Courses considered great with fewest bunkers...

[TEPaul]

"What is the origin of the terms use in golf architecture?"

I'm not sure what the origins of it are or who first used it but it seems like Tillinghast was writing about it fairly early on. Around the early 1920s some of the best sports writers like Boston's A. Linde Fowler were beginning to use the term to promote courses utilizing the concept such as Flynn/Wilson's Kittansett.


"Are you trying to make the case scientific is synonoumous with penal?"

Not at all, even though it appears that in the minds of some and perhaps quite a lot later the idea of "modern" or "scientific" architectural arrangements may've evolved into a type of architecture some may refer to as penal (to some levels of golfer) or perhaps to what became known as "freeway" golf that is basically "center directed"----eg flanking penalty throughout.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I recall seeing the term used prior to 1920, and possibly outside America.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Over the years I've seen the term 'scientifically' used often with golf architecture. What is the origin of the term in golf architecture?"


In my opinion, the way Tillinghast used the term "modern" was almost wholly synonymous with "scientific" architecture. The idea behind both terms, particularly "scientific" architecture was to arrange architectural features in such a way that they would be more "graduated" to better accomodate the expected shots and abilities of more golfers or even all golfers.

Obviously one of the most effective ways to "graduate" golf architectural features is to arrange them more on an axis (diagonal) and much less on a "perpindicular". The "diagonal" essentially offers strategic "distance and direction differentials" while the "perpindicular" application can offer direction differentials but certainly not strategic "distance differentials."

To accomplish such a goal basically required sort of mathematical calculations in the placing and arranging of features (including tees and certainly bunkering) to accomodated expected golfer distances and perhaps to a lesser degree golfer shot directions. In my opinion, those mathematical calculations were considered to be "modern" GCA applications to what preceded it and hence they were considered to be "scientific."

Crane's "scientific" application to GCA seems to be more in the vein of evaluating and quanitifying the quality of GCA. One can hardly deny that Crane's mathematical formulae to do exactly that was based on what he rolled out as a rather strict mathematical set of criteria. I believe that at first Crane hoped that most others would wholly embrace the basic idea of evaluating GCA mathematically and would offer various ways to improve on his mathematial approach.

I think the monkey in the works with the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al with Crane et al is the directness and almost literary violence in which they basically shot down Crane's entire idea of even thinking to reduce golf course architecture or the quantifying and particularly qualifying of it into some mathematical of scientific formulae.

There is no question at all that Crane took that very personally and said so. He wanted them to improve on his mathematical and scientific theories at least and they left no question they wanted no part of reducing any analyses of golf or architecture to mathematics or science.

Essentially Behr in his responses in writing to Crane basically annihilated Crane in a debate context by making the simple point that golf and architecture was inherently emotional and that emotions could just not be reduced to mathematical or scientific analysis.

Crane essentially provided Behr with a real slam dunk that way by mentioning early on that some of the holes and courses he (Crane) loved best failed his qualitative mathematical and scientific formulae and analysis miserably.

Behr shot back that apparently Crane did not even UNDERSTSAND his own mind and his own emotions or TRUST them!!   

[Thomas MacWood]

My take on the term scientific is slightly different, and it was used prior Linde Fowler & Tilly. Originally it was used to differentiate a more intelligent or thinking architecture (especially in the placement of hazards) from the unscientific formulaic designs, with there cops placed at regular intervals. Scientific denoting the scientific method of observing, experimenting, formulating ~ in other words a more thoughtful approach.

[TEPaul]

See post #152 again---I added to it.

[TEPaul]

"My take on the term scientific is slightly different, and it was used prior Linde Fowler & Tilly. Originally it was used to differentiate a more intelligent or thinking architecture (especially in the placement of hazards) from the unscientific formulaic designs, with there cops placed at regular intervals. Scientific denoting the scientific method of observing, experimenting, formulating ~ in other words a more thoughtful approach."


