[Peter Pallotta]

I thought this was interesting: Max Behr calling for American courses to be more 'testing'.  In 1914, after American golfers had done poorly in the British Amateur, Behr asks why, and begins his answer by referencing Harry Vardon.

“Vardon in a recent article in Everybody's Magazine places his finger upon the weak spot. After expressing the opinion that he noticed little improvement in American golf during the interim of fourteen years which separated his first visit to America from that of last year, he says: ‘This is not the fault of your golfers. They have not had the chance. It is the fault of those who are responsible for your courses. Because the American golfer is seldom put to a real test, he has not improved his game to any great extent. You have some good players over here, but they are not trained to play the right way. In other words, America is not getting as much out of its golf as it should. Your golfer can not play a proper game, because his course is not right.’

Is there anyone to doubt the truth of these words? With those who know what a real testing golf course is, there can be no difference of opinion with him. Our golf courses as a whole are far from good. In a sense they are no more than kindergartens upon which the beginner can only learn his alphabet. The shots presented him to play are the simplest, and even these he cannot become full master of, for, the complete absence in many instances of real obstacles to be avoided develops a loose and indecisive style, wholly unfit to wrestle successfully with the difficulties of a course designed to bring out the true beauties of the game. One of the most general criticisms of our style is the full swing taken in playing iron shots. What has developed this but unprotected greens? Then the general tendency to play for a pull has doubtless come about from the meadows we are given to drive into from the tee. This criticism is of course very general. We have a number of very fine courses, and a great number that are trapped in a fashion, but before anything in a big way can result a lot of missionary work will have to be done.

If all the golfers of this country could play for a week upon the National Links at Southampton, L. I., they would then comprehend what a game golf is, and would not be satisfied until their courses were rounded out to give the best golf the natural lay of the ground was capable of. Golf is the same as everything else in life. It is through the reaction of man upon his environment that development of character comes about, and in golf, it is the course that must either make him a strong and scientific player or develop habits of play which must prove his downfall when he is really called upon to play a difficult shot for which he has had no training. It is not at all necessary that all our courses should be championship tests. But it would be well if each one of them had a few holes at which the golfer would have to call all his resources into play.”

Comments? Thoughts? Have things come full circle, except that now almost no one is calling for 'more testing' courses?

By the way, is anyone else surprised by Behr's seeming disdain for unprotected greens and for 'meadows' (wide fairways?) to aim at off the tee?

Thanks
Peter

[David Stamm]

 

By the way, is anyone else surprised by Behr's seeming disdain for unprotected greens and for 'meadows' (wide fairways?) to aim at off the tee?

Thanks
Peter

Peter, I just wanted to get clarification. Are you stating that he disdained wide fairways?

[Jim Nugent]

Tillie made the same point, only in reverse.  i.e. he said U.S. golfers were better than British, partly because U.S. courses were tougher.  He pointed up TOC as an example of this, saying "we assert (and we know the old course well) that as a collection of holes it has too many weaknesses to be regarded as truly championship."

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Wonderful to know i'm only 93 years behind the times. Better late than never. Thank you so much for finding and sharing this.

As to wide fairways, I'd say no, that's not what he means. It's just a feeling, no evidence mind you, but, I suspect the aspect he's picking on is the isolated hole, clearly defined by the rough cut, and trees. Highlighting the path with a fairway, leaving the mystery out of equation for the accurate puller.

[Rich Goodale]

Hmmm.  1914.  "...he noticed little improvement in American golf during the interim of fourteen years which separated his first visit to America (1900) from that of last year."

Did oor Harry somehow forget the 1913 US Open at Brookline and a certain American golfer named Francis Ouimet?  He played 18 holes with him and fellow Brit Ted Ray there and then in a playoff for the Championship  I wonder who won?

[Peter Pallotta]

David S - No, I was surprised that he seemed to disdain 'meadows' and was asking if by meadows he meant 'wide fairways', which would have surprised me (rightly or wrongly) even more. But I think Adam C's intuition might be right.

