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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #100 on: April 28, 2010, 06:32:32 AM »
It was such a fluid time, it seems to me. (What happened, for example, to the discussion in GB&I after 1913 and Ouimet's U.S. Open win -- suddenly, you had people saying that British courses weren't 'testing' enough...the same complaint that some had -- or once had, and would have again -- about American courses.)  And then there was that article I read a while back, from 1906, about what they called "Thinking Golf" and how it was all the rage in America. It mentioned Walton Heath as a wonderful example of Thinking Golf -- the idea being that hazards should be placed/arranged so that players could think and play their way around them instead of being forced to go over them. And the article noted that the great amateurs of the day were more enamoured of the Thinking Golf idea than the professionals were, one of whom (I think it was Taylor, or it may have been Braid) thought it 'unfair' that a worse player was not necessarily penalized for being unable to get over a hazard that the better player could.  

Peter

Peter
What happened in 1906? I don't believe that was a measurable turning point. 1913 is another story, that was when Darwin and Vardon were quite critical of the state of American architecture, and golf architecture in America took a major turn at that point. The Crane-Croome debate in the 20's was a continuation of an American-British golf debate that had been going for many years, and continued on for several years afterward. The Crane-Croome and Crane-Berh debates were interesting, but they did not have major impact on golf architecture

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #101 on: April 28, 2010, 08:20:45 AM »
For what it is worth, I think this thread is excellent...BUT I think it has been kicked up a notch with Tom Macwood's post #89.

I've said this before and I will say it again; Tom Macwood when you post in a more verbose and detailed way it adds a tremendous amount in terms of background and gives much needed insight into your points and intended direction.  In this instance, I think it kicked up the learning process for all readers/posters a great deal.  In fact, Bob Crosby alluded to this type of thing in one of his prior posts.  He said something like, without the added detail the threads result in circular neverending arguments.

Anyway, this thread has some excellent stuff and has great education value!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #102 on: April 28, 2010, 10:38:44 AM »
Mac:

I agree with you that this thread has some real potential. However, I suppose the first question to ask, at this point, is whether this particular thread is the one to be discussing in real detail the issue of the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate (or Bob Crosby's "Joshua Crane" essay and Tom MacWood's so-called "counterpoint" essay to it) and the importance of it? This thread began as a discussion of a quotation of Mackenzie's about strategic architecture. I could look back to determine it but I'm not even sure if a date was given on this thread for that Mackenzie quote on strategic architecture that appears in Sean Arble's initial post on this thread.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #103 on: April 28, 2010, 11:42:24 AM »
Mac,
It is a very good thread, even as it has evolved.

I read Bob's essay when he posted it and I'd say TMac has done a good amount of work in rebutting, countering, and generally adding relevant information. There aren't many people on here who would muster the interest and take the time to do what they have done.



« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 11:46:47 AM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #104 on: April 28, 2010, 01:31:53 PM »
The thing I find so fascinating about this whole area of GCA discussion is how all the moving parts fit together and this is precisely why I think that discussing Crane/Behr, American vs. British courses, Bob's essay and Macwood's additions is very appropriate.

It appears to me that once you begin to not only know the relevant facts (Crane's articles, TOC history, NGLA, etc), but seeing how they fit together and why and how things evolved and occurred is when the magic really starts to happen.  And this is why I like when Tom Macwood provides more "meat" to his posts and questions.

I for one think Bob Crosby's article(s) is/are great.  I find reading Macwoods addittions to it fascinating.  If for no other reason then they add to the context to some of Bob's points.  Is Tom Macwood right and/or wrong on his additions?  I am sure the answer is "yes", but it varies depending on what section you are talking about.  It seems to me that any great discovery is a process.  And the process needs to be joined together by competent groups of people who have passion for the subject at hand.

In this instance, Bob put forth a great piece of work.  Tom was added to it.  We should continue to polish it up, add questions, make comments, research points of dispute, and work on it until the research mosaic in complete.  Perhaps this is something a group of people can do, perhaps it is an individual task that each and everyone of us who has an interest should do on their own.

If I have my facts straight, Tom Macwood doesn't think that the Crane/Behr debates were vitally important to the evolution of golf course architecture.  One of his points is that these types of discussions had been occurring many years prior to the Crane/Behr debates.  I am sure he is right.  But isn't that a sign that the topic Crane/Behr were discussing was very important.  GCA enthusiasts discussed these types of issues prior to Crane/Behr, and to this very day we are still discussing these issues.