You are saying just about exactly what I am except I'm using a lot more detail as to what the terms and concepts actually were to them both philoposphically and on the ground. There is no question at all that all those guys considering those things at that time were looking for ways to arrange and design golf architecture to far better accomodate the games of all golfers and consequently interest more golfers or all golfers----eg to provide them with more enjoyment. There's also little question that some of the old fashioned far more perpindicular and consequently "penal" arrangements they felt were failing to do that effectively.

All these guys were looking for new and better ways to popularize the game of golf----there's no question about that and this was one way they felt was accomplishing that. And frankly there is little question that it was doing precisely that, at least for quite some time.

[Thomas MacWood]

The term scientific had been used years prior to Crane coming on the scene.

IMO you read far too much into the so-called Crane debates. The initial controversy was due to Crane's grade for St. Andrews ~ the was the crux of their disagreement. Crane's goofy grading system was very short lived and never got much traction. In the end Crane, MacKenzie, Behr and Darwin became friends. I reckon they discovered they had more in common philosophically than they ever had differences.

[TEPaul]

"The term scientific had been used years prior to Crane coming on the scene.

IMO you read far too much into the so-called Crane debates. The initial controversy was due to Crane's grade for St. Andrews ~ the was the crux of their disagreement. Crane's goofy grading system was very short lived and never got much traction. In the end Crane, MacKenzie, Behr and Darwin became friends. I reckon they discovered they had more in common philosophically than they ever had differences."


Tom MacWood:

One of these days you really do need to learn to read better what some of us write, if in fact you really are reading it. I have NEVER said that the term "scientific" or "modern" WERE NOT used prior to Crane coming on the scene. Matter of fact, I've said a number of times through the years quite the opposite.

Of course the low ranking of TOC by Crane was very likely the spark that lit the debate between Crane and the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al in the first place but if you or anyone else thinks that's all there was to the overall debate over the next some years would indicate you are completely missing some of the most fundamental principles of the way one side looked at golf itself AND architecture compared to the other side.

Frankly, it wasn't even Mackenzie and Behr and Jones who freaked out first or the most over Crane's low ranking of TOC, it was England's Charles Ambrose!

[TEPaul]

Of course they may've all come to realize that they had many common or similar philosophies about architecture but that in no way indicates they did not continue to have some very fundamental differences.

The fact that they may've been friends too has absolutely nothing to do with their philosophies or the differences in them. I can't imagine what relevance you're statement that they were friends could have on this subject unless you are under some misconception that people have to dislike each other to seriously disagree with one another. 

Matter of fact, those fundamental differences may not have been as well recognized by either side in that debate at that time as they can be now. At least we do know they did not have the benefit of seeing the direction golf and architecture took over the next 80 or so years as we do. And that is precisely why that debate, which for whatever the reasons back then, may not have been properly concluded, and perhaps just should be considered far more significant than it ever has heretofore been.

It seems like perhaps you simply aren't aware of what the fundamental principles about golf and golf architecture the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al were trying to develop out of that debate or that time. In the opinions of some of us it may even be the most interesting and effective way of all for the future and for  architecture and golf to come!

[Thomas MacWood]

Of course the low ranking of TOC by Crane was very likely the spark that lit the debate between Crane and the likes of Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al in the first place but if you or anyone else thinks that's all there was to the overall debate over the next some years would indicate you are completely missing some of the most fundamental principles of the way one side looked at golf itself AND architecture compared to the other side.

TE
The debate lasted several years? When did it begin and when did it end?

[TEPaul]

"TE
The debate lasted several years? When did it begin and when did it end?"

The debate with Crane began when he rolled out his mathematical proposal in The Field magazine of London, I believe in 1925.

When did it end??

My God man, it never did! It just may be one of the most fundamental differences or the fundamental dynamic of the way some look at both golf and architecture, particularly in the last decade or so once this era that may fairly be called a renaissance took hold. It very well may be one of the base dynamics of the way various golfers look at the game and its playing fields.

