Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Anthony Gray on December 12, 2021, 11:58:42 AM
-
Of course no absolutes.
A recent thread mentioned this
How do you feel about this?
What are some examples of quirk that was created?
Quirk found?
How about quirk can be “enhanced”? Any examples of quirk enhancement?
Is there really a Viking ship buried at Cruden Bay?
Anthony
-
Interesting topic. I think a place like North Berwick by keeping the stone walls as they have is enhancing the quirk as in years past some might say, "why is there a stone wall next to the green?" Well keep the quirk is enhancing the course for sure as I really enjoyed that feature on the couple holes it comes up.
-
Anthony, to be honest: the last time I loved quirk was "Annie Hall", and the last time I really liked it was "Barton Fink".
Which is to say: yes to 'found' not 'created', at the very least -- but better still (for me) is to 'find it' only very rarely, and to 'look' for it even less.
These days there are too many ways ways to create/find so many different and wonderful golf holes that if you end up with quirk it's because you have indeed 'created it' (and 'intended it').
Quirk-2021 isn't Quirk-1921, no matter how much we wish/pretend it to be.
This critique of quirk, therefore, certainly does not apply to your beloved Cruden Bay.
-
Anthony, to be honest: the last time I loved quirk was "Annie Hall", and the last time I really liked it was "Barton Fink". Which is to say: yes to 'found' not 'created', at the very least -- but better still (for me) is to 'find it' only very rarely, and to 'look' for it even less. These days there are too many ways ways to create/find so many different and wonderful golf holes that if you end up with quirk it's because you have indeed 'created it' (and 'intended it'). Quirk-2021 isn't Quirk-1921, no matter how much we wish/pretend it to be.
This critique of quirk, therefore, certainly does not apply to your beloved Cruden Bay.
Excellent answer Peter. OMG there may be a future thread. The evolution of quirk. And how is it different 100 years ago. Great points.
-
Most of the best quirk are usually non-sequiturs just sorta integrated where they were found - maybe to give the routing a *sens du lieu* . . . . like a stone wall at North Berwick.
They could have easily covered up that portion with dirt, creating an interesting, partially blind mound, but how much more fun to present something patently ridiculous - still sticking its' tongue out at golfers 100 years later?
One place where elements of quirk was deliberately created was at my beloved Stevinson Ranch (NLE). My dear friend John Harbottle never got the credit he deserved for the occasional tongue-in-cheek feature. We had a KP there years ago and the Alps Hole, created on a dead-flat corner of the property, was a hit with the gang.
It was really a combination Alps, Leven - with a pot bunker from Hell - but I always appreciated his nuttier ideas because the idea of choosing a feature pursuant to creating an objective test of golf over a crazy, fun carnival ride goes against my creative sensibilities.
Of course, Stone Harbor by Des Blurhead represents the epitome of over-the-top, lookatme!!!!!!! That is not (was) quirk, just an artistic experiment that went so far off the rails, it jumped the shark . . . . my limey friends would describe it as "too clever by half."
But "Holy places" like Cruden Bay, where the quirk feels organic enough to have grown out of the ground with deep roots, those are the features that endure through the test of time. So many features on British courses - strange mounds on Sunningdale Old, where Willie Park looks to have just covered up a random boulder with dirt and left it - immeasurably add to the endearing qualities of the course.
Sometimes, my favorite holes (like Harbottle's Alps) are really strange combinations of seemingly unrelated ideas. Westhampton's 3rd, a Punchbowl Par-3, is wildly, but somehow classically artificial . . . . as only Raynor can be, but if I ever get to help redesign another golf course, somewhere, somehow, love to find a spot for something with the same flavor notes.
P.S. Peter, because Anthony and I clearly "need the eggs."
-
Interesting topic. I think a place like North Berwick by keeping the stone walls as they have is enhancing the quirk as in years past some might say, "why is there a stone wall next to the green?" Well keep the quirk is enhancing the course for sure as I really enjoyed that feature on the couple holes it comes up.
Created at Bar Run by Dan Hixson with a replica "The Pit" hole.
-
So what we do with a course like Bayonne? It is entirely manufactured but has plenty of quirky holes that look pretty natural until you look around. I agree that it is nice to find quirky things like a stone fence and include it on the course but on most sites the designer has to build it into the design.
-
This thread threatens to devolve into wafting arrogance, unless a sullen knight on a dirty nag stumbles through the corral gate and mutters loudly. I am that knight.
If there is a difference between quirk 1.0 and quirk 2.0, what is it precisely?
There's a train car in Lawsonia that might have a thing or two to say on this matter, if we can unearth it.
Quirk and Quarry both begin with "Q."
I'll post and pore.
-
How about found and created. At The Home Course, there was a dynamite bunker found in the middle of a planned fairway. Having a dynamite bunker in the landing zone of a fairway would be quite quirky. However, the trade off to have a quirky hole with a blind drive was created by burying the bunker with a hill off dirt.
-
This thread threatens to devolve into wafting arrogance, unless a sullen knight on a dirty nag stumbles through the corral gate and mutters loudly. I am that knight.
If there is a difference between quirk 1.0 and quirk 2.0, what is it precisely?
There's a train car in Lawsonia that might have a thing or two to say on this matter, if we can unearth it.
Quirk and Quarry both begin with "Q."
I'll post and pore.
And here it is. Square greens surrounded by mounds meant to retain golf balls appear too quirky to me but are so beloved by MacRaynor fans. Add all sorts of geometrical shaped bunkers. Now that’s quirk.
Quirk 1.0 (MacRaynor) may be more beloved and acceptable Quirk 2.0 (Stranz) ?
-
So what we do with a course like Bayonne? It is entirely manufactured but has plenty of quirky holes that look pretty natural until you look around. I agree that it is nice to find quirky things like a stone fence and include it on the course but on most sites the designer has to build it into the design.
