[SB]

Quirk is better for golfers of all abilities, not vice-versa.  Most 15+ handicappers I know would rather spend the day at NGLA having a shot at the short par 4's than getting their brains beat in next door at SH.  If most golfers can't bang out 300 yard drives right down the middle, would they TRULY prefer Winged Foot or Fenway?  From a ratings standpoint, I guess it depends on whether the ratings judge difficulty.  It's part of the equation, but there's certainly more to my ideal golf course than getting abused.

[Dan King]

Rich Goodale writes:
As to Dan's CB quote, is this not in complete contradiction to the "Tufts Bible," which Tom Paul tells us guides the rules, and which--if I remember correctly--is based on the legal principle of "equity?"

Apples and oranges.

One is talking about the rules, the other the game itself.

Dan King

"Running through the Rules are underlying principles, that, like the steel rods which lie below the surface of reinforced concrete, serve to bind together the brittle material and to give it strength."
 --Richard S. Tufts

[ForkaB]

Apples and apples, I think, Dan, if you beleive both Tufts and CB (which I do not necessarily do....)

CB--In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice.

Tufts--Running through the Rules are underlying principles

As Manuel used to say in Fawlty Towers:

"Que?"

[texsport]

After reading through these definitions and examples of quirky holes it would seem obvious that a quirk is memorable and remarkable, instantly bringing to mind other features of a course. Not a bad way to improve your ratings or sell a product. Just like an irritating T.V. commercial-name recognition is the intent.

Texsport

[Jim Sweeney]

The unexpected.

A few examples from one of my favorites-

The diagonal humpback fairway on #5;

The boomerang green on #7;

The great par 5 #8 with no fairway bunkers;

The steeply pitched green at #11;

The short par 4 #17- go for glory with the possibility of ruining your score;

Did you guess?


Crystal Downs.

[ed_getka]

Quirk to me is anything I see on the course that makes me say, "what the heck...". I equate quirk with fun. #12 at Plainfield is quirky, and brilliant architecture, and really fun to play.

[guest]

Pete Dye's island green, especially the fact that he thought to include a sand trap.

[Matt_Ward]

Now that many have opined on a definition I ask the following -- when does quirk go "over the top" and become a situation that delves into the gimmick, the hoax, the sham of design? I often hear people say a course has plenty of "quirk" because it happens to be "tricky" or its close cousin "sporty." Sometimes when I just hear that word I often grab my clubs and car keys and head in the opposite direction.

Is there an example of a specific course that uses quirk well one way but then fails to use it in another situation?

Mike C mentioned that "quirk is inconsistency." How does that jive with the fact that on the whole sound shot values for any course rest more on the pay-off for consistency? If the predominant aspect of course is quirk and if it so meets what Mike has indicated by being so utterly inconsistent and based on "unfairness" then does such a course belong in the same pantheon of the superb courses often discussed here on GCA? Please realize I'm not naive to believe / suggest that all of golf must be fair and somehow consistent but if inconsistency is the rubric how does one measure or assess quality shotmaking? Does one just toss it up in the air and hope for the best?

I like the fact that Mike mentioned that quirk is "natural" -- I then ask can quirk be "manufactured" today given the propensity for many designs to be heavy handed with man's hand? To give just one modern example -- is the 17th at TPC / Stadium a quirk hole?

[guest]

Matt, as you can judge by my post before your last post, my answer is yes. It strikes me as quirky.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

Gary Player once bemoaned the fact that The Old Course and other links courses in Scotland such as Carnoustie had bunkers in the middle of fairways.  According to Player, "The element of luck must be reduced or minimized.  I've always been taught that the center of the fairway is where to hit the ball!"

Without getting into the irony that Player won at Carnoustie, or belaboring the fact that Player's courses tend to be very "fair", drab affairs, you raise an interesting point about quirk.

To be honest, Matt...it's a balance.  Just as the perfectly "fair" course would look something like a USGA US Open setup only with soft conditions, a totally quirky course would do little to differentiate between various standards of play.  Too much would be left to chance.

However, the game of golf was never meant to be fair or consistent, and at its best, and on our best courses, golf very closely mirrors real life which is similarly unpredictable and subject to the whims of fate and happenstance.  

It's just that the best quirk remains fun and inspiring no matter the outcome.  Great quirk lets us see the effects of bad fortune and makes us laugh out loud about it!  

Remember also that luck and whimsical quirk works both ways.  Great golf courses provide not only a test of shotmaking with the clubs, but the infinitely more important tests of character, patience, thinking, good humored acceptance, perserverance, and faith.  

[Slag_Bandoon]

Pacific Dunes is rated higher than Bandon Dunes, I think, because of much more quirk on PD.  Bandon has some but Pd has more.  BD is graceful while PD is shredded.  I'm not trying to simplify strengths or weaknesses but quirks give my eyes, mind and heart the hook for my affections.    

"Imperfection is its inherent beauty."  

