces in the British GI through the early 1930's on gca. So did Behr. And though it wasn't point - counter point, it's hard to read the pieces and not think they had each other in mind. All culminating in Crane's quite surprising proposed changes to TOC in '34. Unfortunatley by then MacK was dead, Behr had moved to other things and most major golf magazines soon went out of business.

So I'm not sure exactly how long the debate lasted, but "only a few months" is certainly not correct.

As for the rest, I would prefer people to read my essay, then let's discuss. I am beavering away at it.

Bob   

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
You right Crane's rating system was first published in 1924...without objection I might add. The controversey began in later in 1925 when he rated the Old Course poorly. It lasted a few months.

"The fuss continued in the US through late 1927 in various US magazines. Crane, Behr, MacK and others went at it."

Crane, Behr and MacKenzie went at it in 1926.

"But people were still pretty upset in the summer of '29 because MacK made a point of discussing Crane's ideas with him that summer and using that conversation in the opening chapter of SofSA, a book he probalby wrote about 1932."

People were upset? How do you conclude that? MacKenzie's light-hearted comments in the SofS, in a book that was never published? They were so upset Behr, MacKenzie and Crane vacationed together at St. Andrews, and likely travelled to the continent together to see Chiberta.

After the intitial St.Andrews controversey it was much to do about nothing.

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

You have whiffed on all points. This is not a difference of opnion. It is a matter of historical record. Please reread my post. I was not making stuff up. More details to follow in my piece.

Bob

[Thomas MacWood]

"But people were still pretty upset in the summer of '29 because MacK made a point of discussing Crane's ideas with him that summer and using that conversation in the opening chapter of SofSA, a book he probalby wrote about 1932."

People were upset in the summer of '29? Based on MacKenzie's light-hearted comments about his friend Joshua Crane in the Spirit of St. Andrews? By the way that book was never published.

The Crane, Behr, MacKenzie exchange in American magazines was in 1926 not 1927.

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby has felt for some years now that the Crane/Behr et al debate may've been responsible for some of the best books written on architecture in the mid to late 1920s, and I tend to agree with that. The Crane controversy that primarily centered at first around TOC seems to have been a spark that alarmed various architects and inspired them to write, including some of the best books of that time on architecture.

It seems like a good number of them said things in their articles and books that reflected their concern with what Crane was proposing about golf and architecture (strengthen and improve and standardize it) and what to do about it. Obvioiusly a good number of them did not want to see that with TOC---did not agree with that and didn't want to see it happen. They may've felt the same about some of the courses over there that they felt had pretty much been time tested and become respected as they were and for the way they were. It looks like Macdonald even weighed in on it in his own book with his reaction without actually naming Crane;

"A golf hole humanly speaking, is like life, inasmuch as one cannot judge justly any person's character the first time one meets him. Sometimes it takes years to discover and appreciate hidden qualities which only time discloses, and he usually discloses them on the links. No real lover of golf with artistic understanding would undertake to measure the quality or fascination of a golf hole by a yard-stick, any more than a critic of poetry would attempt to measure the supreme sentiment expressed in a poem by the same method. One can understand the meter, but one cannot measure the soul expressed. It is absolutely inconceivable."
"Scotland's Gift Golf", C.B. Macdonald, 1928

The foregoing remarks from Macdonald jibe perfectly with Behr's response to Crane that an appreciation of some courses and holes and architecture relies on EMOTION and emotion cannot be subjected to mathematical and scientific analysis as respected and loved golf architecture should not be (Crane's scientific analysis and improvement method).

And poor Bob Jones, it was almost like he was between a rock and hard place over this as he loved TOC the way it was but his phenomenal scoring at TOC was being used as a justification of how and why TOC was weak.

Behr actually produced an entire article around Jones and TOC in this vein. It was titled "Bobby Jones and St. Andrews (Experience of Star is Argument Against Golf Course Standardiztion)." It was a defense of TOC and the way it was with its characteristic blindness and lack of architectural standardizations et al.

And who had been leading the campaign in the most visible magazine of the day (The Field) (most visibile according to Behr) that architecture should be analyzed scientifically and mathematically, that luck should be minimized, that blindness was a negative and that there should be greater standardizations in architecture to more appropriately test good golfers and certainly as a way to more equitably and fairly test and compare golfer against golfer?

Joshua Crane was!

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Please reread my post. As noted above, I am not making up dates.

Any reading of the Crane/Behr/MacKenzie exchanges prior to 1929 that suggests that those exchanges would suddenly became "light-hearted" in the summer of 1929 is odd indeed.

But whether they were all good buddies or not is irrelevant. We'll never know in any event. The relevant point is that MacK put the exchange at the beginnning of his book. That's what authors do with issues that are important to a book.  

I am glad that we have made a bit of progress, however. Can we get past the notion that the Crane controversy only lasted "a few months" and move on to more interesting issues?  

Bob

[BCrosby]

CBM notes -

"No real lover of golf with artistic understanding would undertake to measure the quality or fascination of a golf hole by a yard-stick, any more than a critic of poetry would attempt to measure the supreme sentiment expressed in a poem by the same method. One can understand the meter, but one cannot measure the soul expressed. It is absolutely inconceivable."

Let me be the first to admit that the name "Joshua Crane" does not appear in the above.

I am, however, open to suggestions as to whom else CBM might be referring to. Seriously. I'd love to hear the name of even plausible (let alone reasonable) candidates.

Bob

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
Reread what Mackenzie wrote in his book and the tenor of his comments. It was all good natured. In the end he says there were some at St. Andrews who were supset with him but they took him too seriously. (He obviously did not take him seriously) Darwin said similar things about his good friend Crane's rating system should not be taken seriously. Its diffficult to see this as a monumental crossroads in golf architecture history while reading Mackenzie's light-hearted comments in SOS.

I'm not sure who CBM was referring to. There were profesional/archiects who were pretty adamant that courses should be minimum length.

[TEPaul]

"Its diffficult to see this as a monumental crossroads in golf architecture history while reading Mackenzie's light-hearted comments in SOS."


Tom MacWood:

You're just continuing to fail to recognize that the actual debate amongst those particular particpants is not really the meat or the primary interest of this subject. What is interesting is what was put forth and articulated by both sides at that time.

Crane's proposals were more than just a rating system. His system was based on ASSUMPTIONS of the way things should be in golf and in architecture. Those assumptions were some pretty weighty and fundamental concepts to do with golf and architecture---things like luck, fairness and how to treat them in actual architectural application, and things like visibility and blindness, or things like what penality really means in architectural application too, not exactly insignificant aspects if one thinks about them in the context of golf couse architecture.

While Behr in his many articles on those fundamental subjects (seemingly in tune with the likes of Mackenzie, Jones et al) took a very different approach and a very different view of those things. His articles are not light-hearted comments, that's for damn sure! The fact is although Behr and Mackenzie and seemingly Jones and some others perhaps including Macdonald may've been in complete agreement it was Behr who did more writing than the rest on these subjects and probably by about a factor of over a hundred!

The interest here is to understand better some of those fundamentals, some of those principles involved in the platforms of both sides and what they mean, and to try to understand which of them (in various ways) inherited the future!