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.


Dale Jackson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2009, 09:07:52 PM »
And in my opinion, the only distinction between Match Play and Stroke Play in this conversation is that the desired lowest score might be different based on ones opposition in Match Play.

Jim, while I agree with your statement for the most part, there is a whole different mindset in match play, one that leads to a different decision on which stroke to play.  But it is still true that a player will be focusing on the successful execution of the stroke chosen, regardless of the form of play.
I've seen an architecture, something new, that has been in my mind for years and I am glad to see a man with A.V. Macan's ability to bring it out. - Gene Sarazen

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2009, 09:12:52 PM »
Adam,

Fair enough, glad to hear it.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2009, 09:16:45 PM »

Jim

For your information from 1st Dec 1903

           

                         

Melvyn

PS Is the guy taliking about you way back in 1903

Kyle Harris

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2009, 09:19:49 PM »
"Our American Cousin" was the play Abraham Lincoln was watching when he was shot. It was written by a British playwright about the British perspective of American culture. 

Most people consider Lincoln's shooting to be an assassination, but it was really at the request of Lincoln himself after watching the tripe on the stage before him.

;)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2009, 09:24:00 PM »
Melvyn,

I never asked you to agree that golf is identical on both sides of the Atlantic...it's not at all. But where I can speak of casual and competitive golf in both locations, it seems the writer was as ignorant as you as to the true golfers on this side.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2009, 09:41:49 PM »
Jim

Who is being 'Holier than thou' ?

Hope your game wherever you play it is more consistent that your posts.

Melvyn

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2009, 09:47:39 PM »
Still you Melvyn, don't worry.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2009, 07:14:25 PM »
Do I detect that the misunderstanding here is that Melvyn is relating experience and writing about two-ball foursomes as is very common in Scotland, while Jim is relating experience of playing your own ball?

Is not there a considerable difference in these two types of play that will show up in the attitudes of the players. If a "Yank" goes to Scotland, plays in a match and grouses about the bad shots that lead to a defeat, then doesn't he exhibit the behavior related in the article?
"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

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2009, 08:52:00 AM »

I think somewhere in between Melvin, and JMEvensky and Jim Sullivan is match play.  The aim is not to take the fewest strokes but to take fewer than you opponent on each hole - a subtle but important difference.


Yes,but...

Frequently on here,people equate "match play" with their weekend $20 Nassau.I've never met Jim Sullivan,but my guess is that he's referring to the tournament variety.There,a player still must focus on getting the ball in the hole in the lowest number of strokes,but,with the parallel consideration of how many strokes one's opponent is simultaneously taking.Match play doesn't remove the scorecard/pencil mentality so much as add an additional component.

Kind of the old match play maxim,"play the golf course,not your opponent".

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2009, 12:12:38 PM »
The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...

the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history.  And I don't think any of them were wrong, per se...rather they were simply in a different frame of mind or "place" regarding their ideas on golf.

For instance, Bobby Jones first played St. Andrews and picked his ball up and walked off the course in 1921 (?) due to the courses "unfairness".  Could he have been thinking like Crane then?

Then, perhaps, he goes home and can't get the course out of his mind, despite his criticisms of it.  Isn't this one of Mackenzie's criteria for a great course?

He then returns to St. Andrews and loves the course and actually picks Mackenzie (a thinker whose view of a golf course is a polar opposite one to that of Crane's) to design Augusta...which was supposed to emulate St. Andrews in many ways.

So...don't we see how Bobby Jones went from Crane-like thinking to Mackenzie like thinking in regards to golf in the span of a few short years?

If so, why would that be?  Could it be we all have some Crane in us?  That is we want to put up a "good" score.  But then deep down we all want to be challenged and pushed by a golf course, in the way that St. Andrews pushes us, frustrates us, and inspires us to become better thinkers on a golf course rather than simply robots who have masters the swing?

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2009, 01:12:42 PM »
Very simply, my position is that you should stand on each tee trying to figure out how to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible...then, once you screw up the tee shot, you re-calibrate your plan and goals accordingly...that's it!