When Royal New Kent opened, there were a couple of stacked stone walls on the dunes around the first fairway. One of them was pretty far to the right, pretty much out of play. They really added to my first impression of the golf course. I guessed that they were already on-site but they weren't. It was "created" quirk that was done so well that it seemed found.
WW
-
And of course, Hanse found modern quirk at Crail Craighead, and left the wall in place crossing 3 holes as I remember.
-
Quirk at Orinda CC (near San Francisco) starts and ends on the first hole, where you hit your drive to a wide open LZ (hard to miss the short grass), but then have a completely blind* second shot. Cue that it is a different sort of hole...superintendent Josh Smith made a cool little wooden model of the green with the day's pin position that is mounted next to the tee. Hit and hope for your second shot...made easier/tolerable because there are no bunkers/hazards by the green. Just our typical Orinda mounding.
At one point about 10+ years ago, an architect proposed grading the downslope in front of the green so the second shot was visible...thankfully we didn't go with that plan, and years later followed Todd Eckenrode and Josh Smith (and George Waters, Brett Hochstein) and embraced the super unusual line of play on the first hole.
*Excellent players can grip and rip, and attempt to hit it over the hill and get close to the green. Example, Matt Cohn:
https://youtu.be/XaSruVNfp7U (https://youtu.be/XaSruVNfp7U)
-
Quirk at Orinda CC (near San Francisco) starts and ends on the first hole, where you hit your drive to a wide open LZ (hard to miss the short grass), but then have a completely blind* second shot. Cue that it is a different sort of hole...superintendent Josh Smith made a cool little wooden model of the green with the day's pin position that is mounted next to the tee. Hit and hope for your second shot...made easier/tolerable because there are no bunkers/hazards by the green. Just our typical Orinda mounding.
At one point about 10+ years ago, an architect proposed grading the downslope in front of the green so the second shot was visible...thankfully we didn't go with that plan, and years later followed Todd Eckenrode and Josh Smith (and George Waters, Brett Hochstein) and embraced the super unusual line of play on the first hole.
*Excellent players can grip and rip, and attempt to hit it over the hill and get close to the green. Example, Matt Cohn:
https://youtu.be/XaSruVNfp7U (https://youtu.be/XaSruVNfp7U)
Sounds a little like the holes early in the round at NGLA. Kept asking the caddy is that good.
-
This thread threatens to devolve into wafting arrogance, unless a sullen knight on a dirty nag stumbles through the corral gate and mutters loudly. I am that knight.
If there is a difference between quirk 1.0 and quirk 2.0, what is it precisely?
There's a train car in Lawsonia that might have a thing or two to say on this matter, if we can unearth it.
Quirk and Quarry both begin with "Q."
I'll post and pore.
And here it is. Square greens surrounded by mounds meant to retain golf balls appear too quirky to me but are so beloved by MacRaynor fans. Add all sorts of geometrical shaped bunkers. Now that’s quirk.
Quirk 1.0 (MacRaynor) may be more beloved and acceptable Quirk 2.0 (Stranz) ?
Anthony-I agree with the premise that quirk should be found. That said all green shapes are created regardless of how natural their site is and I like the squared off Raynor versions. One of my favorite quirky courses is George Thomas’s Marion Golf Club which is a nine holer replete with stone walls in front of greens and a ninety degree dogleg par four. Some believe that there was a steeplechase course that preceded the golf which makes sense with the rock walls and wild routing.
-
I am not precious about quirk. Good quirk is good quirk if it was built or found in 1891 or 2021. The only way we can really tell if new quirk is cool or not is for a succeeding generation 100 years after the fact to decide. We may have a lot more cool features and holes if golfers were a bit more open minded. Part of the problem with the staid architecture of the 50s thru 80s was because golfers wore blinders. I say roll the dice and go bold here and there. If a course is without controversy the archie didn't do the job properly.
Ciao
-
I am not precious about quirk. Good quirk is good quirk if it was built or found in 1891 or 2021. The only way we can really tell if new quirk is cool or not is for a succeeding generation 100 years after the fact to decide. We may have a lot more cool features and holes if golfers were a bit more open minded. Part of the problem with the staid architecture of the 50s thru 80s was because golfers wore blinders. I say roll the dice and go bold here and there. If a course is without controversy the archie didn't do the job properly.
Ciao
It does seem to be more acceptable with the older courses. Could North Berwick be built today? Good point it may take 100 years to decide. Tobacco Road a an example. How will,it be viewed 80’years from now? I am a quirk junkie. Love Cruden Bay, North Berwick, and Prestwick but the modern stuff stretches me. Really enjoyed Diamante. Had the perfect amount but Tobacco Road really stretched me.
-
???
Anthony I'm a little puzzled by the query. If someone was talented enough to create some quirk that was fun and added to the experience, wouldn't that be more of an architectural feat than discovering it?
-
???
Anthony I'm a little puzzled by the query. If someone was talented enough to create some quirk that was fun and added to the experience, wouldn't that be more of an architectural feat than discovering it?
I’m for it. I find Donald Ross to be a little boring. Make each hole memorable.
-
Gib - you might need the eggs, but I'd need to be a much better golfer to appreciate quirk. A 'straight ahead' style of golf course architecture already gives me all the physical and intellectual challenges I can handle, and all the aesthetic and emotional pleasures I need. Asking me to use more club for my 2nd shot than I did off the tee, or to bounce my chip shot off the faux-remnants of a fake 19th century stone wall so as to have a more make-able putt, is, as they say, gilding the lily. In my opinion, I mean. It's not some matter of principle, just a matter of personal taste. For me, there is no 'good' quirk, only 'old' quirk. If it has been around for a hundred years, it's historic (and maybe even historically necessary); if it came about in the last ten years, it's only an unnecessary affectation. Plus, it tends to confuse me, and so I play worse!
-
Talking about burying things on golf courses, an old friend told me this summer that Braid Hills in Edinburgh has one or more tram cars buried on the north east part of the property.
