In Part II, we get into the relevance of golf course rankings and what purpose they serve. As Bob writes, Crane thought his system 'furnished an accurate and graphic method of exposing the weak point of any particular course." In other words, after a "scientific" assessment, the specific things that needed improving (that is, things that would make certain features more "ideal" under his system) would jump off his spreadsheets, ready to be "recorded" by the architect and then installed by the green committee. It was just a matter of collecting the data.' For instance, following his system, Crane would go on and propose specifics on how to improve certain holes, like the 16th hole at Pine Valley and the 5th at Myopia.
The universal theme that Crane expressed throughout his writings in the mid-1920s was his quest to seek playing conditions that promoted 'fair play.' Bob explains that 'The point of Crane's rating system was to measure how well a course stacked up against a set of ideals rooted in notions of competitive equity. Those ideals might be summarized as control, predictability and proportionality (hereafter referred to as the "CP&P" principles). For Crane the quality of a golf course was a function of how well it tested each shot (the "C"), the predictability of good or bad outcomes and the proportionality of the penalties imposed (the "P&P"). By contrast, generous playing corridors that failed to control shots; irregular or severe contours, blind shots and inconsistent turf conditions were markers of bad or negligent design.'
Links like Prestwick, North Berwick and especially The Old Course faired so poorly in his rankings because, as Bob writes, they promoted ' "unfair" results caused by "rawnesses" or fluky, badly conditioned features were a particular problem on links courses with their irregular swales, dunes, blow-outs, hidden hazards and inconsistent turf. To the extent these irregularities had a bearing on competitive outcomes, to that extent a course was deficient. Crane suggested that those deficiencies had dire consequences. They risked turning the true sportsman against the golf, disgusted by the game's "inequities." '
Though MacKenzie and others were deeply troubled by Crane's design philosophies, the fact that Crane's scoring system received so much attention and was so appealing to so many people made it impossible to ignore. Plus, Crane's writing enjoyed high visibility in Field Magazine where his hole by hole analysis of many of the great courses appeared frequently. Part II concludes with a chronology of the Crane debates in Field Magazine.
As you can see, his writing was extensive and it served as the basis from which the various parties argued from. And it was this ensuing debate from which much was learned. As for one example, Bob notes how Crane served as the inspiration for Charles Ambrose to write a series of articles on ideal holes. Another example is how Crane drew out Max Behr into a series of debates that were mostly published in Country Club/Pacific Golf & Motor, a California golf and travel magazine. Bob considers their exchanges as one of 'the most remarkable, but perhaps one of the least known, in the history of golf architecture' and Part III centers around this historic exchange of ideas. Indeed, it was Max Behr more so than MacKenzie that was Crane's most 'determined opponent' according to Bob as 'from the beginning Behr saw Crane's course rankings as a Trojan Horse. The real issue was a very troubling design philosophy hidden in its belly and it was that design philosophy that Behr focused on and over which he and Crane did battle. That debate amounted to hand-to-hand combat in letters and articles.' Once again, it is important to appreciate what Bob is pointing out: the intellectual jostling carried out on such a high plane as this was GREAT for the development of golf course architecture. Anyone here disagree?!
Unlike MacKenzie and others, Bob notes that 'Behr understood that if he wanted to argue against Crane, simply asserting that a course was superior because it was more strategic or more fun or more natural (the tact taken by MacKenzie and others) didn't dent Crane's hull.' Bob goes on to say that 'Behr saw that he needed to take on directly the importance Crane attached to the CP&P principles. As a first order of business he needed to undercut Crane's idea that the CP&P principles should play such a central role in golf architecture. Crane's justification for giving them that central role had great intuitive appeal, however. Crane's observation that if such principles were key to equitable sporting competitions generally and they should apply to golf courses too (mutatis mutandi), was a simple and very attractive proposition. After all, Crane asked, golf is a sport, isn't it? Crane's argument put Behr in a difficult spot. It forced Behr to make what appears at first blush to be a very odd claim. To undercut the centrality Crane wanted to give to the CP&P principles, Behr was forced to make the case that golf was in fact not a competitive sport like others; that golf was in important respects sui generis.'
This is where it gets very complicated and it turns on the highly important distinction that Behr placed on golf being a sport and not a game. In one of the great Behr quotes of all time, Crosby found this gem: 'Golf is not a game. It is a sport. And the very essence of a sport lies in the suspense between the commencement of an action and the knowledge of its result. The courses of the Penal School deny this. The golfer has merely to place his ball within the bounds of the fairway. Thus the expert, because his ball rarely strays, can anticipate knowledge. And the inexpert knows in short order whether his ball is safe or not…This is the status the Penal School has reduced golf to.'
Part III concludes with Crane's writing in 1934 and it will SHOCK you. What he proposes is a strategic enhancement to the first hole of The Old Course (as well as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th) but Crane's diagram included here by Bob of the 1st is truly brilliant in every respect. Crane's proposed changes to the 1st highlights how much his thinking had evolved since he first went public with his ranking system in 1924. Now, unlike then, strategy plays an important role.
We will post Part IV on Monday after I finish pasting Bart
at Grandfather Mountain this weekend. In the concluding section, Bob shows just how relevant Crane is today's game and concludes that 'if you want to understand the real points of friction in disagreements over foundational issues in golf architecture since the Golden Age, you would do well to use Joshua Crane and the fuss he stirred up in the 1920's as your starting point.'
Don't miss it but in the meanwhile, hope you find Parts II and III as engrossing as I do.
Cheers,