Strategic School Of Architecture

[TEPaul]

"I have now completed Bob's excellent essay, and I learned a lot.

Whether or not the Crane debates were one of the great gca debates, I cannot say.  This however, is pretty sure NOT to go down in history as a great gca debate, and I say that with nearly 100% confidence!"


Mr. Jeffrey:

I just sent you an IM about your remarks above. However, it just occured to me I may not have understood what you meant in the remark above by 'this' and so my IM to you may've been considerably off the mark!  

However, if you mean by 'this' the debate on here and on this thread about Bob Crosby's essay, then I agree it is not a debate that will go down in GCA history. That kind of thing happens on here these days with a certain regularity if Tom MacWood participates.
 

[Tom MacWood]

"Could you quote from the essay where he acknowledged those things?"


Tom MacWood:

No I can not or better said I will not. The only thing I'm willing to do for you, at this point, is to cite the particular sections the answers to your questions are in. If after that you still can't figure it out then that's not my problem but yours, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of most on here who have been trying to follow these strange posts of yours. I think pretty near everyone on here has grown tired of playing with your stupid 20 questions games! It's too bad for you that Bob Crosby has, that's for sure!

The reason you won't is because you can't, he did not acknowledge those things and anyone who has read his essay knows that, which is why your post #138 was so idiotic.

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
Part IV is one of the more historically inaccurate sections of the essay. In that part he tries to connect the USGA set up for championships to Crane via RTJ, not realizing the USGA's severe set up and redesigns dates back to the 1920s (and long before RTJ). And in that part of the essay he also tries to portrait H. Mallaby-Deeley and JH Taylor as penologists."


Tom MacWood:

With the possible exception of a thing or two Bob Crosby said in his essay about H. Mallaby-Deeley your last statement is just wrong and/or misinformed.

At least we are making progress with Mallaby-Deeley. JH Taylor may not have been the paradigm of architectural thought but calling him a penologist was unfair and inaccurate. The Crane debate took place in the mid-20's, at that time Taylor was partnered with Hawtree. Were Hawtree & Taylor's courses penal? Trying to pin thoughts and ideas from the first decade of the 20th C. to a 1926-27 debate was historically inappropriate. JH Taylor was the man who argued in 1917 that American golf courses were becoming too difficult for the average golfer - hardly the sentiment of a penologist.

The idea that Crane is responsible for the USGA set up by way of RTJ is historically inaccurate. It completely ignores what was going in the 1920s and 1930s. If you recall I showed that in my counterpoint, citing numerous examples, quoting WD Richardson, Archie Compston, Ted Ray, AW Tillinghast, Grantland Rice and Johnny Farrell. In the 1950s RTJ was continuing a tradition that had started decades before him, and trying connect him to Crane is ridiculous. Again Bob exaggerates Crane's importance.

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps that is why they drilled down to the central issues in golf architecture more perceptively and more honestly than any public debate about golf architecture before or since."

Bob

This what you wrote about the Crane debate. That is a pretty strong statement. You've continually over blown Crane's importance...as seen in your previous post about Crane being popular and a regular contributor to golf publications in the late 1920s, and how professional architects perceived him, both of which you've failed to support.

I will acknowledge it was an interesting debate, but not an important one. It was a continuation of the ongoing American-British debate that had existed for several years. No new architectural ideas were introduced as a result of the Crane debate. Behr had developed his ideas on golf architecture prior to the debate and not as a result of it (as you suggested), and Crane was simply expressing the popular American approach, nothing new there. So why was it so important? What impact did it have on golf architecture?"


Tom MacWood:

You've made your points there. You've made those points a number of times about this essay. Bob Crosby answered those points on Reply #142 but as usual you've completely ignored his answers to you as you seem to do on most all discussions on this website.

You're certainly welcome to your opinions and your points. Perhaps the best that can be done on a website like this one is to put one's points out there and just see how others react to them and discuss them. It doesn't look to me that many on here or elsewhere endorse your points, your opinions and your MO of discussion on here. So what does that ultimately say?

Sometimes some put forth a premise and of necessity most of the rest of what they assume and conclude rests on the accuracy of that premise. You said that Max Behr had developed his ideas on golf architecture prior to the Crane debate and not as a result of it. While that may be true to some extent with some of Behr's ideas on golf and architecture it doesn't seem to me we can be that aware of what some of those ideas of his were because before the Crane debate he hadn't written them. Matter of fact, some of what Behr said as a result of that debate with Crane were fairly different from ideas he had had or that he had expressed on architecture previous to that debate (as Crosby said, some issues because of that debate were drilled down to far deeper and Behr was the primary one to do that during that debate).