Adam - "behind the times"? No way! Let's say instead that you're the fixed point around which everything rotates, and finds you there periodically, where you've always been.  

Jim - yes, that's one of the reasons I bring this up. Whenever I'm about to develop a new theory based on one cool article, I almost always discover (or am told) about some idea or fact that kills the theory dead.  

Richard - I guess great golfers haven't changed much in a century: forget the failures and spin it anyway you need to stay confident. Maybe Harry never missed a 3 foot putt when it counted either.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

A couple of thoughts:

- Behr certainly had a different view of things 8 or so years later. Which is fair enough.  

- The whole thing about tough golf courses make for better golfers is a meme that's run through golf writing since the beginning. It's a main theme in Hunter's The Links (1926). He thought US courses needed to be more strategic - for among other reasons - because good strategic courses would make for better American golfers.

Note that when Bobby Jones arrived on the scene in the mid-20's all this flipped over. You have guys like George Trevor (one of the prominate sports writers of the time) and J.H. Taylor talking about how British courses are too wide open and needed to be toughened up 'cuz the Yanks are taking over golf. Joshua Crane fell in with similar ideas. The notion was that American golfers were dominating because their greens were more tightly bunkered and their fw's were more narrow than on British courses.

So go figure.

(BTW, I have never been convinced there is any causal link at all between a type of golf course and the development of great players.)

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Behr believed in fairway width (or alternatively he didn't have much use for rough).

But I don't think he ever believed in fairway width just for the sake of fairway width.

There had to be more---there had to be obstacles but the particular combination or juxtapositions of obstacles around and within fairway width was what he was essentially after. And this is pretty much the basis of his unique "line of instinct", "lines of charm" ideas on which his philosophy of truly strategic architecture and play is centered.

The final point was obstacles had to be part of golf and architecture but their relationship to fairways and width had to be such that they made any golfer feel more that the glass was half full rather than half empty. This was basically a comparison of inspiration to succeed vs intimidation from fear of inadequacy.

Behr's attitude about hazards and obstacles was that they should be there to INSPIRE the golfer to THINK for himself and perhaps INSPIRE him to challenge them for the best for the next, not intimidate and frighten him into realizations of his shot making inadequacies.

To do something like that (inspire to challenge obstacles) he felt that necessarily there had to be enough fairway juxtaposed in and around hazards to make a golfer feel that even if he failed while taking on the risk that he should be proud of himself for trying simply because he could clearly see (with enough fairway providing alternate options) that he could've played safe but CHOSE not to.

Maybe it's something like the old saw---"it takes a bad day to appreciate good days even more".

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Bob - thanks much for the posts; really helpful ones.

By the way, it's amazing to me how many times NGLA comes up in the writings of a whole array of different writers/thinkers/golfers/designers of the period. And yet, it seems not to have 'won the day' (or did it?), i.e. its approach did not dominate golf design over the next few decades (as Macdonald had hoped?). It's almost as if there was a rejection of "the elites" by, what, market forces? the desire to grow the game?

Any thoughts on that? Am I way off base?  

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

I'm not sure I understand what "win the day" means.

Raynor and Banks did build a ton of courses, mostly around NYC, that all were based on replicating the CBM templates. They were the go-to architects for clubs with pretensions in that area.

But if "win the day" means something more general, as in people in the Golden Age trying to consciously build holes with strategic elements based, however indirectly, on links courses, - then I think CBM did win the day.

Bob  

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob, thanks.

I was aware, somewhat, of the former (i.e. the Banks and Raynor work), and so was wondering about the latter (i.e. the influence of NGLA's strategic principles more generally).

But I had in mind the time-frame around the designing of the "original" Augusta National (only about 15 years after this Behr article), and was assuming that the Behr/CBM principles didn't 'win that day' for much longer after that, i.e. they didn't survive the Golden Age.  

But even if what I'm asking makes any sense, I just got the feeling now that the answers are a lot more complicated than "market forces".