[JSlonis]

Mike,

Your first paragraph quote of Gary Player makes me laugh, given that on the 1st hole of "his" design Olde York CC(NJ), you can find a STRIP OF ROUGH in the middle of the fairway landing area.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Ward -

You read my mind. I was going to list Sawgrass #17 as one of the quirkiest holes I have ever seen. Features don't come much larger or more severe.

I would LOVE to play this hole every day!

[TEPaul]

Rich Goodale said:

"As to Dan's CB quote, is this not in complete contradiction to the "Tufts Bible," which Tom Paul tells us guides the rules, and which--if I remember correctly--is based on the legal principle of "equity?""

And Dan King responded;

"Apples and oranges.

One is talking about the rules, the other the game itself.

Dan King

Quote:"Running through the Rules are underlying principles, that, like the steel rods which lie below the surface of reinforced concrete, serve to bind together the brittle material and to give it strength."
--Richard S. Tufts

To which Rich responded:

"Apples and apples, I think, Dan, if you beleive both Tufts and CB (which I do not necessarily do....)

CB--In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice.

Tufts--Running through the Rules are underlying principles

As Manuel used to say in Fawlty Towers:

"Que?"

Rich:

You should listen a little more carefully to what Dan King said;  

"Apples and oranges.
One is talking about the rules, the other the game itself."

Dan is absolutely right about that distinction and what C.B Macdonald was referring to and what Richard Tufts was referring to. The fact that you don't seem to be aware of that fundamental distinction between the game of golf and the Rules of golf as pertains to the general subject of "equity"  (or more particularly "fairness" as CB was referring to the playing of the game not the rules) doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Have you ever read Tufts book? Have you ever seen it?

Tufts's book is called "The Prinicples Behind the Rules of Golf" and he outlines as best as one can why things within the rules are as they are.

As pertains to the idea of "equity" in the rules context (not the general context of the fairness of the game) Tufts entitles chapter 10 "When We Do Wrong", and follows that by Chapter 11 entitled "The Scales of Justice" which deals with the idea of how "equity" (justice) is applied when things go wrong! (which is not in the slightest the same thing that might be thought to involve some of the little "unfairnesses" that take place when one is playing the game and nothing has gone wrong in a rules context).

And I definitely never said anything like the concept of "equity" (justice) in the rules of golf is based on any legal principle of "equity".

Not unless there's some legal principle of "equity" somewhere based on the unique golf Rules concept of "equity know as;

"Like situations shall be treated alike"

Do you know of a legal principle of "equity" somewhere that's based on that concept Rich?
 

[ForkaB]

Tom

My understanding is that the concept of "equity" has been a central part of the Anglo-US legal system for many centuries, even before the USGA came along.  I guess that this concept means very much what Tufts said (i.e. like treated alike).  I'll defere to the legal eagles on this site to tell me if I am right or wrong, however.

I did read read the two quotes and understand the semantic difference between the "game" and the "rules" (which are, however, a part of the game and serve largely to define it, do they not?).  Personally I think that CB is exaggerating the "unfairness" aspect of golf.  An overwhelmingly large percentage of the bad shots that I see or play myself tend to get punished.  A similarly high percentage of the good ones get rewarded.  The fact that ther is a small percnetage of unfairness, is, of course, one of the great charms of the game.

[Pete_Pittock]

Quirk is a scrabble word worth eighteen points. It's what makes you smile, and try and work it into playing the hole.
It isn't pretty, but can't be forgotten. It's what makes a hole memorable if you throw away the frame. Its slightly off-center golf.

[Forrest Richardson]

I have been told that it is OK to post a few excerpts from my writing, few have complained. Those that have complained will never get a signed Cypress print. Here are some thoughts on the subject:

...[T]he second poster child of quirkiness is Church Stretton. Founded in 1898 and designed by James Braid, this English course reaches new heights in more ways than one. First, it is essential to know that Church Stretton is built around a mountain. Well, a large hill anyway. When James Braid set foot on the land, he obviously knew that locating the clubhouse on the top would create all sorts of problems, including a congested site and lots of uphill walks. So what to do? Braid ingeniously began with three short holes, all par 3s. They elevate the golfer more than 350-feet to the top of the world, at least in terms of the usually calm land of the south of England. No. 1 is 181 yards, No. 2 is 110, and No. 3 is 165. From the vantage point of the fourth tee, one can see just about 360 degrees. And from here one can also see why Braid did this. How better to ascend the hill in a controlled manner? By using par 3s in succession, he managed to take the golfer from point to point, whereas longer holes would have burdened many a golfer by making the experience laborious and tiring. No matter that these are the opening holes. The balance of the course is almost entirely downgrade. How delightful! How quirky...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Forrest, Tom MacWood, and a few others in that quirk has to be natural to be effective.  The dell hole at Lahainch, the Alps at Prestwick, are good quirk, because no one bulldozed it.  Most modern versions of bulldozed versions don't cut it.  They are tacky, in part, because we have seen them before.

In a sense, I also agree with Tom Fazio - there is not as much excuse for it today.  You would normally try to get rid of it today.  So, the historical context afects my perception of quirk as much as the natural.  We give the old guys credit for leaving something alone because we know they had too, and it worked out all right.