It only has to do with some of those trivial little things about golf and architecture such as what the roll of some things should be like:

1. Luck, fairness and equity
2. Naturalism
3. Rough, width, architectural arrangement
4. Emotion vs strict scientific analysis
5. The entire concept of penality in golf
6. Perhaps the real expression of what strategic golf and architecture could be
7. A basic sense of freedom of choice vs a basic sense of limitation and dictation

But other than that the basis of that debate back then wasn't all that much, I guess!   


These men were by no means the only ones considering these things but they were the ones who pretty much brought most of their elements and ramifications to a head and into a far clearer context. The fact that some of the things they were saying and proposing were not better understood or appreciated is the riddle which can be explained at this point, in my opinion, and in the opinions of some others. We are certainly aware that there will be some who might say today that the fact that it was not better understood or appreciated back then only means there wasn't really much to it but we do not for a moment believe that to be the case.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
You might want to re-check your notes. Crane introduced his grading sysytem in May 1924 and there was not a harsh word of criticism. The controversey came late in 1925 when his system rated St.Andrews so poorly, and he was criticized by Ambrose, MacKenzie, Behr and others. As best I can tell the debate ran for a few months in 1926. Crane abandoned is grading system in 1927. I don't believe Crane was ever percieved as a serious threat to anything or anybody. He was appatently quite a character and well liked by everyone who knew him, including MacKenzie, Berh and Darwin.

But yet you believe this titanic debate went on indefinitely - either you have a vivid imagination or you have discovered some new information.

Crane took up golf relatively late in life, but he really got into it, all apsects. He was hell of player, especially considering his age. He was a true student of golf architecture, taking a home at St. Andrews after he had been criticized for rating it so low. He also lived at Sunningdale for a time, in the original house the founder had built there in 1899. Crane's evolution might make a better story than this supposed never ending debate.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Believe me we know all about who Crane was and what he was. I don't think any of us need you to inform us of that.  And yes, it was his low ranking of TOC via his mathematical proposal for ranking architecture and its quality that sparked the reaction of Ambrose, Behr, Mackenzie, Jones and others. A mathematical formulae or proposal with no resulting application probably wouldn't get much reaction, don't you think? 

The interest to me in the subject is not necessarily how Crane eventually reacted or developed the over-all subject, it was the way Mackenzie, Jones and most particularly Behr did, but I doubt you've ever really understood or even read in much depth what Behr wrote so how could you even understand this subject any more than you do which is your myopic belief that it was really only about TOC?

Believe me, what-all Behr wrote in his numerous interconnected articles on this overall subject was about a whole lot more to do with golf and architecture than just about TOC!!   

Here you are again claiming that I or some of us are only interested in this because I or we have a vivid imagination.

That kind of knee-jerk reaction from you again and again as your sole response doesn't interest me at all anymore. The fact is there isn't that much we do seem to agree on and that's why I've said what I have to you about the way I think you look at things and fail to analyse and deduce facts and events properly, and obviously that's why you say the things you do to me. The fact is we apparently come at this entire subject of golf and architecture from very different perspectives. So what? I certainly don't have any desire to proselytize any opinions you may have, only to state on here when and how I think you're wrong about various things.

Apparently you need to read Behr and as carefully as some of us have before you offer an informed opinion of what any of this was about. You're the one who's always claiming others should do more research, right? Well in this case, the same applies to you with what was written on this overall subject, primarily by Max Behr.

If you don't want to take my word for it then at least listen to someone you apparently respect like Geoff Shackelford.


"But yet you believe this titanic debate went on indefinitely - either you have a vivid imagination or you have discovered some new information."

I would not call it new information but obviously it would be new information to you---the new information to you would be truly understanding all the articles Behr wrote on this subject. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark
MacKenzie was working on a camouflage book at the time of his death. Have you been able to track down any of his writing on camouflage in the 1930s? I wonder how effective his Boer concepts would have been against the impending Nazi blitzkreig.

Tom MacW

New stuff is popping up.  Early this year Neil C and I found two articles from 1934.  (I secured permission from the publication for Ran to host them on GCA.com, as well as the Christian Science Monitor excerpts of Mac's "Economy" lecture; with luck GMBF will find the time soon and the balky website technology will cooperate!)