-
Since some posters here may not have seen some of the comments that inspired this thread on my Principles book thread, let me throw some of my thoughts out here again straight from the book (by the way, I do love Quirk):
The definition of Quirk is "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."[/size]Most often Quirk is manufactured and that is why I say it should never be sought. In other words, don't create something just to be quirky. That doesn't mean that an architect shouldn't create something that may be different; just don't call it a Quirk. Because it isn't.To me, a quirk is something that results from a site constraint that just can't be changed. This is different than something that is just thought-provoking, cool-looking, or just simply different. To illustrate, I use the 3rd hole at White Bear as an example of a quirk. Such a short and small par-three, the hole is a result of the routing of the golf course coming up against the property line, which has a high slope. The hole is a result of its site-constraint as opposed to the same exact hole that may appear somewhere else in a routing solely by the architect's choice. That hole, in its same exact form, designed somewhere else without any site constraints, is equally thought-provoking, cool, and certainly different. It just isn't quirky in that location.
***
Although one may strive to manufacture Quirk in golf architecture, genuine Quirk is revealed when an irresistible force runs into an immovable object. When a golf hole (the irresistible force) must be routed around a topographical feature (immovable object) because that topographical feature can’t be altered, the form the hole takes (adjusted for the immovable object), becomes quirky. Quirky golf course features are simply anomalies of the landscape that can’t be avoided.
***
Quirk only works if it is actually appreciated, making it a subjective ambition. Designers who set out to deliberately create “quirky” golf course features often cross the line toward poor design. When Quirk is done poorly, and lacks appreciation from the end user, pleasant surprise is replaced by disdain, exposing the Principle of Gimmick.By definition, Gimmick is “a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.” The Principle of Gimmick is expected to garner a surprise from the golfer just like the Principle of Quirk. But the result is fleeting at best, especially once surprise subsides and the reality of an impossible shot stares the golfer down. When Quirk fails, one is left with Gimmicks running the gamut from artificial rock formations to angular features to manufacturing building ruins as strategic challenges. Randomly dropping a stone wall into a hole is pure Gimmick. Replicating holes which are more famous for their built environment than their architectural quality falls into the Gimmick category as well.
[/size]
-
I have NEVER spoken to an architect that tried to design Quirk. But I have spoken to many architects that have tried to design something different or unexpected or unusual. I doubt any architect cares what they call it (as long as they don't call it crap :D ) as it is all relative. No different than someone saying, "that green is really undulating". Undulating compared to what :D
-
Generally, I agree, including the caveat of "no absolutes". Would add that the crimes against design these built quirks might cause tend to be all across the spectrum, not absolutely bad or okay. Some examples would be built quirk in a market of semi-design atrocities (by this board's standards) like Myrtle Beach of LV, where there is some pressure to outdo other courses, even it is to outdo them in a bad direction.
I have tried to build quirk, or more accurately, as Mark Fine just said, something interesting, usually when there was no interest to be had naturally, or to replicate older quirky holes using modern earthmoving tech. Again, not because they had quirk, but only because it was an inspiration to do something different than seen on other courses around their region and among competitors.
I notice the artificiality which quickly made me stop doing it, and I believe all or most golfers would, too, thus diminishing the wow effect it might otherwise generate. I am thinking of my three built "Mae West" greens......with the second two attempts really just an effort to prove to myself that it wasn't a great idea, or that the first attempts actually could have been made better with a bit better detailing, LOL. ::)
For that matter, to the degree originality is desired and revered, such copycats probably start out behind the 8 ball anyway. And then, building two mounds on otherwise flat ground where they wouldn't occur is probably the end of the line for believability. Of course, like bunkers in the other thread, one of the reasons I might have chosen to try Mae, or Dolly, mounds, was that the land was devoid of any features that would more naturally give the hole interest. And, in so doing, figuring the average public or resort golfer may or may not have been against artificiality back before 2000, when that was the overall design trend anyway, and why pick on just one example?
-
8)
As someone who built a golf course that I'm proud of but wish it was a little more "quirky" gotta love this topic. It's pretty easy to homogenize a design in the quest for fairness, but more and more I think this is a mistake. Fun is really good , interesting is good , different can be good but "fair" isn't , at least for me here in 2021 a guiding principle if ever I build some more holes.
Certainly some of the great courses I've been privileged to visit had more than a little flair that might be construed as quirk by a lot of us. However we might be restrained by the "emperor has no clothes" effect of being there.
I'm all for a little quirk in design even if you err on the side of too much.....change of mindset since my younger days
-
Archie,
Absolutely agree 100% as I believe every other architect who has chimed in here does as well.
For me, its just a matter of what is classified as Quirky or not. My book is all about trying to quantify many of the terms used in our profession and Quirk is used a bit too freely for what is actually a Quirk versus something that is just simply a cool feature. On your next project you may or may not find something that is quirky, but you will definitely do something that is cool enough that it is worth tossing the term "fair" out the window (where it belongs). I've got a chapter called the Principle of Fairness that discusses just that. Anyone who designs for fairness won't get very far in terms of inspirational design but they may have steady renovation work from management groups, though!
-
...
Anyone who designs for fairness won't get very far in terms of inspirational design
...
If you want to design for fairness, perhaps you should be designing for shuffleboard.
In my experience, the people who complain about fairness are confusing it with difficulty. For the high handicapper, practically everything is difficult, so typically the high handicapper won't complain about fairness.
-
Its interesting,
I don't know if any architect has consistently built more quirky holes than Jim Engh in the last 20-30 years, but seems to get crucified a bit here. And the quirkiest features often are already there, like the huge boulders on 14 at Redlands Mesa, or the rocky cliffs on the back 9 at Black Rock, or the giant wash on 18 at Lakota Canyon.
Perhaps its a bit like being a prophet. The ones from old times seems to be fully accepted and are allegedly the gold standard, but anyone who claims that stuff now? Its looney bin time.....
-
Its interesting,
...