If we continue to work on it, think about it, polish it up, debate it, perhaps we can add the next step in the research/discovery process.

At least that is my take on it and why I find this thread and these topics so interesting and important.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #105 on: April 28, 2010, 04:37:57 PM »
"The thing I find so fascinating about this whole area of GCA discussion is how all the moving parts fit together and this is precisely why I think that discussing Crane/Behr, American vs. British courses, Bob's essay and Macwood's additions is very appropriate."


Mac:

The entire area or era (perhaps the late 19th century up to perhaps the 1930s or even to date) is fascinating with all its moving parts and evolution. But again, Bob Crosby wrote an essay on the so-called "Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie" debate which took place from about the mid-1920s into the early 1930s. Bob did not really intend to cover a far larger or longer era or event----he chose to cover that specific debate which MacWood has implied was not very important in the broad scheme of things. I for one disagree and I know Bob Crosby does too because the broad scheme of things very well might include the fact that that debate back then was not that well joined or understood but the issues that were aired in it, particularly by Behr, are incredibly important to reprise and revisit and not as some discussion of some historical event in time but for the future of golf and architecture!!



"It appears to me that once you begin to not only know the relevant facts (Crane's articles, TOC history, NGLA, etc), but seeing how they fit together and why and how things evolved and occurred is when the magic really starts to happen.  And this is why I like when Tom Macwood provides more "meat" to his posts and questions."


Tom MacWood seems to have suggested that Crane did not start the interest or proposition of more "equity," "equitableness," more fairness and less luck in golf and architecture and that is somehow important to know because it somehow might minimize the importance of the issues aired in that Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate. I don't agree with that at all, and either does Crosby. Crosby said in his article that Crane did not invent the idea. Inventing the idea is not the point at all, at least not of Crosby's article. What is the point of it is the articulation of the issues involved in that debate, particularly by Behr! Did anyone before him delve into the depths he did about why golf and architecture should maintain its inherent luck factor and steer clear of a fixation with "fairness" equity, control, predictability, proportionality (C,P &P) the way Behr did as a result of that particular debate with Crane? If anyone did to that extent, I'm sure not aware of it or who did it. That's a large part of the point of Crosby's essay! MacWood seems to have missed that point entirely!



"I for one think Bob Crosby's article(s) is/are great.  I find reading Macwoods addittions to it fascinating.  If for no other reason then they add to the context to some of Bob's points.  Is Tom Macwood right and/or wrong on his additions?  I am sure the answer is "yes", but it varies depending on what section you are talking about.  It seems to me that any great discovery is a process.  And the process needs to be joined together by competent groups of people who have passion for the subject at hand."


Is MacWood right and/or wrong on his additons? Good quesiton. I happen to think he is wrong to counterpoint Crosby's essay with an eye towards suggesting the issues within the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate were not particularly important. But he might be right with his additons or counterpoints or whatever one wants to call them, if he just wanted to do his own article on the entire 30 or 40 or 50 or even 110 year history of the entire evolution of the ideas and philosophies of greater equity and fairness in golf and architecture-----OR even less equity and fairness in golf and architecture. Let MacWood write his own essay then addressing a far longer timeframe if he thinks that adds something. Trying to minmize the importance of the issues within that Crane/Behr debate is not the way to do that, however; at least not in my opinion.



"In this instance, Bob put forth a great piece of work.  Tom was added to it.  We should continue to polish it up, add questions, make comments, research points of dispute, and work on it until the research mosaic in complete.  Perhaps this is something a group of people can do, perhaps it is an individual task that each and everyone of us who has an interest should do on their own."



Bob Crosby most certainly did put forth a great piece of work. And I don't think MacWood added to Crosby's work at all or even intelligently counterpointed it----it actually seems he tried to minimize it and suggest the theme and the issues Bob explored in the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate was not particularly important!



"If I have my facts straight, Tom Macwood doesn't think that the Crane/Behr debates were vitally important to the evolution of golf course architecture.  One of his points is that these types of discussions had been occurring many years prior to the Crane/Behr debates.  I am sure he is right.  But isn't that a sign that the topic Crane/Behr were discussing was very important.  GCA enthusiasts discussed these types of issues prior to Crane/Behr, and to this very day we are still discussing these issues."