Peter

[TEPaul]

"By the way, it's amazing to me how many times NGLA comes up in the writings of a whole array of different writers/thinkers/golfers/designers of the period. And yet, it seems not to have 'won the day' (or did it?), i.e. its approach did not dominate golf design over the next few decades (as Macdonald had hoped?). It's almost as if there was a rejection of "the elites" by, what, market forces? the desire to grow the game?
Any thoughts on that? Am I way off base?"

Peter:

I think as an architectural model Macdonald and his NGLA did win the day. However, that does not take into account how things changed from there in numerous ways, particularly into the 1920s.

For instance, it seems pretty clear now that SOME felt in the manner of type and style---by that I mostly mean the reach for real "naturalism" in the "look" of golf architecture Macdonald's template models for architecture did not dominate architecture as comprehensively as some on here may think or for very long in that specific vein.

Don't forget, some of the holes from GB that Macdonald was copying were not themselves wholly natural in creation or appearance. To some extent they were and in another way they also had some pretty rudimentary man-made additions and such.

The likes of Mackenzie and his ideas on camouflage really did take the look of golf course architecture to another far more natural looking level, albeit somewhat "artistic". The same can probably be said for the likes of Englishmen Colt and Alison too.  

[RJ_Daley]

It is always a treat for me when TEP starts channeling Behr.  

I also agree that Behr was disparaging the meadow of the uninteresting, not width.  The meadow needs an array of hazards and features that have that ying and yang pull of lines of charm and dread.  

I'm not understanding what you all are saying about Behr's basic philosophies being abandoned at ANGC.  It seems to me that Dr. Mac used much of the same basic thoughts on lines of charm and dread with features and hazards in array that forced strategy.  And, when ANGC was new, it wasn't a narrow and tree lined series of corridors.  

We also must remember that FWs were firm then unless it was rain season.  So, a meadow without arrayed obstacles was a humdrum that might as well be a practice range.  

[BCrosby]

RJ -

I don't think that is what Peter is saying about ANGC. If anything, it's the opposite. ANGC embodied much of what Behr was getting at.

I think Peter is asking why those design ideas didn't survive the Great Depression.

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Since we have the advantage of hindsight...Didn't Behr rally against the "Game mind"? Throw in the American Ego, and you have freshman mistakes. Add to that second handers, and you have copies of mistakes, infinitum.

[TEPaul]

"Since we have the advantage of hindsight...Didn't Behr rally against the "Game mind"?"

He did. It appears he may've coigned the term "the game mind of man" in his articles on golf and architecture. (Behr also wrote frequently about the Rules of Golf).

By "the game mind" he seems to mean a penchant for excessive definition and standardization of the playing field such as in tennis, baseball, football etc---eg games where the ball is vied for and highlighting human skill against human opponents is the purpose . Of course standardization and excessive definition are actually necessary to those games. This is where he made the distinction between those games and golf as a "sport".

[Peter Pallotta]

RJ, Tom, Adam - thanks.

"Ego" and the "game mind of man" and "lines of charm and dread" and "naturalism"....is it any wonder that Behr's ideas about the experience of golf can still have such (deep) resonance? And is there any question that his ideas about golf course design and the fields of play upon which the golfer might (potentially) participate so fully and completely still have merit?  Maybe it could only have been a "Great Depression" that moved his ideas to the back-burner; and maybe the golfer's spirit has never quite recovered from that.  

Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Obviously a few of us do think Behr's ideas have merit, even tremendous merit, but the question of why they were not much paid attention to or used when he was alive and writing probably has to be answered first.

I guess those I'm aware of who've really read and studied Behr's ideas (Geoff Shackelford, TommyN, Bob Crosby and me) have different opinions on why his ideas didn't catch on more in golf and architecture.

I've tried to consider a number of reasons:

1. Perhaps golfers (generally) just don't really care enough about the things he outlined to do anythng about it or demand it. Perhaps they don't really care to think much on a golf course that is pretty much the basis of "strategic" architecture as Behr outlined it. Perhaps golfers basically just want to have their physical skill tested to varying subjective degrees and that's about all.