But again, you say that Behr did not write his ideas as a result of the Crane debate. THAT, I'm afraid, is simply a wholly mistaken notion and belief on your part; it is inaccurate as an opinion and as a fact, and since it is you have no business at all, in my opinion, presently it on here as a fact which you just did. If that is just your opinon then say that and qualify that remark of yours with the fact it is just your opinion.

Behr did write some of the articles and ideas he had as a direct result of the Crane debate because in a few of them he addressed Crane directly within those articles. Some of those articles he actually edited and republished later with the removal of some of the critcial things he had said directly in the previous articles about Crane and to Crane.

Apparently you're not aware of that and the reason must be you simply haven't read all of what Behr wrote during that Crane debate. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that vein, as one of the real ironies here is the extent of what Behr wrote, including what he wrote before, during and after that debate has never been collected in any single source record such as a book. Some of us have all of it (that's extant) but most don't. Apparently you fall squarely into the latter category and it certainly shows in how you are approaching and discussing this subject of the Crane/Behr debate and the importance of the issues discussed during that debate back then.

I'm pretty confident Bob Crosby had them all when he wrote the essay "Joshua Crane" and that is why he made the following remark which is accurate in the way he described the Crane/Behr debate:

"Perhaps that is why they drilled down to the central issues in golf architecture more perceptively and more honestly than any public debate about golf architecture before or since."


Again, that Tom MacWood does not seem to see the importance of those central issues in golf architecture that were discussed and debated in that Crane/Behr debate is probably of very small moment in the broad scheme of things. It was Bob's hope, and mine as well, that others would see the importance in the central issues in golf and in golf architecture that both inspired and was that debate not so much as some historical curiosity but for a discussion and understanding on golf and golf architecture for today and for the future. And that is why Bob Crosby reprised the issues discussed and debated back then between primarily Crane and Behr and MacKenzie et al and even used a few new and far more clear terms to describe and explain what those issues were really all about.

You seem to think if some debate or instance in the past was not of some great importance or moment back then it has no business being reprised and discussed today. In that sentiment, assumption and opinion you pretty much miss the larger issue here and the real importance of why Crosby chose to reprise this debate and write the excellent essay he did on the issues that were that debate.

[Kirk Gill]

Did Bob acknowledge the American approach to golf architecture?
Did Bob acknowledge the differences between the British and American approach to golf architecture?
Did Bob acknowledge the American-British debate predated Crane (continued on afterward)?
Did Bob acknowledge Crane's thought on golf architecture were typical of the American movement?

I don't believe he did, and as result he missed the much more important story IMO.

Tom, my response to you on this point would be - Bob Crosby's essay wasn't about the American approach to architecture, about the differences between British and American approaches, about the historical timing of any American vs British debate, or about the degree to which Crane represented American ideas at that time. At least from my reading. Those ideas appear to be important to you, and I look forward to your essay on the subject. I can see from what you've written here that those ideas could be connected to the issues that Bob wrote about, but I can also see that his essay stands perfectly well on its own without touching on those ideas. Am I making sense?

I'd be interested in reading your footnotes to Bob Crosby's essay, if you're still sending them out.

[TEPaul]

Kirk:

Good post and good point. Bob Crosby's essay was not specificaly about those things MacWood mentioned and asked about. However, he asked if Bob Crosby's essay acknowledged them and it did. I guess Tom MacWood must have missed them. Bob Crosby's essay had an awful lot in footnotes. Personally, I thought a lot what was in the footnotes should've been in the essay itself.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

You've made your points there. You've made those points a number of times about this essay. Bob Crosby answered those points on Reply #142 but as usual you've completely ignored his answers to you as you seem to do on most all discussions on this website.

You're certainly welcome to your opinions and your points. Perhaps the best that can be done on a website like this one is to put one's points out there and just see how others react to them and discuss them. It doesn't look to me that many on here or elsewhere endorse your points, your opinions and your MO of discussion on here. So what does that ultimately say?