Some of MacKenzie's 1930s ideas and writings on camouflage would have been about as useful against the Germans as the Poles found their horses to be, and his notion of camouflage almost as a sort of reverse doomsday device, and bringer of world peace, well, we know what came of ideas like that.

But MacKenzie like many other camoufleurs appreciated that some core principles of camouflage were eternal.

To explain this fully requires a fairly comprehensive explanation of the evolution of the doctrine of military camouflage...so instead let me just throw out a measly sentence or two!

MacKenzie wrote of both "defensive" and "offensive" camouflage.  The key to understanding camouflage is to know that it evolved in WWI to become NOT a doctrine of hiding or concealment but of "disruptive patterning."  The idea is to break up patterns the human mind uses to "see" something.  "Concealment" thus factors in two ways:
1. As one of three methods of camouflage
2. In the broadest sense, i.e., the sense of "hiding" something, as the outcome of all methods of camouflage

Camouflage is about wrong-footing the observer, about making him see or act in a way that protects or benefits the camouflaged.

It is very important to note that MacKenzie saw GCA and camouflage as sharing certain principles -- the only difference lay in the application.  Both applied the concepts for purposes of disruptive patterning; however, the military application was one kind of concealment and the GCA application a different kind if you will. (Examples of the latter: to use the principles in reverse to make something more visible, alternately to conceal the hand of man.)

Trying to educate the public and many military men as well on the doctrine of military camouflage as being something more than fancy paint or a somehow magical "masking" was a neverending battle -- all the way down to today, when many mistakenly think of MacKenzie's camouflage expertise as being used to hide bunkers or make objects appear closer or farther way.

(Which is NOT to say he didn't do some of that; but the impact of camouflage on MacKenzie's design career was both broader and more fundamental.  Broader in the sense it gave him an education in psychology and a fully-formed doctrine for how to manipulate not just the "observed" scene but how to manipulate the observer himself; fundamental in the sense it gave him a useful education on civil engineering as well as how to "educate" workers on the art of building something and making it not look built.  And this is just for starters...)

So the core concept of camouflage as interpreted by MacKenzie and many other camouflage experts -- in many respects an unfortunate word choice, lots of confusion could have been avoided if somehow we took instead the Russian term "maskirovka," whose meaning at heart is "deception" -- was as valued and used in WWII and beyond as in WWI.  cf Q-ships, tank dummies, etc.

Tom Paul

The Boer War is where Mac's inspirations -- as well as Baden-Powell's -- began, and you've captured a lot of what he learned, but WWI was where the doctrine "grew up" if you will and MacKenzie was there.  He fought a two-front war of sorts that both reflected his past GCA experiences and reflected his future:
1. against military men / greenkeepers who insisted on demonstrating their "craftsmanship" via overly-finished (read: too-obviously manmade) earthworks
2. against camoufleurs who took a too-limited view of the possibilities and applications of the discipline (in camouflage, this would be artists and those who saw it being about "paint")

It's important to note as well the engineering lessons he took away from "military entrenchments" (the word "camouflage" did not enter the English language until 1917), lessons most notably (IMHO) on display in the sandy bunker lips of Royal Melbourne -- virtually all of which, of course, he did not construct!

Sorry for the ramble -- gotta go!

Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

The use of the word "camouflage" in some of what Mackenzie did in GCA and how he used some of its principles probaby is sort of unfortunate and has led to confusion with what Mackenzie was doing. So many think it must have meant he was trying to hide his bunkers as Boer's tried to hide the trenches they made.

It was quite the opposite with Mackenzie's bunkers in fact, but there is that idea that if you turn around and look backwards down one of his holes all the bunkering that is so visible when playing the hole virtually disappears. I think that particular aspect was sort of an unintended consequence that actually sort of amused MacKenzie. And frankly, that sort of thing is pretty much the way it is with bunkers on most any golf course.   

The real "camouflage" in a deceptive sense was basically how well he tied in what he made with natural looking grades and formations to make everything about his architecture look far less than man-made.

