This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
What's really funny is how certain people on GCA have such disdain for what Muirhead did but if you changed the last name of the designer from Muirhead to say Ross, Tillie or even C&C such a situation would be looked upon a bit differently. Makes you wonder how they define and apply quirk?
Now, that's just not the case. And anyway, how did quirk become such a blatant man made fabrication such as the Muirhead hole? Holes like Yale's 18th derive their quirk from circumstances, as you suggested, they aren't contrived.Muirhead wasn't going for quirk, at least not from what I've seen of his writings.
"However, while the Jaws hole is gone,"The notable "Jaws" hole at Stone Harbor is not gonel. All that was done is the teeth were filed off and the sharks jaws were gently closed onto each side of the green (the bunkers are no longer separated by water).
I define quirk is being "unpredictable" and clearly out of the norm.
What is the norm? I define that by some allegiance to the proposition that the good shot is rewarded and the poor shot is penalized proportionally to the manner in which it is executed. If I believe correctly isn't that what good design tries to do?
You say they don't -- but I can name more than a few courses in the NY / NJ area where old time designers took existing land and simply built on it irrespective of the desire to apply even handed application of good shot rewarded / bad shot penalized maxim. I really believe some of these designers included such holes to be 19th hole conversation pieces and many of them still are.Look, I don't doubt such holes can be fun, but if a course has an abundance of quirk it's likely going to be one that runs very closely to the words I just mentioned before -- sporty, tricky and gimmick.