Sometimes some put forth a premise and of necessity most of the rest of what they assume and conclude rests on the accuracy of that premise. You said that Max Behr had developed his ideas on golf architecture prior to the Crane debate and not as a result of it. While that may be true to some extent with some of Behr's ideas on golf and architecture it doesn't seem to me we can be that aware of what some of those ideas of his were because before the Crane debate he hadn't written them. Matter of fact, some of what Behr said as a result of that debate with Crane were fairly different from ideas he had had or that he had expressed on architecture previous to that debate (as Crosby said, some issues because of that debate were drilled down to far deeper and Behr was the primary one to do that during that debate).

But again, you say that Behr did not write his ideas as a result of the Crane debate. THAT, I'm afraid, is simply a wholly mistaken notion and belief on your part; it is inaccurate as an opinion and as a fact, and since it is you have no business at all, in my opinion, presently it on here as a fact which you just did. If that is just your opinon then say that and qualify that remark of yours with the fact it is just your opinion.

Behr did write some of the articles and ideas he had as a direct result of the Crane debate because in a few of them he addressed Crane directly within those articles. Some of those articles he actually edited and republished later with the removal of some of the critcial things he had said directly in the previous articles about Crane and to Crane.

Apparently you're not aware of that and the reason must be you simply haven't read all of what Behr wrote during that Crane debate. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that vein, as one of the real ironies here is the extent of what Behr wrote, including what he wrote before, during and after that debate has never been collected in any single source record such as a book. Some of us have all of it (that's extant) but most don't. Apparently you fall squarely into the latter category and it certainly shows in how you are approaching and discussing this subject of the Crane/Behr debate and the importance of the issues discussed during that debate back then.

I'm pretty confident Bob Crosby had them all when he wrote the essay "Joshua Crane" and that is why he made the following remark which is accurate in the way he described the Crane/Behr debate:

"Perhaps that is why they drilled down to the central issues in golf architecture more perceptively and more honestly than any public debate about golf architecture before or since."


Again, that Tom MacWood does not seem to see the importance of those central issues in golf architecture that were discussed and debated in that Crane/Behr debate is probably of very small moment in the broad scheme of things. It was Bob's hope, and mine as well, that others would see the importance in the central issues in golf and in golf architecture that both inspired and was that debate not so much as some historical curiosity but for a discussion and understanding on golf and golf architecture for today and for the future. And that is why Bob Crosby reprised the issues discussed and debated back then between primarily Crane and Behr and MacKenzie et al and even used a few new and far more clear terms to describe and explain what those issues were really all about.

You seem to think if some debate or instance in the past was not of some great importance or moment back then it has no business being reprised and discussed today. In that sentiment, assumption and opinion you pretty much miss the larger issue here and the real importance of why Crosby chose to reprise this debate and write the excellent essay he did on the issues that were that debate.

TEP
I believe the reason very few have participated in this discussion is the same reason very few participated in the thread that originally introduced Bob's essay. There is little interest in the Crane debates, and lessening interest in golf architecture history on GCA in general.

Regarding Behr using the Crane debate as a vehicle to discuss his ideas, I would agree, but that is not what Bob's essay says, he claimed Behr developed his ideas because of Crane. And ultimately what were the results of these debates, I've asked the question numerous times and no one has been able or willing to answer my question. So I'll ask it again, what was the result of the Crane debates, what architectural developments came from it?

It was an excellent essay, but there were a number of historical inaccuracies and crucial omissions. I believe what happened in this case was the theory was hatched before conducting his research, instead of allowing his research to form the piece. Bob has been discussing this theory for a long time, and at one time it was even more elaborate.

[Tom MacWood]

Did Bob acknowledge the American approach to golf architecture?
Did Bob acknowledge the differences between the British and American approach to golf architecture?
Did Bob acknowledge the American-British debate predated Crane (continued on afterward)?
Did Bob acknowledge Crane's thought on golf architecture were typical of the American movement?

I don't believe he did, and as result he missed the much more important story IMO.

Tom, my response to you on this point would be - Bob Crosby's essay wasn't about the American approach to architecture, about the differences between British and American approaches, about the historical timing of any American vs British debate, or about the degree to which Crane represented American ideas at that time. At least from my reading. Those ideas appear to be important to you, and I look forward to your essay on the subject. I can see from what you've written here that those ideas could be connected to the issues that Bob wrote about, but I can also see that his essay stands perfectly well on its own without touching on those ideas. Am I making sense?

I'd be interested in reading your footnotes to Bob Crosby's essay, if you're still sending them out.

I just sent it.

[Tom MacWood]

Did Bob acknowledge the American approach to golf architecture?
Did Bob acknowledge the differences between the British and American approach to golf architecture?
Did Bob acknowledge the American-British debate predated Crane (continued on afterward)?
Did Bob acknowledge Crane's thought on golf architecture were typical of the American movement?

