News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Another poser from Max Behr
« on: March 01, 2003, 05:57:29 AM »
Max was back last night and left me with another poser.

Seriously, I recognize that Behr isn't for everyone but he did attempt to delve deeper into the depths of all that golf and golf architecture may be far more than anyone I'm aware of.

This thread is also intended to just make us think a bit more--and maybe it should follow the same basic comparison as did the recent thread "A comparison of architectural principles--Fazio & Behr" particularly how Tom Fazio thinks about golf and golf architecture (in the context of some of the things he's actually said) compared to how Behr thought about it and spoke about it.

(By the way, there's a very good post on that other thread by Michael Moore about how Fazio thinks about architecture, in Michael's opinion, and even Michael's mention of anthropomorphizing things such as golf features or golf architecture. That's another fascinating issue to look into more at some point. I suggest you all read Michael's post).

But, again, Behr looked deep into the beginnings of golf, even before the onset of architecture, particularly before the onset of architecture, probably just to see what influence that raw, rudimentary, unbounded "sport" had on those that played it then.

As golf in that early era did become a dedicated "culture" to some in Scotland at that time there may be much to find in it that was and is interesting, possibly even fundamental and possibly to the game we play today. Logically, it’s not to imply that type of raw course be brought back exactly or certainly that the unbounded, unrestrained game they played then be brought back, but perhaps just to try to understand its effects on man, on the player, and to attempt to see what all of the "spirit" of it may be important, may be even fundamental, and what of that “spirit” may be gone and lost from the game and the architecture we know today.

Someone on the other thread wrote a defense of Tom Fazio's architecture claiming that it really isn't low on strategy or that it's anti-strategy, and I have no doubt that's probably very true. But nevertheless, there’re marked differences between the way Behr looked at golf and architecture and strategy and spoke of them compared to the way Fazio does today (again read Michael Moore's post).

There's no question that Tom Fazio was on television the other day during the Skin's game explaining in detail the EXACT way his golf holes were designed and EXACTLY how they were to be played ideally. I believe also, as Michael said, that Tom menitoned all his holes were signature holes. What's a "signature hole" really? Does a signature hole also include a "signature strategy"? Does that strategy include Tom Fazio's "signature"? It would seem so and it sure sounds that way.

What about Behr's ideas of strategies? He's said over and over they should be the golfer's individual strategies and that it's almost fundamental that any golfer feels them to be his very own! Even if obviously the architect has arranged them, Behr felt they should still not be perceived as the architect's.

Even if the architecture of the two may not be vastly different at least the way they perceived it from the architect’s perspective and for the golfer is vastly different.

At one point Behr mentioned that golf architecture was not a representation but an interpretation. I'm not sure I understand that distinction completely---matter of fact, I'm sure I don't. But Behr went on to say, in that context, that as a painter's medium is paint, and a painter becomes the master of his medium (paint), a golf architect's medium is the earth and he must not attempt to become it's master! The earth remains the architect's medium and master (and by extension the golfer's master--albeit opponent, but only in the context of the sport of golf). And Behr apparently implies that even in the case of the architect constructing something wholly man-made that the "lineaments" of the earth and nature should remain his master or perhaps his teacher in the ideal of that construction!

The fundamental reasons Behr said things like this, is, again, because he believed that man (the golfer) would react more inspirationally, with more freedom, with less criticism, with less negativity, to something he perceived to be natural (even if it actually wasn't).

So here’s Behr’s poser (in the next post below). I realize that many may not understand it or think it relevant but it’s interesting to consider at least in a sort of fundamental way.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2003, 05:58:55 AM »
Firstly, Max Behr made a basic distinction between golf as a “sport” and golf as a “game”. From his statement you can see why.

“It may be said, then, that a game is akin to science, for everything in it, lying as it does within the concepts of space and time, is known except one thing—the skill of the players. But every sport of which golf is one, is an emotional experience in which space and time take on the attributes of infinity and, hence, are akin to religion. If this comparison is well drawn, then man is not the master in golf as in other games. It is not given him, nor should it be his purpose, to make a precise mathematical use of space and lay his law upon it. On the contrary, his object should be to preserve the mystery that lies in undefined space. He is in the realm of art.”

Geoff Shackelford, I believe, is interested in compiling all the available writing of Max Behr. You should all visit Geoff’s website---geoffshackelford.com
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2003, 08:00:51 AM »
Tom

It is now obvious from his assertions that golf is not a game restricted by time, Maxie must have been the one of the very progentiors of the plague of slow play that we have today.  In that he seems also to be saying that golf courses should not be restricted by space, does he not also bear major responsibility for the 350+ yard drive and the proliferation of 300+ acres golfing facilities?