That attitude is usually referred to on here as the Scorecard and Pencil mentality, but I am certain it is distinct from the boorish egocentric behavior also frequently included in the phrase...such as Mac's acquaintances referenced above.

Melvyn said he plays "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to produce the lowest score. I think he's cheating the game.

I asked how he would play #17 at TOC "for the sake of it" and he has yet to answer, instead focussing on Bulls and China Shops...


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2009, 01:37:45 PM »
...
Melvyn said he plays "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to produce the lowest score. I think he's cheating the game.
...

Doesn't this clearly show a difference in philosophy between Melvyn and Jim, and perhaps between Scots and Americans.
Why is someone cheating the game if they are not trying to produce the lowest score? Scots talk about competing against nature. Americans try to produce the lowest score. Obviously these are general stereotypes not applicable in all cases, but I think they may have some merit.

Consider the following.

My home course is in the Columbia River Gorge, which is famous for its winds and wind surfing in particular. In my location, we get the winds mostly in late fall, winter, and early spring. Over in Hood River, they get them year round which makes wind surfing extremely popular there. During this time of year I love going out and trying to hit shots that work in the wind, with no regard for score. In the summer, I love competing in our series of men's tournaments where score is the thing with no need to hit shots that compete with nature.
"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

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2009, 01:45:14 PM »
Very simply, my position is that you should stand on each tee trying to figure out how to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible...then, once you screw up the tee shot, you re-calibrate your plan and goals accordingly...that's it!

That attitude is usually referred to on here as the Scorecard and Pencil mentality, but I am certain it is distinct from the boorish egocentric behavior also frequently included in the phrase...such as Mac's acquaintances referenced above.

Melvyn said he plays "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to produce the lowest score. I think he's cheating the game.

I asked how he would play #17 at TOC "for the sake of it" and he has yet to answer, instead focussing on Bulls and China Shops...



Jim,
The attitude of card and pencil is not as simple as that. You are describing strategy, and the essence of the game of golf (fewest strokes possible) when you say you want to get the ball in the hole fast.

Obviously it's a misunderstood concept, this card and pencil catchall. Forrest Richardson once made a big deal that I was afflicted with the attitude because I wrote down all my scores. He couldn't be further from the truth. I write down my score because I keep a handicap. That's it. I don;t focus on my score and certainly don't ever think about it, as a whole, until the round is over. Nothing can derail a great day scoring faster than thinking "I'm two under".
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2009, 01:53:34 PM »
Garland,

Maybe you could tell me what "competing with nature" means in the context of a round of golf...I've always understood what 'don't f*** with Mother Nature so I just figured I'd not compete with her either...
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 01:55:47 PM by Jim Sullivan »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2009, 02:07:30 PM »
Jim,

I thought you would have gotten the idea from my description of playing in the wind in the gorge. It means successfully getting the ball keep from ballooning into a head wind and achieve some personal measure of success in all the other wind related shots; and to successfully lag a long putt near the hole on a very wet green and achieve some personal measure of success in all rain affected shots.

"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

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2009, 02:39:57 PM »
Maybe the missing piece of the puzzle is the difference between those who come from a background of signing scorecards and those who don't.

Wouldn't people who grew up playing tournaments have a different outlook as to how the game is supposed to be played?

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2009, 03:04:26 PM »
JME, As I understand the the Tag, It's more about the casual round player who grinds over his two foot putt and then his three foot putt and then the tap in. Slowing down play for the rest who follow. Not about a guy who shoots in the mid to high 60's and can flat out play. (unless of course he takes five hours to do it)

That's one origin of the Tag, Card and Pencil mentality, as I know it.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2009, 03:35:44 PM »
JME, As I understand the the Tag, It's more about the casual round player who grinds over his two foot putt and then his three foot putt and then the tap in. Slowing down play for the rest who follow. Not about a guy who shoots in the mid to high 60's and can flat out play. (unless of course he takes five hours to do it)

That's one origin of the Tag, Card and Pencil mentality, as I know it.

Agreed that PGA wannabe's should be shot on sight and hung up as a warning to others.