I don't believe he did, and as result he missed the much more important story IMO.

Tom, my response to you on this point would be - Bob Crosby's essay wasn't about the American approach to architecture, about the differences between British and American approaches, about the historical timing of any American vs British debate, or about the degree to which Crane represented American ideas at that time. At least from my reading. Those ideas appear to be important to you, and I look forward to your essay on the subject. I can see from what you've written here that those ideas could be connected to the issues that Bob wrote about, but I can also see that his essay stands perfectly well on its own without touching on those ideas. Am I making sense?

I'd be interested in reading your footnotes to Bob Crosby's essay, if you're still sending them out.

Kirk
I would agree that Bob was focused on the Crane debates, and not on those other ideas, which is fine. However IMO Bob's essay exaggerates Crane's importance, the impact of his rating system, and the length of time the rating system was actually in use. And bob does try to tie Crane to popular American architectural ideas, so I think my bring up the American-British debate is appropriate and would have been appropriate in his essay.

The reason I brought up the British-American debate in my response you quoted was a response to TEP idiotic post that I was simply mirroring what Bob wrote in his essay.

When Crane wrote his original piece in British Golf Illustrated he had only been playing golf for a few years. He was virtually unknown in golfing circles in the US, and totally unknown in Britain. Why did Croome give him a platform?

[Sean_A]

Tom MacWood:

You've made your points there. You've made those points a number of times about this essay. Bob Crosby answered those points on Reply #142 but as usual you've completely ignored his answers to you as you seem to do on most all discussions on this website.

You're certainly welcome to your opinions and your points. Perhaps the best that can be done on a website like this one is to put one's points out there and just see how others react to them and discuss them. It doesn't look to me that many on here or elsewhere endorse your points, your opinions and your MO of discussion on here. So what does that ultimately say?

Sometimes some put forth a premise and of necessity most of the rest of what they assume and conclude rests on the accuracy of that premise. You said that Max Behr had developed his ideas on golf architecture prior to the Crane debate and not as a result of it. While that may be true to some extent with some of Behr's ideas on golf and architecture it doesn't seem to me we can be that aware of what some of those ideas of his were because before the Crane debate he hadn't written them. Matter of fact, some of what Behr said as a result of that debate with Crane were fairly different from ideas he had had or that he had expressed on architecture previous to that debate (as Crosby said, some issues because of that debate were drilled down to far deeper and Behr was the primary one to do that during that debate).

But again, you say that Behr did not write his ideas as a result of the Crane debate. THAT, I'm afraid, is simply a wholly mistaken notion and belief on your part; it is inaccurate as an opinion and as a fact, and since it is you have no business at all, in my opinion, presently it on here as a fact which you just did. If that is just your opinon then say that and qualify that remark of yours with the fact it is just your opinion.

Behr did write some of the articles and ideas he had as a direct result of the Crane debate because in a few of them he addressed Crane directly within those articles. Some of those articles he actually edited and republished later with the removal of some of the critcial things he had said directly in the previous articles about Crane and to Crane.

Apparently you're not aware of that and the reason must be you simply haven't read all of what Behr wrote during that Crane debate. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that vein, as one of the real ironies here is the extent of what Behr wrote, including what he wrote before, during and after that debate has never been collected in any single source record such as a book. Some of us have all of it (that's extant) but most don't. Apparently you fall squarely into the latter category and it certainly shows in how you are approaching and discussing this subject of the Crane/Behr debate and the importance of the issues discussed during that debate back then.

I'm pretty confident Bob Crosby had them all when he wrote the essay "Joshua Crane" and that is why he made the following remark which is accurate in the way he described the Crane/Behr debate:

"Perhaps that is why they drilled down to the central issues in golf architecture more perceptively and more honestly than any public debate about golf architecture before or since."


Again, that Tom MacWood does not seem to see the importance of those central issues in golf architecture that were discussed and debated in that Crane/Behr debate is probably of very small moment in the broad scheme of things. It was Bob's hope, and mine as well, that others would see the importance in the central issues in golf and in golf architecture that both inspired and was that debate not so much as some historical curiosity but for a discussion and understanding on golf and golf architecture for today and for the future. And that is why Bob Crosby reprised the issues discussed and debated back then between primarily Crane and Behr and MacKenzie et al and even used a few new and far more clear terms to describe and explain what those issues were really all about.