That's right MacWood apparently doesn't seem to think the Crane/Behr debates were vitally important because I think he's missing Crosbys' entire point here. Crosby never denied that the issue may've been going on for some years and he may even admit that the debate itself was not particularly well understood at the time. I think Crosby's point is, or should be, that that is not important if the issues delved into and discussed during those debates really are of fundamental importance to golf and architecture, and not just to back then but particularly now and into the future. If they weren't that well understood back then that to me is the very reason WHY Crosby chose to reprise and re-present those fundamental issues of that debate and why he even included a few new terms of his own which arguably explain better what was at issue here (Crosby mentioned many times that the term "penal" was not a particularly good one to use on Crane or perhaps anyone else, and he explained why that was so).


"If we continue to work on it, think about it, polish it up, debate it, perhaps we can add the next step in the research/discovery process."



I think that is precisely what Crosby was trying to do with that essay and the point he was trying to make; a point, I might add, that MacWood seems to have missed almost entirely.


"At least that is my take on it and why I find this thread and these topics so interesting and important."


I think your take is pretty good, Mac, particularly if you fully understand what Crosby was trying to do with that essay, "Joshua Crane" and what he was not trying to do with it. And that includes what MacWood was apparently trying to do by "counterpointing" ;) Crosby's essay as he did, rather than just writing his own essay covering a far broader time and perhaps a number of other issues that Crosby chose not to get into and for what seems like good reasons.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 04:54:13 PM by TEPaul »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #106 on: April 28, 2010, 05:28:30 PM »
Mac,
That's really what it's all about, adding to the base, and TMac has made a substantial addition w/the points he has added to Bob's essay.

It's always reasonable to question how someone reached their conclusions and I thought the format used was a good way to do it. Instead of a ridiculous tit-for-tat, one could easily refer to Bob's text while reading TMac's take on it.

There is a nagging question for me and it is this: the debate happened at a time when GCA was entering a dark age that was worse than the one we're crawling out of right now, no one was building courses. So many courses closed at the time of these debates that it took 30 years, until 1960, before the number of golf courses once again equaled the number in 1930.

This one fact alone is why I don't believe the debates had much influence on GCA. I think their importance is mainly historical and helpful for understanding certain values, but there are many good tomes that do the same and the debates don't stand out in that crowd.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #107 on: April 28, 2010, 07:30:12 PM »
"This one fact alone is why I don't believe the debates had much influence on GCA. I think their importance is mainly historical and helpful for understanding certain values, but there are many good tomes that do the same and the debates don't stand out in that crowd."


Jim Kennedy:

What values are you referring to? And you mention that there are many good tomes that do the same. The same as what? The same as the Crane/Behr debates? What tomes are those?

I think the primary problem with appreciating the importance of that Crane/Behr(Mackenzie) debate TODAY is most people have never seen or ever read the remarkable series of articles that essentially made up Max Behr's response to the problems he saw Crane and his philosophy creating. The fact is Max Behr never actually wrote a book or a tome; he basically just wrote numerous articles in various periodicals on this specific subject and today it is just really hard for most to put it all together and read and appreciate.

That is also perhaps the only real problem that I can see with most people today really appreciating the significance of Bob Crosby's essay entitled "Joshua Crane"-----eg Bob was not able to supplement his essay with the entirety of what Max Behr wrote on the subjects he (Bob) treated in his essay on here, "Joshua Crane."

The historical irony about the so-called "Crane/Behr" debate, at least to me, is that it really wasn't very well joined back then and consequently it was not well understood back then either. But even if it had been well joined and well understood back then, one really does wonder if Max Behr's remarkable points about golf and architecture really could've made much difference.

And I think that is part of Bob Crosby's purpose for reprising it today, even if Bob does believe that because of that "Crane/Behr" debate others were inspired to write some of the best books on golf architecture and what they felt strategic architecture really was. That would certainly include the impressive mid to late 1920s books on architecture, Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America," and Hunter's "The Links."

And this is why I think Bob Crosby's point and purpose for his essay on Crane and that debate is a fascinating monograph not necessarily intended as just some historical time-piece presentation but very much a really important monograph about golf and golf architecture for both now and our future with golf and architecture. The issues that were central in the Crane/Behr debate are even more central to and for golf and golf architecture today! At least that's my opinion, and I believe Bob Crosby shares it.

I think Bob recognizes, and I think I do too, that Joshua Crane essentially won the debate and/or he won the issue and the day too because what he was proposing is the way golf and golf architecture went after both him and Behr and Mackenzie and into the future and right up to us today.