[Thomas MacWood]

The interest to me in the subject is not necessarily how Crane eventually reacted or developed the over-all subject, it was the way Mackenzie, Jones and most particularly Behr did, but I doubt you've ever really understood or even read in much depth what Behr wrote so how could you even understand this subject any more than you do which is your myopic belief that it was really only about TOC?

TE
Arguably Behr's greatest design was Lakeside, which was prior to the great debate. How did his later designs differ from Lakeside as a result of the great Crane debate?

[TEPaul]

I am not sure that some or all or even any of the ideas expressed in Behr's articles on architecture were expressed in any of his designs that directly. If there was a candidate it may've been Rancho Santa Fe since it seems to be his latest course but I don't know about that because I've never seen it nor any of Behr's designs, so I really can't say. Others such as Shackelford or Nacarrato who are familiar with his writing and his courses would know that a lot better than I would.  But for Behr to have written what he did would certainly not necessarily require that he had to have built what he said in those articles. As we've said a number of times perhaps the best example of those ideas articulated in some of his later articles in response to Crane was the original concept and design of ANGC.

We are certainly not even sure if most of Behr's articles on architecture were a result of responses to Crane or his ideas. I doubt that was the case as Behr had been writing and thinking and practicing architecture before the Crane thing, so obviously a lot of his ideas were pretty well developed before the debate with Crane.

It's just that his written responses to Crane are a 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. It also shows their vast differences of opinion on such things as luck, fairness, penalty, blindness and visibility and certainly the importance of emotion as it relates to architecture.

[Thomas MacWood]

I am not sure that some or all or even any of the ideas expressed in Behr's articles on architecture were expressed in any of his designs that directly. If there was a candidate it may've been Rancho Santa Fe since it seems to be his latest course but I don't know about that because I've never seen it nor any of Behr's designs, so I really can't say.

I think you'll find if anything Lakeside is closer to Augusta than Rancho Santa Fe, which may put a crimp in your theory.

But for Behr to have written what he did would certainly not necessarily require that he had to have built what he said in those articles. As we've said a number of times perhaps the best example of those ideas articulated in some of his later articles in response to Crane was the original concept and design of ANGC.

What about Jockey and Bayside, which predate ANGC, are they in response to Crane too? How do you explain the timing? Cypress Point, Pasatiempo, Green Hills, Lake Merced and Cal GC of SF are all post-Crane debate and feature heavy bunkering. Did it take sereral years for the results of the great debate to sink into MacKenzie?

We are certainly not even sure if most of Behr's articles on architecture were a result of responses to Crane or his ideas. I doubt that was the case as Behr had been writing and thinking and practicing architecture before the Crane thing, so obviously a lot of his ideas were pretty well developed before the debate with Crane.

I would agree.

It's just that his written responses to Crane are a 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. It also shows their vast differences of opinion on such things as luck, fairness, penalty, blindness and visibility and certainly the importance of emotion as it relates to architecture.

I have yet to see any evidence that the disagreement with Crane's system of grading had an effect on golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

"I think you'll find if anything Lakeside is closer to Augusta than Rancho Santa Fe, which may put a crimp in your theory."


If by "my theory" and putting a crimp in it that would of course depend upon whether I (or Bob Crosby) have ever claimed that all Max Behr's ideas on architecture or his collaboration of ideas with the likes of Mackenzie or Jones actually all emanated from the Crane debate. In fact we have never said that or anything like that----only that much of what was articulated in Behr's articles and even those in response to Crane happen to be an articulation of many of the architectural aspects of that original concept and design of ANGC.

From so much past experience with you it does not surprise me at all how easily and automatically you fail to understand that fairly rudimentary distinction or point. You really must be a guy who looks at things with some pretty serious blinkers on that contributes to something of a tunnel vision on your part in analyzing all this. 

[TEPaul]

"I have yet to see any evidence that the disagreement with Crane's system of grading had an effect on golf architecture."