You seem to think if some debate or instance in the past was not of some great importance or moment back then it has no business being reprised and discussed today. In that sentiment, assumption and opinion you pretty much miss the larger issue here and the real importance of why Crosby chose to reprise this debate and write the excellent essay he did on the issues that were that debate.

TEP
I believe the reason very few have participated in this discussion is the same reason very few participated in the thread that originally introduced Bob's essay. There is little interest in the Crane debates, and lessening interest in golf architecture history on GCA in general.

Regarding Behr using the Crane debate as a vehicle to discuss his ideas, I would agree, but that is not what Bob's essay says, he claimed Behr developed his ideas because of Crane. And ultimately what were the results of these debates, I've asked the question numerous times and no one has been able or willing to answer my question. So I'll ask it again, what was the result of the Crane debates, what architectural developments came from it?

It was an excellent essay, but there were a number of historical inaccuracies and crucial omissions. I believe what happened in this case was the theory was hatched before conducting his research, instead of allowing his research to form the piece. Bob has been discussing this theory for a long time, and at one time it was even more elaborate.

Tommy Mac

There is little interest in gca or its history period.  Nor are there any particular aspects of gca or its history terribly important.  It has nothing to do with this particular debate.  Most are probably like me, there isn't much point in getting too involved as the lines are drawn in the sand as is always the case with you and TomP (and for that matter myself on this subject).  The outcome is all too predictable unless one wants to invest huge amounts of time to proving points raised by endless questioning (see your most recent post) which doesn't lead to any conclusions.  It is especially off-putting when all the snippets in the world prove very little.  Instead they offer the merest of glimpses at specific points in time into the minds of the ODGs.  In other words, folks are presenting opinions with a scarity of info to back it up.  That is the way it must be for the really interesting stuff.  

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
I disagree, and I think most educated people would also disagree, history is very important. You've obviously not been following this particular thread, the disagreement is between Bob and myself. TEP's involvement has been mostly as a cheerleader, and a general fly in the ointment. He has added nothing of substance to the discussion.

[Sean_A]

Sean
I disagree, and I think most educated people would also disagree, history is very important. You've obviously not been following this particular thread, the disagreement is between Bob and myself. TEP's involvement has been mostly as a cheerleader, and a general fly in the ointment. He has added nothing of substance to the discussion.

Tommy Mac

This is a typical response from you.  Of course most educated people would agree history is important and of course most educated people would agree that gca history is not terribly important.  What was the point of your reply other than to act a not so subtle put down?  Its that sort of stuff that keeps people from participating in these sorts of threads, but then most educated people would agree on that.

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

"There is little interest in gca or its history period.  Nor are there any particular aspects of gca or its history terribly important."

I was simply disagreeing with your comment about the importance of history, and I wasn't being subtle.

"It is especially off-putting when all the snippets in the world prove very little.  Instead they offer the merest of glimpses at specific points in time into the minds of the ODGs.  In other words, folks are presenting opinions with a scarity of info to back it up.  That is the way it must be for the really interesting stuff."

And speaking of put downs...could you explain the purpose of this very broad statement? A random shot in the dark? Your contrarian instincts getting the best of you? I may not agree with the Bob's essay but I respect all the work that went into it, and I hope he does the same for my counter essay. I think we both presented more than a few snippets.

[Sean_A]

"There is little interest in gca or its history period.  Nor are there any particular aspects of gca or its history terribly important."

I was simply disagreeing with your comment about the importance of history.

"It is especially off-putting when all the snippets in the world prove very little.  Instead they offer the merest of glimpses at specific points in time into the minds of the ODGs.  In other words, folks are presenting opinions with a scarity of info to back it up.  That is the way it must be for the really interesting stuff."

And speaking of put downs...could you explain the purpose of this very broad statement? A random shot in the dark? Your contratian instincts getting the best of you? I may not agree with the Bob's essay but I respect all the work that went into it, and I hope he does the same for my counter essay.

Tommy Mac

I am merely placing gca in context.  I am in no way being disrespectful of you or Bob.  I enjoyed Bob's piece and I enjoy all of your pieces.  They all provoke thought and further my appreciation of gca. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Regarding your question of "What influence did these debates have on the future of gca?", if you know, what years did Stanley Thompson use his progression chart for routing courses with a balance of hole and shot distances? What do you think his infulences were?  