Somehow, Tom MacWood seems to miss pretty much all of this and that's too bad, in my opinion, if there is anyone out there who takes him and his historical analyses on golf and golf architecture seriously.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 07:37:52 PM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #108 on: April 28, 2010, 07:34:22 PM »
Perhaps I've been reading and studying too much as a lot of the things I've read are blending together and I can't always accurately recall where I obtained specific pieces of knowledge.  So, if we want to go over Bob's essay and Tom's additions point by point...I will have to re-read them again.  (which actually would be a worthwhile thing to do).

Nevertheless, reading Bob's essay was a real eye-opener for me.  And the things that were discussed in that article are still being played out today...on this site, in the golf course architectural profession, and on the PGA Tour.  Hence, my thoughts that the debates were vitally important and Bob's essay being excellent.

I call Tom's "stuff" additions and not "counter-points", because I saw him dispute a few points here or there but nothing he said really made me change my opinion of the importance of the debates.  BUT I did gather a lot of new information and data to help put the mosaic together.  Hence, my term "addition" rather than counter-points.

Tom P...I think you might be right with your general thought about the importance of discussing the Crane/Behr debates on this thread.  Tom M says the debates themselves weren't all that important as the topics were discussed prior to the Crane/Behr articles by others.  Ok...that is fine with me and I think I can be convinced that the actual Crane/Behr debates weren't important in and of themselves.  BUT the topics they debated were wildly important.  In my mind, the entire topic of "fair", "equitable", "sporting" architecture is symbolized by the Crane/Behr debates.  I think everyone would agree that these topics are important.  What you choose to call them is not important to me, as we all know what we are talking about.  

But it might be interesting to have Tom Macwood detail some of the previous instances of "fair" "equitable" "strategic" "penal" architectual discussions like Bob did in his essay.  This could add to the building blocks of knowledge.  If he has already done this and I just have missed it, please point me in the right direction...I would love to read it.  If he hasn't, Tom M. please do.  It would be a great read.

EDIT...Tom Paul posted while I was typing and I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

  
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 07:36:09 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #109 on: April 28, 2010, 08:50:03 PM »

I think Bob recognizes, and I think I do too, that Joshua Crane essentially won the debate and/or he won the issue and the day too because what he was proposing is the way golf and golf architecture went after both him and Behr and Mackenzie and into the future and right up to us today.


Crane did not win the debate...he was smoked by Behr (and Croome). The reason he got smoked, he knew very little about golf course architecture, which is understandable since he was new to the game. That is one of the primary reasons no one took him seriously.

And he wasn't proposing anything new, they weren't his ideas, he was advocating the status quo, the mainstream American ideals. And Behr did not develop his ideas on golf architecture to take on Crane (as Bob suggested), he came to the debate with them.

If anyone won the day American golf architecture did, and ironically Behr and Mackenzie were at times advocates themselves. Your post is the primary reason wrote a counterpoint...so many misconceptions.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 08:52:41 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #110 on: April 28, 2010, 08:55:38 PM »

But it might be interesting to have Tom Macwood detail some of the previous instances of "fair" "equitable" "strategic" "penal" architectual discussions like Bob did in his essay.  This could add to the building blocks of knowledge.  If he has already done this and I just have missed it, please point me in the right direction...I would love to read it.  If he hasn't, Tom M. please do.  It would be a great read.


I don't understand your request. What previous instances/examples did Bob detail?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #111 on: April 28, 2010, 09:00:30 PM »
My request (more like a suggestion) would be to get some instances from you that would highlight some examples of penal/strategic (or whatever term you would choose to use) discussions that took place prior to Crane/Behr.  I think this would be great study material.

Perhaps my last post wasn't clear.  I didn't mean that Bob pointed things like this out in his essay.  What I meant to say was that if you did an essay like Bob did with this new material in it, it would be a very interesting read.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #112 on: April 28, 2010, 09:07:20 PM »
"Crane did not win the debate...he was smoked by Behr (and Croome). The reason he got smoked, he knew very little about golf course architecture, which is understandable since he was new to the game. That is one of the primary reasons no one took him seriously."


Tom MacWood:

So, if Crane did not win the debate, and if Crane and his proposals for greater fairness and equitableness in golf and architecture did not win the future (the ensuing 80-90 years) who did; Behr and Mackenzie?

Did golf and architecture proceed into the future more along the lines of what Crane was proposing at that time or what Behr and Mackenzie were proposing at that time which was clearly fairly dynamically and diametrically opposed to Crane's philosophy of the constant philosophical minimization of luck in golf and architecture and the constant promotion of fairness and equitableness in golf and its architecture as it was in other sports with which for their own structural necessity required fairness and equity because the ball is vied for between human opponents, completely unlike golf?

« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 09:12:50 PM by TEPaul »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #113 on: April 28, 2010, 09:17:45 PM »
Tom P:

Perhaps Crane lost the battle, yet he won the war.

Most golfers would have paid little attention to debates between the experts, just as most golfers today pay little attention to Golf Club Atlas.  So it's quite possible that Crane would have been judged the loser in those debates by those who actually paid attention, yet American golf continued to move toward fairness.

Hell, the Slope System looks like it was invented from Crane's notes.

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #114 on: April 28, 2010, 09:23:56 PM »
"I don't understand your request. What previous instances/examples did Bob detail?"


Tom MacWood:

He didn't, and for very good reasons, that for some reason seem to have escaped you. It seems that is why Mac Plumart is asking you to do it.

Bob Crosby explained very clearly in his essay that Crane did not invent some penal concept in golf and architecture and Crane didn't invent the call or proposal for greater fairness and equitableness in golf and architecture ("Equitable Architecture"). What he did do is inspire the likes of Behr and Mackenzie et al to really articulate why golf and architecture shouldn't be that way.

But the next question is which way did golf and golf architecture go into the future after that debate? And the question after that is even if that debate was not well joined or even well understood, should the positions in that debate be reprised, revisited and rediscussed today and into the future----and WHY?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 09:25:34 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #115 on: April 28, 2010, 09:29:58 PM »
"......yet American golf continued to move toward fairness."


TomD:

I think it would be pretty hard for any historical GCA analyst of any intelligence and competency to deny that, even Tom MacWood, even though as time goes on and as he continues to participate on here he shows he is not of those categories of that intelligence or competency.

This is precisely why I think Crosby reprised this historic debate and the fundamenatal articulated points and issues that made up that debate, particularly Behr's, because they were far more voluminous and far more comprehensively developed than Mackenzie's or anyone else's!


PS:
I think the future from the 1920s and 1930s to pretty much to date show that Crane's ideas (as he articulated them and not necessarily invented them) did win the war. I don't know that Crane even lost much of a significant battle in that war in the greater mentality of golf and golfers except perhaps with some golf and architecture purists and traditionalists back then or with some of us on this website today and hopefully in and with the future of golf architecture and GOLF ITSELF.

I think this is why Crosby wrote that beautiful essay of his reprising and redescribing the issues that were part and parcel of that Crane/Behr debate back then.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 09:51:34 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #116 on: April 28, 2010, 09:49:27 PM »
My request (more like a suggestion) would be to get some instances from you that would highlight some examples of penal/strategic (or whatever term you would choose to use) discussions that took place prior to Crane/Behr.  I think this would be great study material.

Perhaps my last post wasn't clear.  I didn't mean that Bob pointed things like this out in his essay.  What I meant to say was that if you did an essay like Bob did with this new material in it, it would be a very interesting read.



I don't recall Bob doing that, what courses did he associate with different architectural styles?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2010, 09:53:56 PM »
"Crane did not win the debate...he was smoked by Behr (and Croome). The reason he got smoked, he knew very little about golf course architecture, which is understandable since he was new to the game. That is one of the primary reasons no one took him seriously."


Tom MacWood:

So, if Crane did not win the debate, and if Crane and his proposals for greater fairness and equitableness in golf and architecture did not win the future (the ensuing 80-90 years) who did; Behr and Mackenzie?

Did golf and architecture proceed into the future more along the lines of what Crane was proposing at that time or what Behr and Mackenzie were proposing at that time which was clearly fairly dynamically and diametrically opposed to Crane's philosophy of the constant philosophical minimization of luck in golf and architecture and the constant promotion of fairness and equitableness in golf and its architecture as it was in other sports with which for their own structural necessity required fairness and equity because the ball is vied for between human opponents, completely unlike golf?


TD is correct. You can win the battle without winning the war, and Behr won the battle. But Crane did not win the war, because his ideas were not his own, he was advocating the popular American ideas at the time. Popular American architectural ideas won the war, and had been winning the war prior to Crane. As I pointed out in my essay CV Piper was advocating an almost identical set of principles at the time, and they weren't his ideas either.

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #118 on: April 28, 2010, 09:55:08 PM »
"I don't recall Bob doing that, what courses did he associate with different architectural styles?"


God help us that we have to continue to deal with responses like that one!    ::)

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #119 on: April 28, 2010, 10:02:43 PM »
"You can win the battle without winning the war, and Behr won the battle."


Tom MacWood:

What battle do you think Max Behr won?