Even though he does seem to be coming around to my point of view, the more you read him, regarding strategy, etc., these counter-productive comments of his on "Games vs. Sports" (speaking about picking nits.....) makes me less likely than I was in the past to surf Geoff's website.

Finally, speaking of anthropomorphism, Behr's view on GCA were actually spoken by a piece of pottery at least 100 years before he was born:

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty."

Keats' PS "--that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know" is as superfluous as lots of Maxie's prose.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2003, 08:19:44 AM »
Rihc - I tend to see it differently and that this excersize as well as I'm sure Geoff's motives are to educate those in and out of the industry, who either think they know everything or haven't studied the past or cared enough to delve into some of the base reasons why we play this confounded game. It perpetuates those who have an appreciation for the etherial,spiritual or whatever happens when you are one with it, to learn more.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2003, 08:46:10 AM »
Adam

Fully agree in terms of Geoff's motives (although I'm guessing, not having met the guy) and also about the value of learning.  All I'm really trying to say its you can probably learn more about the essence of golf by reading Keats, or listening to Bach or looking at Bernini's work than you can from trying to decipher Behr's prose.  Of course, if you are lucky enough, like TEP, to be able to channel Maxie's dead soul whilst asleep, then that is another story.......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Eric Pevoto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2003, 08:46:23 AM »

Quote
But Behr went on to say, in that context, that as a painter's medium is paint, and a painter becomes the master of his medium (paint), a golf architect's medium is the earth and he must not attempt to become it's master! The earth remains the architect's medium and master (and by extension the golfer's master--albeit opponent, but only in the context of the sport of golf). And Behr apparently implies that even in the case of the architect constructing something wholly man-made that the "lineaments" of the earth and nature should remain his master or perhaps his teacher in the ideal of that construction!


Were these statements made after the 13th green at Lakeside washed away?   ;D

Seriously though,  I think his statements have a practical application beyond aesthetics and sport.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
There's no home cooking these days.  It's all microwave.Bill Kittleman

Golf doesn't work for those that don't know what golf can be...Mike Nuzzo

TEPaul

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2003, 11:00:53 AM »
RIch:

Your initial post on here is good enough evidence for me that you're way off the mark in understanding almost anything about what Behr wrote--that you obviously have no interest in understanding him and even if you did have an interest I doubt it would be possible for you to understand even the first things he spoke about. Luckily, though, it seems you're on the same page, at least, in understanding the reasons for Behr's feeling about the essence of a multi optionally designed golf course and the importance of the individual strategic expression of the golfer compared to an architect's one dimensional strategic design dictating to the golfer. What you assumed above about Behr's premises regarding space and time in the arrangements of golf's and architecture's evolution is positively laughable though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Objective Observer

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2003, 11:35:31 AM »
TEPaul

I have read and reread the posts from your first Max Behr and followed to this thread.  I certainly am not aquainted with Behr in the manner that you are, but I feel I understand better now the point that you were trying to make and please correct me if I am misspeaking.  I need to sound it out due to my limited abilities to make sense of the ethereal.

Behr felt that nature should predominate in the design and use of land designated for the construction of a golf course?  

Behr felt that the golf course designer should not impose forced strategies or restrict the golfer from developing his own strategies?

Behr felt that if the hand of the architect was visible a disservice had occured?

Am I even close here?  My question to you is how did Max Behr implement these thoughts into the design and construction of his courses?  

What were the methods he used to bring these concepts to fruition?

I know from reading these posts that it would be nearly impossible to view an unadulterated Behr design today, but is there any historical evidence that may be gleaned to determine the results of his endeavors?

One other thing I can speak to is your question of Fazio's signature holes.  I attended an event where Fazio spoke directly about this subject.  I will do the best I can to remeber his words, but I probably can only paraphrase at best.

Mr. Fazio was asked which hole on the golf course did he consider to be the signature hole.  His first response was that he does not believe in a signature hole and that all of the holes were signature holes.  He said that if he designed a course where one hole stood out that much above the rest he had done a poor job in designing the course.  He stated every hole deserved and recieved the attention, time, and study necessary to allow it to have individual and equal character with respect to the other holes.  

From this I believe that when he speaks of the signature hole concept he does not mean that you can see the hand of Fazio throughout the holes, ie HIS signature, rather that each hole is equal and has been given the thought and effort to make it so.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2003, 12:31:18 PM »
O.O.

As far as what Max Behr actually designed and built I've never seen any of it but I've heard that it's not been preserved well at all.

It'd be very interesting to see if and how he put what appear to be his philosophies into practice in his designs but I don't really view that as ultimately crucial.