He started his career in 1922 and got it rolling with some of his best designs a few years later, when these debates were raging. They may or may not have been an influence on him developing these charts, and moving design to a more "scientific" level.  Or, it might be a combination of influences.

In later years, I have seen similar charts printed in books by Cornish/Graves (with Cornish being a direct professional descendant of ST and Hurdzan. And I have privately seen an old chart by William Mitchell that prescribed "perfect" widths of fw, green openings, etc.  There is no doubt that many gca got into mathmatical measurements in design, for balance if nothing else as a PART of the process to varying degrees.

Now, if you are arguing that there were other influences on subsequent gca's besides Crane, I agree, as I am sure he was not the only guy out there that had the idea of applying measurements and numeric scores to different aspects of golf design. But, he did get a platform and therefore had a big role in bringing those ideas forward for debate during the Golden Age, which may have influenced many then and after.  Isit possible to be more specific?  Probably not.

No doubt that the whole thought process of gca is a long continum, and its probably wrong to focus on one aspect too heavily as any particular "AHA" moment.  I don't know that Bob really did that, and I believe had his essay wandered too far into other elements, it would have lost its strength, even if you believe he wandered into some hypebolic overdrive considering that one topic!

One last question - where might I find the best short read on the American/British gca debate you mention?  Thanks in advanc for your interest in gca history and any answers you might give.  I had never really thought about where those charts came from, since I had seen most of them from guys who started their careers in the 1950's and until Bob's Crane essay, shall I say, (Sargent Shultz voice....."I knew NOTHINK1") about earlier thinking on the subject.

[Peter Pallotta]

Apropos of nothing, the last few exchanges reminded me of my "Garbage Collector" theory (which applies to jobs/people like doctors and police officers and the Crane-Behr debates too).  Okay, so a fellow goes around a picks up the garbage on Monday. Great. But next Monday, there's a whole new pile of garbage to pick it. It never ends. The fellow might eventually say to himself "What is the point of my job? I go around every week and yet there is no end, there is never an end, to all the gabage".  Ahh, yes, but imagine if he didn't pick up the garbage one week? Or the next? The point being that the garbage collector isn't so much making things better as making sure they don't get much much worse.  And the point being, can you imagine what might've happened to golf course architecture if Crane was allowed to formulate and popularize his 'system' without the Behrs and MacKenzies of the world arguing back? Maybe Behr didn't make things better; he just made sure they didn't get a lot lot worse.

Please carry on. My 2 cents have been spent!

Peter

[Kirk Gill]

History is of course vitally important, but I don't see the debate between Crane and Behr/MacKenzie (or the points of few that they represent) as a museum piece. One of the most fascinating aspect of reading Bob's essay is, to me, that the debate is as alive today as it was then (even if a lot of the folks who espouse opinions on either side of the matter aren't really currently debating, just happily going about their business believing what they believe).

What is the approach we've seen the USGA take towards preparing some of the courses for the US Open recently other than an expression of some of Crane's points of view (even if Crane's name never crossed their minds)? Narrowed, one-option fairways with graduated rough to "proportionately punish" sounds a lot like Crane to me. And there are those on this board and elsewhere who decry that approach.

Crane felt like his system was "objective," and therefore in some way immune to criticism. In some ways I think that there are lots of folks who feel the same way about their own opinions, that they are so "apparently true" or factual that to disagree is some sort of idiocy or denial.

And so the debate continues, whether folks are aware of it or not.

[TEPaul]

"History is of course vitally important, but I don't see the debate between Crane and Behr/MacKenzie (or the points of few that they represent) as a museum piece. One of the most fascinating aspect of reading Bob's essay is, to me, that the debate is as alive today as it was then (even if a lot of the folks who espouse opinions on either side of the matter aren't really currently debating, just happily going about their business believing what they believe).

What is the approach we've seen the USGA take towards preparing some of the courses for the US Open recently other than an expression of some of Crane's points of view (even if Crane's name never crossed their minds)? Narrowed, one-option fairways with graduated rough to "proportionately punish" sounds a lot like Crane to me. And there are those on this board and elsewhere who decry that approach.

Crane felt like his system was "objective," and therefore in some way immune to criticism. In some ways I think that there are lots of folks who feel the same way about their own opinions, that they are so "apparently true" or factual that to disagree is some sort of idiocy or denial."


Bravo Kirk Gill;

I think this was the point and purpose of Bob Crosby in repising that Crane/Behr debate. For some odd reason an analyst like MacWood thinks that debate and discussion cannot be important now and in the future if the subject and event wasn't historically important or significant back then. What could be more antithethical to intellectual and sophisticated thought, debate and discussion, and frankly education than that?