I was trying to explain why some people have difficulty with the "being at one with nature" idea of playing.For some,the place for trying to hit different kinds of shots is the practice tee--the golf course is for trying to shoot the lowest score you can.It's just the way some were taught.

Pencil/scorecard should never be pejorative,IMO.


TEPaul

Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2010, 06:39:16 PM »
“The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...

the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history.  And I don't think any of them were wrong, per se...rather they were simply in a different frame of mind or "place" regarding their ideas on golf.”




Mac Plumart:

You may be right that the discussions (debates?) between Mackenzie/Behr and Crane were perhaps one of the biggest (or most important) and most defining moments in golf course architecture history. Bob Crosby and I believe that to a large extent and have for some years now; others do not see it that way for various reasons or to the extent we do.

Nevertheless, Bob and I (we’ve been discussing this subject for some years now) feel that even though the most important points of the debate were broached fairly well on both sides and by both sides, unfortunately the actual debate itself by the three of them back then was not particularly well joined or developed. That particular aspect we feel is perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the entire so-called MacKenzie/Behr vs Crane debate on golf architecture and golf and/or what both are, what they should be back then, and what they should be in the future. The reason the debate was never well joined and developed appears to be that it rather quickly became personal or ad hominem. The latter may even be the primary reason why Bob Crosby wrote his essay on this subject and why he feels (as I do) that the entire subject of the debate should be reprised and joined again.

However, when I’ve considered the points that MacKenzie and Behr made on the one side and Crane made on the other side, and when I also consider the points that the contributors to this thread are making on one side or another side, it occurs to me, as it has for some years now, that perhaps no one has really given golf and its golf architecture the appreciation and understanding of all that it can be and deserves.

By that I only mean to say I think golf itself, unlike most all other games or sports, particularly stick and ball games or sports, is replete with a number of interesting formats-----match play, singles, foursome, better ball, total field competitions in stroke play of varying formats etc, not to even mention the fact it really can be played alone without the benefit of another human competitor present, and so forth. And why is that? What is it about golf, that includes all those varying formats even including solo and alone, that makes it fundamentally different or even unique compared to almost any other stick and ball game in the world? I would say it is because in golf the ball is never vied for between human opponents and so in a real way a human opponent is not even necessary to the basic structure of how golf is actually played. To some that may seem so basic as to be almost pointless but it very well may be the greatest and most important point and fundamental of all of golf and even the seminal reason why golf courses both can be, should be, and are so very different from one another around the world.

And so, for that very reason alone it just may be that the real trick for all of us is to not ever try to convince or proselytize anyone as to what golf should be or how it should be approached and looked at by anyone else. Shouldn’t we all just allow anyone or even everyone to find their own way to how to look at and play golf, including what they feel about any iteration, type or style of golf course architecture----and if not, why not? 

It seems to me the most important point Behr made (at least to me) is that golf and golf architecture and the appreciation of it (or not) is essentially all about emotion, individual emotion----and individual emotion is not exactly something anyone should or even can mathematically or formulaically measure or even rank or rate for some attempt at a general consensus of opinion as the correct thing to do and the only right way to go. To even attempt to do so is to head down a road whose ultimate goal seems to always be standardization and equity and fairness----or even a far more awful eventuality----viz. sameness.

As Max Behr liked to say----eg if this point and premise is well drawn (if it is true) it may be the very reason the real deal with golf and its architecture is in its differences, particularly in its vast differences from course to course that make up the entire spectrum of golf and architecture world-wide. As Bill Coore has said, a very wide spectrum of difference is so important to the vitality and the future of both golf architecture and golf.

If this is true, it would seem the only inherent difficulty or obstacle is that these necessary vast differences of type and style from course to course, including the vast differences of individual opinions or emotions regarding any of them or even how to best play the game----this necessarily very wide spectrum worldwide, is never possible to accomplish on any one single golf course. But isn’t this the point of why we do have and should have such vast differences in types and styles of golf architecture around the world, including so many vastly different opinions about how to best play golf and enjoy it?