Max Behr to me was clearly a more significant theoretician on many things to do with golf and architecture and that alone is of real interest. There were certainly other golf and golf architecture theoreticians, particularly before Behr and as contemporaries of Behr who were not in architecture at all or not primarily. Their ideas can be fascinating nonetheless.

Max Behr was, however, a very good player, but he had an array of diverse interests as many of those men of that era seemed to.

As for what Fazio says about "signature holes" and such I completely agree--I've heard him in person myself and obviously he says the same consistent thing about that from place to place.

I have no problem with that although we may have slightly different takes on the entire subject of "signature" anything (holes, courses, whatever) and the way he speaks about them.

To me the whole idea of "signature" anything is sort of a  marketing term that's sort of bogus or meaningless and has no real value even as terminology in golf or architecture. The architects that I personally admire the most I've never even heard use a term like that and I doubt they ever would.

What seemed to me a bit more revealing in the context of this particular thread about Fazio was the mention by him during that Skin's game (mentioned by Michael Moore which I also heard) regarding exactly how any player would need to play his golf holes on that course. The way he described his holes in some detail sounded to me not much like multi optionalism and more like one dimensionalism. I'm not really theorizing about that since that's exactly the way he said it and obviously  a number of those who heard it took it exactly that way.

The other thing that concerns me about the way Fazio talks about golf and architect is he seems to have a constant laundry list about what he "knows" golfers today will NOT accept. I sort of resist that he says that because much of what he claims he absolutely KNOWS golfers will not accept I would love to see---and even many of the golfers I know would love to see too and even a number of architects I admire subscribe to and actually do today a few of the things Fazio knows golfers will not accept.

At the very least it sounds as if Fazio is content to follow what he perceives as a known and successful formula. That's fine, I suppose, but sure doesn't put him high on my list of architects interested in some of the ideas of some of the great architecture of the past or even how to possibly innovate with some of those ideas today.

Don't get me wrong--I think Tom Fazio is a good architect and he's done some nice work I've seen but nowhere near as good as some others I've seen, in my book. Maybe he has done something as significant as what I believe a Sand Hills, Pac Dunes or Friar's Head is and if so tell me where it is--I'll go look at it. And maybe he can do something that good but if so I wish he would.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Objective Observer

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2003, 12:49:23 PM »
TEPaul

Points well taken.  

I too would like to see Fazio build something along the lines of the three courses you mentioned.  Hopefully he will suprise us someday.

However, I do believe that it IS important to practice what you preach and I would be very interested to know if Max Behr indeed did this and how.  I give short shrift to theroticians who can do the mental gymnastics, but fail to implement the very words and ideas they implore upon others.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2003, 01:20:26 PM »
Mr. Paul -

You misread a key part of my post.

I think we all agree that the concept of "signature hole" lies somewhere between meaningless and insipid. This has been discussed previously. But Mr. Fazio said something entirely different that immediately gave me a strong "Alice in Wonderland" feeling.

He said that from this tee you would be taking in the "signature VIEW" at the Preserve. To me that meant that aesthetics (which I use simply to mean appearances, I know there was some fuss about that on some other thread) were his primary consideration, and that the routing was routed around the views, and that there was a certain flow that came to its high point at this tee box, which had been placed there for that exact purpose.

I know that is a lot to read into two words, but "signature view" seems like a radical thing to say about your golf course.

PS - How about The Principal's Nose and The Devil's A-hole for anthropomorphization?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

TEPaul

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2003, 01:20:50 PM »
O.O.

I agree with you that it's important that Max Behr would have practiced in architecture what he preached, but in many ways if you read what he wrote it was never particularly specific in actual architectural detail--for intsance, the look of a bunker or placement or whatever the way some of the other architect writers were--he was far more generally theoretical about the real essences of golf and architecture, use of the concept of penalty, time and space, naturalism in golf, blindness, freedom of strategic expression, multi optionalism etc, and how some of those things effected players and such almost in a psychological ways.

Of course his idea on what he called "the line of charm" was a fairly specific architectural application (and frankly one of the most fundamentally brilliant ones I know of albeit definitely not a complicated one) and it certainly would have been interesting to know how he put that into practice in whatever designs he did do.

I agree with you, if Behr designed a number of courses (which he did) and never really used the "line of charm" concept or used it well or never really used he ideas on width and the uses of it then that would have been odd and disapponting to me as an example of a man who did not practice what he preached. But it don't know if he did that or not--and again I've heard most of what he did has been lost or corrupted somehow.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Another poser from Max Behr
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2003, 06:31:02 PM »
I was under the impression that Mr. Fazio inherited fthe routing at the preserve from Sandy Tatum and the poor gentleman who is no longer with us.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back