"And so the debate continues, whether folks are aware of it or not."

I think Bob Crosby's point is that, and that it should continue, not because it is some interesting historical curiosity from the past but that it is incredibly relevent now and in the future!

[Tom MacWood]

History is of course vitally important, but I don't see the debate between Crane and Behr/MacKenzie (or the points of few that they represent) as a museum piece. One of the most fascinating aspect of reading Bob's essay is, to me, that the debate is as alive today as it was then (even if a lot of the folks who espouse opinions on either side of the matter aren't really currently debating, just happily going about their business believing what they believe).

What is the approach we've seen the USGA take towards preparing some of the courses for the US Open recently other than an expression of some of Crane's points of view (even if Crane's name never crossed their minds)? Narrowed, one-option fairways with graduated rough to "proportionately punish" sounds a lot like Crane to me. And there are those on this board and elsewhere who decry that approach.

Crane felt like his system was "objective," and therefore in some way immune to criticism. In some ways I think that there are lots of folks who feel the same way about their own opinions, that they are so "apparently true" or factual that to disagree is some sort of idiocy or denial.

And so the debate continues, whether folks are aware of it or not.

Kirk
Crane did not advocate a proportional punishment or graduated rough. He was opposed to the severity of water and OB as hazards, but that is a different story. There were number of folks who were opposed to OB and water as hazards because of no chance for recovery.

The USGA began growing the rough and pinching the fairways before Crane, and that is not something he would have favored anyway.

Was Crane opposed to options?

[Sean_A]

Continuing my recent perusal of The Architectural Side of Golf, I came across this passage:


If at Gullane the architecture is on the whole agreeably natural, Muirfield supplies a significant contrast and demands some notice for two reasons; because, firstly, it is a modern course, constructed severely on the penal principle; and secondly, because it represents a conversion from a course of older strategic variety, thereby courting a comparison which may be odious but is none the less inevitable.  

...Probably no other course has attracted quite the same discrepency of opinion.  Mr Joshua Crane, an American critic, has placed it first in the list of our leading courses (with St Andrews, sad to relate, last).  

...Popular opinion, it must in all fairness be said, inclines to favour the course as it stands...Be that as it may, it is not difficult to discover the reasons that account for a possibly misguided preference.  The fairways are broad and generally straight, clearly defined by avenues of bunkers to indicate the route to the greens; the greens too are large and not too dangerously guarded except in extreme instances; the nature of the shot is clearly shown by this method, and needs little reflection beyond the manner of its execution; the position and number of the bunkers are not too terrifying on a calm day to the expert player.  But when the ground is fast and a stiff wind is blowing and the course is stretched to its fullest capacity of seven thousand yards there can be no question of its being a test of both power and accuracy.  These considerations alone may render it acceptable for an Open Championship; but for the finer shades of match play in the Amateur the older course had many things to commend it.  

...But whether we applaud Muirfield as the culminating point of modern attainment or are tempted to criticise it for lack of imagination and the absence of that economy of means which is the secret of great art, we can unite in admiring...


This is a remarkable passage!  At once Simpson seems to be stating that the best players are too good for his brand of strategic design which seems to revolve heavily around less is more especially with bunkering.  Furthermore, Simpson seems to be saying that where bunkers are needed is near greens much more than near fairways.  It is commonly thought that Simpson was the biggest promoter of strategic design back in the day, but what surprised me was how he categorized Colt's work at Muirfield as penal.  Okay, I have long believed that the idea of "penal" architecture is a sliding scale and has in recent decades has come to mean something much more draconian than the design at Muirfield or anything Colt dreamed of.  Of course, this means that the idea of strategic architecture has moved further toward the penal end and Simpson represents the extreme end of strategic.  Finally, Simpson seems to be acknowledging that the Colt hybrid penal/strategic style of design was in ascendancy (something I very much believe as I think Colt is really the father of modern design).  I think this is particularly interesting in light of the work Simpson did to Muirfield and Sunny New and how some of these changes were reversed at a later date.

In any case, above is a mention of Crane and the ideas he espoused becoming more popular.  Conversely, I think we can see how the Simpson version of the Strategic School essentially died a death and has somehow been resurrected in recent years - likely to the same cries of anguish and joy that were heard in Simpson's time. In terms of architecture, there are likely not many more important lines of distinction and debate - especially if you take the view as I do that the American/British debate is really about penal/strategic architecture, but with more clearly defined sides to the debate.  