Perhaps its a bit like being a prophet. The ones from old times seems to be fully accepted and are allegedly the gold standard, but anyone who claims that stuff now? Its looney bin time.....
The one course I have played of his (his first) was no quirk, but definitely built looney. Came away wondering how he ever got another job.
-
...
Anyone who designs for fairness won't get very far in terms of inspirational design
...
If you want to design for fairness, perhaps you should be designing for shuffleboard.
In my experience, the people who complain about fairness are confusing it with difficulty. For the high handicapper, practically everything is difficult, so typically the high handicapper won't complain about fairness.
I’ve always thought the low handicappers did not like quirk as much because there is more rub associated with it. And a good shot may be punished which they considered unfair.
-
Since some posters here may not have seen some of the comments that inspired this thread on my Principles book thread, let me throw some of my thoughts out here again straight from the book (by the way, I do love Quirk):
The definition of Quirk is "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."Most often Quirk is manufactured and that is why I say it should never be sought. In other words, don't create something just to be quirky. That doesn't mean that an architect shouldn't create something that may be different; just don't call it a Quirk. Because it isn't.To me, a quirk is something that results from a site constraint that just can't be changed. This is different than something that is just thought-provoking, cool-looking, or just simply different. To illustrate, I use the 3rd hole at White Bear as an example of a quirk. Such a short and small par-three, the hole is a result of the routing of the golf course coming up against the property line, which has a high slope. The hole is a result of its site-constraint as opposed to the same exact hole that may appear somewhere else in a routing solely by the architect's choice. That hole, in its same exact form, designed somewhere else without any site constraints, is equally thought-provoking, cool, and certainly different. It just isn't quirky in that location.
***
Although one may strive to manufacture Quirk in golf architecture, genuine Quirk is revealed when an irresistible force runs into an immovable object. When a golf hole (the irresistible force) must be routed around a topographical feature (immovable object) because that topographical feature can’t be altered, the form the hole takes (adjusted for the immovable object), becomes quirky. Quirky golf course features are simply anomalies of the landscape that can’t be avoided.
***
Quirk only works if it is actually appreciated, making it a subjective ambition. Designers who set out to deliberately create “quirky” golf course features often cross the line toward poor design. When Quirk is done poorly, and lacks appreciation from the end user, pleasant surprise is replaced by disdain, exposing the Principle of Gimmick.By definition, Gimmick is “a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.” The Principle of Gimmick is expected to garner a surprise from the golfer just like the Principle of Quirk. But the result is fleeting at best, especially once surprise subsides and the reality of an impossible shot stares the golfer down. When Quirk fails, one is left with Gimmicks running the gamut from artificial rock formations to angular features to manufacturing building ruins as strategic challenges. Randomly dropping a stone wall into a hole is pure Gimmick. Replicating holes which are more famous for their built environment than their architectural quality falls into the Gimmick category as well.
Very nice insights Richard. If it is already there it is quirk but if you place it there it is a gimmick. I can see that with stone walls and chimneys but does that apply to mounding and volcano bunkers?
-
I remain confused by Richard's quirk definition because everything in design is a choice. Hell, to build a course on a site is choice. With that said, pertaining to modern quirk, the Covesea designer made a choice to create 5 and 7. I think these are highly quirky holes. The 7th in the more traditional sense of hitting blindly over a sea stack. However, the dramatic green sets it apart even moreso. The blind uphill 5th is a bit different, especially with its long narrow green. There are a few other tid bits which add to the overall sense of a quirky course. All I am saying is the modern archie chose to design this modern quirky course and it works. Ok, if Richard thinks quirk is the wrong word, I don't mind funky. I use funky to describe oddball golf anyway.
Ciao
-
I think Richard’s definition has merit but seriously, how many terms/concepts do we all agree on - Very very few.
I still think a pond and a creek are hazards. But now we define them as penalty areas. What does the word best mean? What determines a good site vs a bad site? Are offsite views part of the design or not? What is a links course? When is a course over bunkered? Does width matter? Is original design intent important or even possible to understand? What does restoration mean?
How are we ever going to agree on what is or isn’t quirky? I am anxious to see what Richard’s definition is for silly? And can sometimes silly be the same as quirky or does that depend on who is looking at it ;)
-
Sean, [size=78%]Funky is a great word to use when Quirky doesn't fit the bill. You are right that everything is a choice. A chosen site is a choice consciously made. But specific decisions made within that site may be choices or a result of a quirky situation.[/size]
Mark, the reason we all can't agree on what these definitions are is because golf architecture is subjective, not objective. By the way, I don't have a chapter in my book about the Principle of Silly. It would be silly to do that.
Garland, you are correct that there is a big difference between Difficult and Fair (and I do have separate chapters on those concepts).
Anthony, I would not consider mounds or volcano bunkers as Quirks as they are specific features that are built in response to a specific situation and their form is a subjective decision. Existing features that cause "funky" features to be built are what is Quirky.
-
Richard,
Regarding the chapter on silly, maybe you should add one :D Is a tree planted in the middle of a green silly, quirky, clever, or just plain stupid? Who knows? Maybe you should have a chapter on stupid :D
-
Mark,
There is difference between quirk, funky, funkadelic and funky dung.
When you find a tree - deliberately planted into the center of a putting surface - that is funky dung.
I've written this before somewhere, but still believe that golf courses (and golfers) can be roughly divided into those that seek an objective (even antiseptic) examination and a whimsical adventure.
Quirk - and its' more ornate cousin - funkadelic - are the cornerstones of what makes a certain course endearing.
The Himalayas at Prestwick (inter alia) are beyond quirk - as is Klondike at Lahinch . . . . . and a large chunk of Cruden Bay. I would suggest these are the features that bring forth the personality of the course.
It always astonishes me there are people who hate Mike Stranz' more unusual holes - but many stand bigger than life - and the entertainment value breathes life into why people like me play the game to begin with.
I would also state - putting aside the course is designed around template holes - that the manufactured quirky features at NGLA is central to the reason it remains my favorite golf course in America.