C.B. Macdonald’s autobiography was called “Scotland’s Gift Golf,” and it is true that Scotland gave the world golf because it happened to have it long before the rest of the world, but that was a long, long time ago and the game (or sport) no longer belongs to just Scotland---golf now belongs to the world with all the world’s variations and differences, culturally and otherwise, imbued into golf.

Because of (or even despite) some of these unique differences compared to most all other games or sports, isn’t THIS the ultimate and even the unique gift that golf both can and has given to us all?



Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2010, 06:54:06 PM »
My friend,

your latest post just might be your best.  I have copied it and saved it in my Word files.

I will review it again and again before I can even begin to prepare an answer.

Tom...it is posts like this (and the recent lack thereof) that has had many a member of GCA wishing for your return.

In a brief and quick response, I think you are right.  These inherent facets of golf, which you mention, are indeed what makes it a great game and able to be loved by golfers with wildly different ideas of what the game is all about.

It is a game I love, but perhaps others love it for a completely different set of reasons.  And that is fine.  And, perhaps, that is what makes it great!

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2010, 07:50:43 PM »

The more I re-read Bob's article on Crane and the comments in the Spirit of St. Andrews about it...the more convinced I am that these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history. 


One of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history? Thats quite a statement. What affect did this debate have on golf architecture?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2010, 07:57:38 PM »
Tom M...

I am thinking that if Joshua Crane would have gotten more followers then golf course architecture might have gone in a completely different direction.

As it seems to have gone, Bobby Jones picked Alister Mackenzie to help him with Augusta...which would go on to become one of the most influential golf courses in the world.

Alister Mackenzie was one of the debaters (along with Behr) who was on the opposite end of the spectrum relative to Crane.

I think if Crane would have won over Jones, I think things would have wound up differently relative to golf course architecture.

Hence, my statement.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2010, 08:10:58 PM »
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if were not for Behr and Mackenzie debating Crane, Crane would have had revolutionizing affect on golf course architecture history? Or are you saying golf architecture changed some how as a result of the debate? If so, how did golf architecture change?


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2010, 08:32:45 PM »
"these discussion between Mackenize, Behr, Crane were perhaps one of the biggest and defining moments in golf course architecture history"

Tom...

Essentially, yes to the first part of your question.

Here are my thoughts/thought process...feel free to critique, add further color, etc;

IF the majority of the golf course architecture world had jumped on board with Crane's idea behind golf and golf courses and then began to make golf courses that played "fair" and "equitable", then I think there is a chance that the history of golf course architecture could have been completely different.

For instance, if the most prominent golfer of the day, Bobby Jones, had stuck with the same mind frame that compelled him to walk off The Old Course in 1921 (?) due to his thinking it was unfair then he might have sided with Crane (who rated The Old Course as one of the worst...if not the worst golf course in Europe) and shared a belief that golf courses should be more standardized and reward good shots and punish bad shots...rather than require unique thoughts and strategies to play each and every one of them.  

If this was the case, then he most likely would not have choosen Mackenzie to help him with Augusta...as Mackenzie was on the oppposite side of the argument as Crane.

And the entire history of golf course architecture would be completely different.

I hope you see what I am saying as I don't think I can type it much better in a limited space.

EDIT...also Tom M. I think re-reading some of the previous posts on this thread will bolster some of the thoughts I have outlined and answer some of your questions.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 08:53:45 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Joshua Crane
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2010, 06:02:25 AM »
Your one of the biggest and most defining moments is based 100% on speculation. There is no evidence this 'debate' had any affect on golf course architecture, or Bobby Jones for that matter. To my knowledge Jones never mentioned Crane or Behr in any of his writing.

Crane's ideas were a reflection of American ideals of golf architecture, this was not something he developed. He was a product of American architectural thought; his ideas were mainstream American ideas on golf architecture, and this is where Bob missed the boat. And they continued to be mainstream American ideas long after the 'debate'. The affect of the 'Crane-Behr debate' has been over blown IMO - it was a minor blip on the radar screen.

[edited from 'biggest' to 'one of the biggest']
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 06:43:47 AM by Tom MacWood »