Do you think his battle victory was represented by his original Lakeside? Do you think the Behr/Mackenzie battle victory was represented somehow by the original concept of ANGC?

And what did the future hold for that concept and those two courses?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #120 on: April 28, 2010, 10:09:13 PM »
"I don't recall Bob doing that, what courses did he associate with different architectural styles?"


God help us that we have to continue to deal with responses like that one!    ::)

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood the request.

British style golf architecture: St. Andrews, Hoylake, Woking, Liphook, Morfontaine, West Sussex, New Zealand, Lakeside, and Rye.

American style golf architecture: Prince's, NGLA, Lido, PVGC, Oakmont, Brook Hollow, Hollywood, Cypress Point, Aronimink, and Muirfield.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #121 on: April 28, 2010, 10:52:06 PM »
Still a good thread. Too tired tonight to do any more than read the last few pages, and I can't contribute meaningfully. But what I see in the history of gca -- and what Bob's essay helped me to see -- is a kind of Nietzchean 'eternal recurrence' of the fundamental issues and questions related to golf architecture's ideal forms and functions.  The people debating the questions -- in words and/or in deeds -- changed over time (Croome and Crane and Behr and Travis and Crump and Fownes and MacKenzie and Jones and Taylor and Braid and RTJ and Tom D and Fazio and the editor in charge at Golf Digest) but the questions remain the same. (It's like that old joke by Fran Lebowitz: "Original thought is like Original Sin: both happened a long time ago to people you couldn't possibly have met").  And sometimes the people involved were only half-conscious of what they were actually debating, because the language involved had itself changed, sometimes without one side informing the other. I believe Bob was clear in his point that the Behr-Crane debates reflected this eternal recurrence, not that they created it; that they were one facet, one lense, into this complex question.  As I say, I thought Bob made that clear; but others may disagree with me.  But to me, even just unpacking this eternal conundrum and bringing out of the mists of time this one facet -- and identifying it as one facet -- was a remarkable achievement on Bob's part.  I would also like to read Tom M's thoughts on this.

Peter   

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #122 on: April 28, 2010, 10:58:25 PM »
I guess if Crane won the war, then I can be classed as an insurgent.  Which I kind of like.  Actually, I'm sort of amazed that none of my fans nor my detractors has called me that yet ... at least in print.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #123 on: April 28, 2010, 11:11:19 PM »
"You can win the battle without winning the war, and Behr won the battle."


Tom MacWood:

What battle do you think Max Behr won?

Do you think his battle victory was represented by his original Lakeside? Do you think the Behr/Mackenzie battle victory was represented somehow by the original concept of ANGC?

And what did the future hold for that concept and those two courses?

Behr won the debate with Crane IMO. No I don't think his winning the debate had anything to do with Lakeside. Lakeside predated the debate, and was the greatest representation of his thoughts on golf architecture. Crane lost the debate because he was new to the game (and golf architecture) and he was going against someone who was neither. Even Bob did not suggest ANGC had anything to do with Crane-Behr debate. Before the Crane-Behr debate Mackenzie designed Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath, and after the debate he designed Cypress Point and Pasatiempo, Crane would have loved those golf courses.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 11:21:37 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Strategic School Of Architecture
« Reply #124 on: April 29, 2010, 05:17:38 AM »
"I guess if Crane won the war, then I can be classed as an insurgent.  Which I kind of like.  Actually, I'm sort of amazed that none of my fans nor my detractors has called me that yet ... at least in print."


TomD, you are an INSURGENT!!

How's that for "in print?"

Frankly, that puts you in a very good place of both golf, GCA and political and moral suasion as Josh Crane was not only an outright advocate for the mass murder of Mother Luck and all her little natural Lucklings in golf and architecture but he was also about 27 degrees of separation to the right of Rush Limbaugh and at least 4 1/2 degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun. He was, in fact, a card carrying member of the Anglo-American Malthusian Moneycrat Oligarghy who actually stood shoulder to shoulder with Adolf Hitler as an outright Nazi sympathizer. It's just amazing that the USA and strategic golf advocates all over this country let him back into the good 'ol US of A. after the war without frying his and his little sawed off putter's ass for treason!


Tom MacWood:

Crane lost the debate in your opinion because he was new to the game and Behr wasn't??

That's an interesting construct on your part. Where did you come up with that one? I seem to recall in one of Mackenzie's responses to Crane in that debate mentioning that Joshua's opinions were strange for such a good golfer!   ??? ;)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 05:21:41 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back