You think the Double-Plateau was just sitting there on #11, waiting to be found? Probably not, but it is manufactured, quirky as hell and huge fun. You think that rampart (lack of a better term) guarding the putting surface on the right side of the Leven Hole was just sitting there when C.B. designed it?
Along the same lines, a primary reason that Pac Dunes is so universally loved is that every single hole has some quirky feature that complicates any attempt to play a straightforward shot.
Go stand on the tee on #2 and tell me Shoe's bunker - sitting in the middle of the fairway, sticking its tongue out at you - isn't quiky and nutty . . . . . until you play the hole twice, once from each side. Now the quirky mounding around the putting surface changes the entire energy flow of the landscape.
I strongly advocate for MORE Quirk and unusual twists and turns. Why not confront golfers with a non-sequitur here and there?
Thinking of starting a thread that asserts the need for a completely new, epochal paradigm - one that throws out most of our conventional ideas of hole numbers, par, length and what strategic elements can be blended into a new architectural matrix.
I was raised by a traditionalist, God knows, but I see the youngsters losing interest in the game for a variety of reasons - and do not believe this current avaricious money-fest the country clubs are enjoying has legs going forward.
-
Gib,
Excellent post and certainly well said!
I'm curious if you've tried much of Jim Enghs quirk and your thoughts on it if so? Other places I've seen flashes of modern quirk done well, is Wine Valley and Sagebrush.
-
Gib,
If I understand correctly, the manufactured "quirk" at The National which I also love, is not really quirk.
-
Mark,
Sometimes - let's use Dan Maples' The Pit (NLE, which kills me) - as an example that quirk can be found first: "Hey, let's hide the putting surface in the cradle behind those sharp mounds we came across . . . . you know, like The Dell" . . . . . but it reaches the level of funkadelic when you "turn the volume up to 11, it gives that extra push over a cliff."
Because it is "one more than 10."
Build it up even higher! Get outrageous! The original strategic configuration (and swale depth in front of the green) on Bandon #10 is brilliant! Make it totally blind by stacking the existing mounding to the sky and let everybody taking the short route to the green get a little rectal pucker, knowing they are coming at it from a perpendicular angle - with a trough between the mounding and the dance floor.
"Found" quirk, elevated by escalation.
BTW, if you don't get the reference above, consider yourself to have flunked today's cultural literacy test and go back five squares.
-
Gib,
I get the reference. So how do you classify much of the surprise and unusual features at Tobacco Road (some of which were there and some of which were manufactured) who knows which is which just like those two huge sand hills you play through/over on #1? If the architect is clever enough to fool the golfer what was built vs what was there/natural - good for the architect :)
I am playing a course on January 8th where on the first hole you tee off over a big green hedge of bushes hiding a fairly busy road to a fairway you can’t really see. It is one of the greatest and at the same time most unusual starting tee shots in all of golf. I think I know but honestly am not 100% sure what was there first? Does it matter ;)
-
Then if quirk is found, created out of whole cloth - or the feature is an enhancement of what was already there - it really *doesn't* matter, now does it?
David Kidd once told me - when I asked a real specific question on whether a particular feature came out of his head, out of the ground, or a little bit of both - his response was "If I am clever enough to create a feature that is indistinguishable from what was there on the ground already, only a fool would tell you how it came about!"
-
Gib,
Thumbs up !!
But just to clarify, is that hole i mentioned quirky or not, or does it depend ;)
What would Richard say :)
-
David Kidd once told me - when I asked a real specific question on whether a particular feature came out of his head, out of the ground, or a little bit of both - his response was "If I am clever enough to create a feature that is indistinguishable from what was there on the ground already, only a fool would tell you how it came about!"
Couldn't agree more
-
I've never been afraid to "manufacture" quirk. I think the word should not be reserved for only the serendipitiousbecause that would cheat the artist from a paintbrush that is quite amazing. Gib knows what I tried to do at Peacock Gap, and it worked until an owner came along who disagreed with the notion and concept. I would say 33% of what I did at Peacock in 2005-07 was "quirk" — and it came from my mind, my soul and my paintbrush. A lot of it got erased, but it was purely manufactured — like the scripts my daughter gets to read nearly daily.
-
A very good thread, but I see that my definition of quirk is much different than the one Gib and others seem to be using -- and so now I'm not not sure if I even understood (or agreed/disagreed with) Richard M's initial thoughts on it.
Well, so I guess my view is some combination of:
Armstrong: There's only two types of music, good and bad.
Ellington: It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.
The aliens to Woody Allen: Make funnier movies!
-
Then if quirk is found, created out of whole cloth - or the feature is an enhancement of what was already there - it really *doesn't* matter, now does it?
David Kidd once told me - when I asked a real specific question on whether a particular feature came out of his head, out of the ground, or a little bit of both - his response was "If I am clever enough to create a feature that is indistinguishable from what was there on the ground already, only a fool would tell you how it came about!"
Which leaves open whether he was ducking the question, because he didn't want to admit the feature was natural and he's not that clever. :D
I'm no fool but I happily just wrote a book to tell you where each feature at Pacific Dunes came from.
-
Gib,
If I understand correctly, the manufactured "quirk" at The National which I also love, is not really quirk.
I used the word quirky to describe NGLA in the original edition of The Confidential Guide -- meant endearingly -- but several of their members were bothered by the word, and the old pro Mike Muller called me "Quirky" Doak ever after that.
To me, this whole thread is kind of crazy, because it revolves around words instead of around golf. Trying to design features that are quirky is just as bad as trying to design a course that's fair! It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF. Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.
-
It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF. Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.
I just had a vivid image of a parent-teacher interview some 50 years ago, with your mother sitting across from your Grade 4 teacher, as:
"Well, Mrs. Doak, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that your Tommy truly has a wonderful way with words. The bad news is that unfortunately he seems more interested in playing around outside in the mud, with sticks, forever cutting it away into funny shapes!"