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

As I point out in my essay I think a case could be made that Colt was the biggest influence on the American movement.

[TEPaul]

"Was Crane opposed to options?"

No, of course not, but Crane was opposed to some of the kinds of options the likes of Behr and Mackenzie advocated during the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate. Even types of options were mentioned during the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate that Crane opposed but Behr/Mackenzie advocated.

Generally Crane advocated what he referred to as control on incremental shots and Crane opposed the idea of luck in golf by suggesting ways via architecture to minimize it. Behr and Mackenzie opposed any effort to minimize luck.

Crane advocated that a badly missed shot be directly penalized and rough was one of the architectural tools Crane advocated for in that goal. Behr and Mackenzie in many instances opposed that instead advocating what Behr referred to as the architectural or strategic "unity" of golf holes. Ultimately, Behr and MacKenzie advocated for architecture with no rough.

In my opinion, it is very difficult to understand the importance of the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debate without completely reading and fully appreciating particularly all that Max Behr wrote about architecture as a result of that debate.


As to who or what was the biggest influence on the American Movement in Architecture (which of course would need to be defined more specifically than just the "American Movement" ), I've always felt that the INLAND architecture that began to emanate out of the English Heathlands and its notable group of architects around the turn of the century may've been the greatest influence on not just American architecture but all architecture to come all over the world and particularly on inland sites.

[Tom MacWood]

Reducing the element of luck in golf, and making the game more fair, had been going on for a long time before Crane, partricularly in America. The advent of the Haskell and steel shafts, the elimination of the stymie, graduated tees, improved and more consistant turf conditions, elimination of blind hazards, blind greens, and the reduction of cross-hazards, etc. Crane was not advocating anything new, he was just incorporating popular theory into his rating system.

Control is an important aspect of strategic golf.

"Placing a premium on accuracy with due consideration for length should be the aim of all men who design golf courses, for accuracy in play signifies skill and skill is generally the master of brute force." ~~ William Flynn

Where did Crane suggest control on incremental shots?

Rough was a design element utilized by all golf architects.

The American movement as defined in my essay was a reaction to the ciriticism of American golf courses, and American golf in general, by Vardon (and Darwin) circa 1913-14.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

This quote from Crane in Bob's article seemingly confirms that Crane was as much a recorder of trends rather than a setter of trends:

"No! Golf course development is on the right track, and those who take the other attitude are already finding themselves side-tracked by their own ignorance and lack of comprehension of the demands of human nature for fair play."

It has been pointed out that Mac and Behr certainly favored less rough, and old pix of their courses sometimes show all one height of cut out to the natives. Other photos may show rough, but its hard to know if they had any control over their designs once they were built. 

In essence, one main point of this debate seems to be the same debate we have now over rough at Augusta.  Or like the general debates we hear from Tour Pros today about "fitting the eye", proportional punishment, etc.  It isn't a new debate now, and I agree with you, it probably wasn't a new debate then. I suspect the debate about fainess of golf courses started with the first lost competitive match back in the 1400's or so.

Still, that Crane was the one who formalized the debate with his ranking system, he gets some credit for perhap moving the long, slow debate ahead in a quantum leap.

What gets me about his (or mine, or anyone's) ranking system, is that no  matter how hard anyone tries, its still subjective, not objective.  He seems to easily move from his point system to design recommendations like "remove that hill for vision", and "make that carry more fearsome" and "bring those bunkers more into play" which are all still opinions. 

I wonder if his relative lack of standing as a gca expert caused him to try to put his opinions forth as a "scientific" opinion to counter those opinons of those merely "in the biz". And vice versa, I wonder how much critique was really being peeved at an outsider scoring any points whatsoever in a gca debate.

[Tom MacWood]

"These proposed 'improvements' were, in essence, the application of Crane’s larger reformist program to specific features of a given hole. His rankings were the business end of the big stick with which Crane wanted to push golf design into a new and better era."

I agree, your quote does confirm Crane was no trend setter. He was simply mirroring popular opinion. Not only was he not a reformist, as Bob suggested, his rating system really wasn't focused on golf architecture. The system was designed to identify and rate championship courses, to identify the best venues for championships. He was not trying to push a design movement. Hell half the formula was based on condition and upkeep (which included caddies) - not something designed - and that fact was completely ignored in Bob's essay.