Of course you have yet to see any evidence that the disagreement with Crane's system had an effect on golf architecture or could have an effect on golf architecture. God only knows how many times over the years I've told you that you pretty much have to both read and really understand what particularly Max Behr wrote to understand that.

Every time I mention that you just ignore it. I can't say I blame you because if you didn't just ignore it then that would pretty much be an admission on your part that you aren't really the researcher you claim to be and constantly try to make yourself out to be on this website----and certainly not on this particular subject which I find it hard to believe you have not at least been aware of for a number of years. I think most all of us on here realize, at this point, that you seem to have this pretty odd inclination to assume if you are not aware of something there is pretty much no way, in your opinion, that it could've happened!    

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I've read Behr's articles, in fact not too long ago I found some new ones which I forwarded to Shackelford. But I thought you just wrote the Crane debate likely had no effect on Behr's ideas. He had been preaching similar ideas prior to Crane. So I'm not sure why you continue bringing it up.

The way I understand the theory (we've waiting for about five years now for it be presented in an essay, and it seems to be evolving as we speak), the great Crane debate changed the face of golf architecture (although it apparently had no effect on Behr) ultimately resulting in ANGC eight year later.

Unfortunately you seemed to have ignored some important facts:

1. MacKenzie's architecture prior to the debate and after the debate is quite similar

2. MacKenzie's architecture did change after the Depression but before he collaborated with Jones

3. The great Crane debate had no effect on Behr's architecture, as far as you know

[TEPaul]

"But I thought you just wrote the Crane debate likely had no effect on Behr's ideas. He had been preaching similar ideas prior to Crane. So I'm not sure why you continue bringing it up."


Well, never mind then, I did mention a little something about the way he articulated his ideas in response to Crane but I guess you missed that too. Again, you just thought wrong. It appears you can't really figure out much of what anyone writes or means on here so what's the point of carrying on with you on this subject? It's pretty much a waste of time. Fine by me and by others, Im sure, whatever you want to think about Crane or Behr or Mackenzie etc. It doesn't really matter. Thankfully, there're some others on here who seem more attuned to the essence and the meaning of the subject.

[Thomas MacWood]

We are certainly not even sure if most of Behr's articles on architecture were a result of responses to Crane or his ideas. I doubt that was the case as Behr had been writing and thinking and practicing architecture before the Crane thing, so obviously a lot of his ideas were pretty well developed before the debate with Crane.

It's just that his written responses to Crane are a 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. It also shows their vast differences of opinion on such things as luck, fairness, penalty, blindness and visibility and certainly the importance of emotion as it relates to architecture.

TE
I assume you are speaking of the second paragraph. I'm sorry it didn't really think it was worthy of a reponse but since you've mentioned it as important please explain how this manifested itself in golf architecture post the great debate.

[TEPaul]

"The way I understand the theory (we've waiting for about five years now for it be presented in an essay, and it seems to be evolving as we speak), the great Crane debate changed the face of golf architecture (although it apparently had no effect on Behr) ultimately resulting in ANGC eight year later."


No one that I know of ever said on here that the Crane debate CHANGED the face of architecture. What some of us have said is it probably was a most important crossroads that was largely misunderstood or underappreciated. It was not me who's writing an essay on the Crane debate anyway, it's Bob Crosby but apparently all this time you've misunderstood that too. It's really remarkable how confused you get over things that aren't that hard to figure out, isn't it?  

Just keep thinking the whole thing was only about a mathematical formulae and TOC. That's just fine.  

As for your last three points about Mackenzie etc they have no relevance to anything I've said about Crane, Behr, Jones or Mackenzie.


"TE
I assume you are speaking of the second paragraph. I'm sorry it didn't really think it was worthy of a reponse but since you've mentioned it as important please explain how this manifested itself in golf architecture post the great debate."

I thought you just said you've read Behr's articles in response to Crane, and the others. It's all in there and very clear if you actually read it and consider it. So why are you constantly asking me to explain it to you?   

[Thomas MacWood]

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

Are there some courses you can point to that are the results of the debate?