-
It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF. Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.
I just had a vivid image of a parent-teacher interview some 50 years ago, with your mother sitting across from your Grade 4 teacher, as:
"Well, Mrs. Doak, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that your Tommy truly has a wonderful way with words. The bad news is that unfortunately he seems more interested in playing around outside in the mud, with sticks, forever cutting it away into funny shapes!"
My mom was all in favor of me spending my life outdoors!
I just think it's kinda silly to be trying to establish *rules* for quirk, of all things. If you're going to do quirk, just let it fly!
-
It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF. Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.
I just had a vivid image of a parent-teacher interview some 50 years ago, with your mother sitting across from your Grade 4 teacher, as:
"Well, Mrs. Doak, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that your Tommy truly has a wonderful way with words. The bad news is that unfortunately he seems more interested in playing around outside in the mud, with sticks, forever cutting it away into funny shapes!"
My mom was all in favor of me spending my life outdoors!
I just think it's kinda silly to be trying to establish *rules* for quirk, of all things. If you're going to do quirk, just let it fly!
Exactly., I keep re-reading Richard's definition and coming up none the wiser. How the hell does anything different get built unless archies stick their necks out? As a fan of old school weirdly built features I have zero issues with a guy having a go at building something quirky. Otherwise we wouldn't have places like Kington to enjoy.
Ciao
-
To me, this whole thread is kind of crazy, because it revolves around words instead of around golf. Trying to design features that are quirky is just as bad as trying to design a course that's fair! It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF. Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.
This x 1000. If this thread were a college course, the required reading would be Roget's Thesaurus, not The Confidential Guide. Here, everyone gets to be his own Potter Stewart.
-
Gib,
If I understand correctly, the manufactured "quirk" at The National which I also love, is not really quirk.
I used the word quirky to describe NGLA in the original edition of The Confidential Guide -- meant endearingly -- but several of their members were bothered by the word, and the old pro Mike Muller called me "Quirky" Doak ever after that.
To me, this whole thread is kind of crazy, because it revolves around words instead of around golf. Trying to design features that are quirky is just as bad as trying to design a course that's fair! It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF. Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.
Have you placed stone walls or ruins in any of your courses that where not previously there ? Do you have any courses that have those elements? Would you put them if a client asked?
-
8)
So here's the paradox....if you go out looking to be quirky it can blow up but if it evolves it can be such fun. I often think of Banks work at Forsgate in our area where the quirk is all over the place but it fits, it works.
So in an art (GCA) hemmed in by accepted norms that tend to be quite formulaic : based on a par whether it be a 3,4 or 5 ,with a scoring goal that make uniformity in playing areas and hazards almost a necessity how does one build "quirk" into a design?
Methinks those with good resumes and past successes could be more innovative (dare I say quirky) ;D given that at the end of the day they have to do a job , but have more freedom to do it!
-
I disagree with the premise.
Wasn't the 6th green at Pacific Dunes found AND created?
Tom?
Bogey
-
Have you placed stone walls or ruins in any of your courses that where not previously there ? Do you have any courses that have those elements? Would you put them if a client asked?
Yes, or kind of. At The Renaissance Club we had to preserve a lot of stone walls that were there, but we also rebuilt a couple that were gone. At Stonewall (North) we rebuilt several walls that were pretty much down to rubble.
I'm not a fan of the house ruins [basements] used as hazards at Devil's Paintbrush and Mammoth Dunes, though. If there's going to be a house in play I want it to still be standing, because that gives you a vertical element you wouldn't encounter otherwise [as the stone walls do].
-
JMEvensky,
Fabulously sly cultural reference - although the Wikipedia page might not make explain the connection to our international Treehouse dwellers. I know "quirk" when I see it, too! I guess you could assert it as a form of Golf Porn.
TD,
Mike Muller had quite a sense of humor - he thought it a practical joke to send my on my maiden voyage with Timmonds, but even 34 years later, the Little Man sits atop the center podium as my favorite caddy ever.
Forrest,
The point of this thread is to identify and explore quirk - and trying to express how much I love what you did at Peacock Gap, well, there are no words, even from me.
Not to swell your head - putting aside we are good friends - you took a marginal, unkempt, 6,000 yard muni and turned it into a spiritual cousin of Prestwick or Lahinch.
Neal and I were lucky to be there on a less crowded day because we spent so much time studying things like that bathtub green on the par-5 - and we actually got moved along by the Marshall on #10, just having fun hitting putts from all over the green.
Even the watered-down version of what you did is still well worth a look, but that was a rare instance when we both ran from green to tee, dying to see what came next.
We went to introduce ourselves to the Head Pro and let him know how much we loved the golf course - only to find a smug, humorless, British prig who launched into a dissertation about all the changes he would be insisting on because "the architect went completely over-the-top."
I instantly hated him - one of those tight-ass, limey twats that John Cleese and Eddie Izzard use for target practice. It seemed his entire objective was to erase the most interesting, creative and FUN features, because anything dullards like him cannot understand, they seek to destroy.
Luckily, new management did not have the funds to turn the entire silk purse into Arnold Ziffel's ear. Not to belabor the point, but if you take the mirrors out of a Funhouse, it is just another house.
BTW, love what you did at my cousin's joint at Mira Vista - and before I blew up my back again, found myself running down to Baylands once a month with my homies. Lots of clever quirk there . . . . but Peacock was in a class by itself.
-
Gib, I'm kvelling.
-
I'm glad you are "chuffed." ;-)
-
Gib — That may be my all-time fav post on the Atlas :) The "T" word...My God, brilliant. And, thank you for the kind words. I was always proud of what we did, not that I would have changed a few things. Thanks.
-
TD,
Mike Muller had quite a sense of humor - he thought it a practical joke to send my on my maiden voyage with Timmonds, but even 34 years later, the Little Man sits atop the center podium as my favorite caddy ever.
[size=78%] [/size]
Was that Mike Muller or his brother Billy, the caddie master?