2. Perhaps the "game mind of man" as Behr described it is truly pervasive in Man's tendencies towards his recreations and he doesn't want or even like the idea of a tertiary opponent which Behr's roll for Nature in golf really was. Some on here seem to call that "ego". I'm not sure I would say that. Perhaps it's only a different preference.

3. On the other hand, maybe the debate or dialectic that seems to have been the thing that Joshua Crane et al on the one side and Behr, Mackenzie, Jones on the other side---the so-called "penal" proponents against the so-called "strategic" proponents was just never really joined. Some even think it never really was much of an issue anyway as most golf courses may contain enough elements of both.

And that is why I think it's important that their debate or potential debate be joined again and now. It is possible that golfers are something like sheep and they may actually enjoy far more the things the "strategic" school said and proposed if they were shown it again, if they had it explained to them again, and they came to understand it better.

Frankly, it may be happening anyway and that could be the reason we are into something of a renaissance in golf architecture with the new popularity of restorations and the new construction and architectural styles of some of those that are admired on here.

Some think some of the best courses of the great Golden Age were the best courses and architecture ever done. I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps some of the courses done recently, in the last ten years or so, may actually be the best ever done.

But the real question is what does the future hold? I think that's another reason Behr's ideas need to be revisited.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks very much.

For what they're worth, some random thoughts from a newcomer to Behr, based mostly on your post:

It seems to me that the dialectic you mentioned has never quite resolved itself. Yes, one might argue that most courses became a combination (in varying degrees) of strategic and penal elements; but I think one could also argue that most courses do not meaningfully or successfully combine those two elements at all, and are thus neither strategic nor penal.

I think one possible resolution of the dialectic would've been the 'enriching' of the concept of strategic architecture through a marked increase in the strategic use of penal elements; in other words, in the development of more 'testing' strategic courses, much like what I (now) think Behr is describing in the quote that starts this thread.

(And perhaps, only when that 'complete test' is in fact present will golfers find themselves willing to embrace a golfing test not primarily limited to their physical skills.)

What the future may hold is, in fact, this very resolution.

Peter

PS -- I'll be thinking about one of your other points for quite a while yet, i.e. the possibility that the "game mind of man" is so truly pervasive in Man's tendencies towards his recreations that he doesn't want or even like the idea of a tertiary opponent like Nature involved.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I think this thread got off on some other things to do with Behr rather than the thinking of his type back then in the teens and 1920s and with the idea of "testing" courses and architecture.

There is no question at all that this specific issue was a very big one amongst some back then. The best examples are obviously W.C. Fownes (Oakmont) and particularly Geo Crump (PVGC). One could legitimately say that after initially considering other reasons (eg a better place for winter golf) Crump's intention was to build with Pine Valley the ultimate "testing" or "training ground" for the best Philly area players simply so they could and would be more successful on the national tournament stage.

Matter of fact, in the early 1920s one of the significant members of PVGC promised to give the club $5,000 if one of the members could qualify for the US Amateur that year. One did and the club got five grand.

Behr, by the way, was a member of PVGC. Did you know that Behr got to the finals of the US Amateur---I think twice? Behr would've had a more impressive tournament record than he did if he hadn't kept running into Jerome Travers. He couldn't seem to beat him even though he finally did to win the NJ State Amateur.

Another thing that sort of blows my mind historically is just how quickly the inclination for tournament competition of all kinds caught on in America. It was almost simultaneous with the beginning of golf in America. And not just men---women were into it just as strong and just as early. Should that suprise anyone?

Are women more naturally competitive than men?

[Adam Clayman]

 Vardon claims

Your golfer can not play a proper game, because his course is not right.’

implies there's more to proper golf than skill?

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I recently ran across some accounts of Behr's matches against Egan and Langford in college. There were some other accounts of matches with Emmet, if I recall. Behr was a very good player.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()