I played there early this spring, and on the fifth hole my caddie asked if I remembered him? It was Robert Sheridan, who had worked on our construction crew at Riverfront in VA thirty years ago, and even lived in the site house with me and Eric and James Duncan and the golf pro, Tom McCarthy! [He was wearing so many clothes that I wouldn't have recognized him even had he looked the same.] That could not have been a coincidence, and kudos to Billy M. for that pairing.
-
The definition of Quirk is a definition, no matter how you want to apply it. It is, "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn, or curve." It isn't necessarily my definition but I do love it and think that any golf courses that have some quirk are all the better for it.
My design preference, though (which is akin to one's philosophy, which makes every architect different, and which is the reason this site is so active for two decades now, by the way), is that Quirk should come naturally, and isn't manufactured just for creativity's sake. To me, Quirk happens when an irresistible force runs into an immovable object. In other words, when a feature is absolutely necessary in the design process and its form is altered because of an immovable object (a road, a real building that can't be avoided, a topographic feature compromised by a property line), then it is a Quirk that wasn't expected. In other words, the architect came up with a great design solution to a problem.
When it is not, and it is just manufactured, it just isn't a Quirk. A feature that is completely manufactured based on an architect's creativity may be a great feature, it just may not be Quirky. My point in all of this is that people apply the term "Quirky" a bit too loosely when funky, or innovative, or just "cool" are probably better terms, technically-speaking. Quirk is just not a catch-all for anything that may be inspiring or thought-provoking.
Tom makes my point when he says it is crazy to design something that is Quirky. Just let it happen. Archie as well when he says that if one goes out intentionally seeking Quirky, it may blow up in one's face.
Again, I do love Quirk, so I'm not dismissing it and I try to create things in my work that many here would call Quirky. I just would rather call those features funky or innovative, or different, etc.
By the way, you are all getting sucked into needing my book when I am done because if you think this Quirk exploration is fascinating, you will definitely get riled up about the other chapters. The one on Fairness comes to mind.
-
Richard,
Your definition or “the” definition of quick says nothing about whether it is found or manufactured. You have added that aspect. Any architect who is dealt a flat featureless site will beg to differ that they can’t do anything quirky in their design because there is none there to start.
As far as fairness, that is also a very subjective definition. I for example have NEVER seen anything that I would describe as unfair in golf. Stupid yes, but not unfair.
-
Richard,
Your definition or “the” definition of quick says nothing about whether it is found or manufactured. You have added that aspect. Any architect who is dealt a flat featureless site will beg to differ that they can’t do anything quirky in their design because there is none there to start.
As far as fairness, that is also a very subjective definition. I for example have NEVER seen anything that I would describe as unfair in golf. Stupid yes, but not unfair.
Mark,
The US open had a forced carry at Bethpage a number of years back and I can't recall the hole number, but it had like a 260 yard carry from tee to fairway, and there were a few in the field who couldn't make it...that was only stupid but not unfair too?
-
Mark,
THE definition of Quirk mentions nothing about found or manufactured. You are correct. MY personal preference is that it is found, not manufactured. I didn't add that; rather it's my own opinion.
You are right about a flat site, I'm just saying don't call it Quirky. Call it something else: Cool, innovative, funky, etc. Again, my own personal preference.
Also, don't assume my chapter on Fairness reflects an opinion that unfair is a legitimate concern.
-
Theoretically, could one not build these quirky holes anywhere:
The 12th at The Old Course
The 4th at Spyglass Hill
The 5th at Pacific Dunes
The 17th at Pebble Beach Golf Links
Just to name a few.
Even after setting aside CB, Seth and Charles I'd reckon a high majority of quality quirk is manufactured.
Bogey
-
Bogey,
The question I would ask is if the road behind Spyglass #4 was there first or not. Yet even if it was, the hole could have been shortened to avoid that "immovable object." Yet it probably wouldn't have been as cool.
Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):
The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green. An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason. Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides. But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick.
-
Richard,
Given that the universal definition of quirk does not call out whether it is found or manufactured, why can’t quirk be manufactured and still fit the definition?
Is the bunker in the center of the green on #6 at Riviera quirky? Someone who has never seen that before might think so. Or they may call it silly or stupid or weird or gimmicky or clever or,…? Couldn’t it be any of those including quirky?
Kalen,
I remember that at Bethpage. It was silly and stupid in the eyes of many but others didn’t even notice. That is just a 4I for Bryson these days :)
There is a 20 foot deep green side bunker at PGA West. Many who are playing medal play would call it ridiculous or stupid, others playing match play might say, I am screwed, your hole, I am picking up while others might call it the site of their greatest recovery shot ever when they some how get up and down 😊. Just don’t call it unfair ;)
-
As for manufactured quirk, how could I forget my beloved 15th at Fenway. Perhaps my favorite hole in America.
Richard, yours is a reasonable take on Pebble's 17th. While I'm not ticked off in the least I must confess an irrational love of the hole and might counter your position by arguing that missing far right to a left-half hole location rightly turns the affair to a half-par proposition. One CAN putt from one half to the other but might need to make a 12 footer for par. Arguably, the golfer missing wide right is not "entitled" to be afforded an automatic two-putt. Alternatively with the generous bail-out right of the green, there's not much excuse to leave the tee ball on the left half of the green, requiring the awkward putt over the neck. In that case the golfer gets what he deserves.
All the best,
Mike
-
Bogey,
The question I would ask is if the road behind Spyglass #4 was there first or not. Yet even if it was, the hole could have been shortened to avoid that "immovable object." Yet it probably wouldn't have been as cool.
Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):
The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green. An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason. Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides. But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick.
As with practically everything in golf design, if not overused, I have no issue with dogleg putting. This happened to me twice at Tobacco Road in the same round...that's too much. 😎
Ciao
-
The idiotic 17th at Pebble is not an original design issue, it is deferred maintenance - and remains in this state out of pure stubbornness.
There is a difference between "shabby chic" shabby shiite.
And as long as I'm riding the heresy train, the tree to the right on #18 at Pebble - replaced at huge expense - adds nothing of value to the hole. Why am I blocked out from the right side of the fairway? Or maybe they can add wider (read: arbitrary) rough lines.
Just put a couple bunkers over there if you want to skinny up the layup shot.
It also reminds me of that absurd bird-shit tree that adorns the right side of Olympic Lake #18. Planted right next to "Tommy Nakajima's tree" - that fell over 20-odd years ago.
To paraphrase Jerry Garcia: "Like old whores and ugly architecture, if you hang around long enough you eventually get respectable."
Same brainless solution . . . . . grow the rough into fairway right and force players to aim at the divot farm on the left. Just the way everybody wants to hit that iconic short approach, from the muddy bottom of an unreplaced panty pelt.
In this case, not to be cruder than I am normally, the rug should match the curtains.
-
Will manicured rough, fairways lined with tall trees, bunkers surrounded by collars of rough, fountains and other things that are currently out of favour with some (me included) one day be considered as quirky (and thus kind of be acceptable)?
Atb
-
...
Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):
The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green. An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason. Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides. But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick.
It seems to me that the 17th is not quirky, but unusual, and perhaps insightful. As I recall, the designer explicitly said there were two greens, an amateur one, and a professional one. For amateurs playing to their green, it seems that overclubbing and reaching the professional green would be a rare occurrence. And for professionals playing to their green it should be rare that they mishit so badly that they reach amateur green. However, even if they do, they are not forced to putt, thereby leaving a long second putt for par. This was aptly demonstrated by Gary Woodland in his US Open win.
-
TD,
Mike's brother was there, but I only met him briefly - this was long before I was introduced to Uncle George - I think 1988?.
Flying solo this trip, I wandered into the Pro Shop on a quiet afternoon and there was this enormous man, watching Jeopardy on a B&W TV (with one of the caddies), smoking Pall Mall cigarettes, munching handfuls of Pistachio nuts.
Mike pointed to a third chair and told me to sit down - I declined the nuts or a cig - and started gently asking historical questions, which he answered between Jeopardy questions.
After the show was over, he lifted himself out of the chair, looked at the kid (whose name escapes me) and said "Let's give him Timmonds."
Of course, I had no clue who or what that meant - but I do recall the kid bursting out laughing and saying "You wanna send him out with record player?" I later learned that nickname referred to Timmonds' schtick of stories from his many years at National - but his endearing qualities had worn thin on some of the upper cut-crust, humorless tightasses.
Timmonds did not really pack anymore - and a few members had gone off the last half hour - so Mike's brother (whose name also escapes me), sent us out with a cart (I walked) to start at the Bottle Hole.
The tone was set immediately by this little man, I hit a pretty good tee shot and asked him where to aim it an how far we were. Don't miss to the right . . . . .
"Now look young fella," said the little man with three jackets and oversized shoes, "nevermind about how far, you let me worry about what club to hit and we're gonna get along just fine today."
Number of misclubs: 0
Number of putts questionably read: 0
Best score at NGLA to this day - by 4 shots.
And yes, even being a working stiff, I gave Timmonds $100 tip and a near-tearful hug.
I'm probably repeating this story, since I snuck into the Treehouse window 20-odd years ago, but by the time we putted out at the Road Hole (our 18th), it was like my first Dead Show . . . . something both confusing, yet personally epochal - as if the accumulated matrix in my mind after a lifetime of playing golf exploded into a kaleidoscopic understanding of what is possible.
Of course, it was like Moonwatcher standing hypnotized by the Monolith, unable to even contemplate the meaning of my fleeting glimpse into this 4th dimensional portal.
I stumbled back into the Pro Shop in daze, jabbering like mental patient. Mike pointed to a red bound book on the shelf he thought I might like to read:
It was "Scotland's Gift."
P.S. Six years later - having read every architecture book I could get my hands on - I was fortunate enough to have lunch (between rounds) with the Club Secretary at Mid Ocean, who popped open the cabinet and let me thumb through an original printing of C.B.'s tome. The run # was #001.
By that point, I'd gone back to newspaper and magazine golf writing (amongst other subjects) and it was like a Biblical scholar being allowed to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls.
-
Richard,
Given that the universal definition of quirk does not call out whether it is found or manufactured, why can’t quirk be manufactured and still fit the definition?
Is the bunker in the center of the green on #6 at Riviera quirky? Someone who has never seen that before might think so. Or they may call it silly or stupid or weird or gimmicky or clever or,…? Couldn’t it be any of those including quirky?
Mark,
It absolutely can be manufactured and still fit the definition. Again, my personal preference is that it isn't manufactured. If it is, then call it silly or stupid or weird or gimmicky or clever, etc. The big point here for me is that I don't think we should design things just for the sake of creating "quirk."
-
When a local public course was built, there were five large silos scattered over the property.
All were kept.
Two protect the corner of a dogleg.
One provides a sight line for blind shots over a hill.
Another is 300 yds out in the middle of a wide fairway on a par four.
A fun case of found, modern quirkiness.
-
Richard,
We all have our opinions and it is fun to debate. You don’t want to call anything that is unique but is manufactured quirky. That is your call just like I don’t like to call anything in GCA “unfair”. So be it.
What might be another interesting debate would be a thread titled:
“Bunkers should be found and not created.” So many architects try to build bunkers like those found on the original links courses. Makes no sense to do that does it especially in locations where there never would be a natural bunker :D
-
Bogey,
The question I would ask is if the road behind Spyglass #4 was there first or not. Yet even if it was, the hole could have been shortened to avoid that "immovable object." Yet it probably wouldn't have been as cool.
Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):
The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green. An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason. Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides. But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick.
17 at PB definitely needs resorted. At times the best play is to chip on that green but it violates etiquette so you just accept the three putt and move on to the next hole.