Uniqueness, and necessity define good quirk, in my eyes.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Appreciate your post, however, my emphasis wasn't on maintaining some semblance of perfect "fairness." I understand the vagaries of golf and how quality architecture will often throw a few "curve balls" at the player during the round. To me that's fine -- players should adjust "within reason" and proceed with what's needed.

The question for me Mike is rather straightforward: when does quirk go off the slippery slope and become the "gimmick" -- the "tricky" -- the "sporty?"

As I said from the outset there are a few GW raters who've told me how important quirk is with their assessment on golf courses. I have to wonder if quirk is really an area of emphasis or should it be treated as nothing more than a side element that if present is fine but should never trample the major tenets of sound architectural dictum -- the good shot being rewarded and the poor shot being penalized proportionate to the manner in which it was executed.

Mike, I find the term "quirk" to be like jello -- you can see it but putting your fingers around it can be really tough. I asked in my initial post how important quirk is for those who do rate courses? I believe an open mind is essential, but if the arcane and silly becomes a focal point for courses then I wonder if the core ingredients are getting the proper due they deserve when being evaluated.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff -- You are the eleventh person in the history of GCA to agree with Fazio. I have a full-time research staff who has confirmed this. Congratulations.

[ForkaB]

Forrest

OK, fess up.  Where is Church Stretton?  Sounds suspiciously like the Queen of Quirk, Painswick (except there, it takes 7 holes and about 800 feet to get to the top of the "Beacon"...........)

Rihc

[ForkaB]

Forrest

Never mind.  I've found it at the link below, which I would recommend to everyone.  Great course review.

http://www.worldgolf.com/course-reviews/england/church-stretton-golf.htm

Pete Pittock

This is on your way from Painswick to Cruden Bay.  How flexible is your June itinerary?

[Forrest Richardson]

And the writer even used the word "quirky"! Thanks for the link.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike C:

...I have to wonder if quirk is really an area of emphasis or should it be treated as nothing more than a side element that if present is fine but should never trample the major tenets of sound architectural dictum -- the good shot being rewarded and the poor shot being penalized proportionate to the manner in which it was executed.

Matt;

I'd address your question two ways.  First, I think we're talking about quirk vs consistency on a gradient here.  How far can things be pushed in the direction of quirk without becoming pure gimmickry and how far can things be pushed in the direction of consistency without becoming boringly stifling?  I don't know but I can think of examples that work, irregardless.

Who decided to place the 17th tee at The Old Course awkwardly and blindly behind the railway sheds?  Was it a gimmick when Tillinghast decided that 2,500 sq.ft. was quite enough greenspace for the 15th at Fenway?  Was it quirk or gimmick when Ross decided that the first half of the 11th green at Plainfield should follow the natural slope so severely as to be a giant false front?  How about the 4th green at Hollywood, where my tee shot landed about halfway up the green on the right (and you KNOW I don't have great backspin) only to then sit in bewilderment watching it slowly, almost imperceptibly creep off the front of the green and careen down the slope below?  These are just a few examples off the top of my head...

However, I would go even further out and tell you that I don't believe in the philosophy of a golf course as a "test", and I think this is where we differ in some ways, as much as we find agreement in others.

You argue that a "good shot" should be justly rewarded, and a poor shot PROPORTIONATELY penalized.  I like to call this "progressive discipline", and I think that type of structured approach is most often seen in the US Open setup, where a narrow fairway is first protected by 2-3 inch rough for 6 feet, then 4-6 inch rough for 10-15 yards, then wild stuff beyond (which doesn't factor in that this gets tramped down by spectators ).  Most greens are then protected similarly against anything but a high, aerial approach, usually again with thick rough for anything "missing".  We saw lots of this at Bethpage last year.  This type of thinking is "target golf" to the extreme, and yes, it does reward a certain type of straight shot, and penalize a non-straight shot.  Fair enough.  

It just seems that this type of game could be played on a driving range, with points awarded to whoever gets their ball closest to the target.  Of course, putting would have to be included, but the whole thing could take place on 20 acres of a practice facility.

Frankly, I don't believe that golf courses should be a "test", nor should they dictate rewards and punishments within some narrowly defined construct.  They should "be", and exist to be "played".  The "test" is self-defined by the game...trying to put a ball in a hole some hundreds of yards away in the least number of swipes.  Isn't that test enough?  For comparative purposes, if you are a more accomplished golfer than I am, shouldn't you be able to score lower than I no matter what course we're playing?  

It seems to me that the more we narrowly define (in our architecture) what type of shots are rewarded and which are successful, the more we limit what the game can be.  We start to take the fun and adventure out of it, and our puny human minds can no more improve on what nature and our instinctual response to nature provides than we can hold back the winds or the tides.    

 

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Your use of the US Open is a very nicely done philosophic argument but one you've INSERTED -- not I.

What I am saying is this Mike -- quirk allows for the architect to bring forward some "architectural license" -- sometimes that license go beyond what many people think is sane -- just think of the former 7th hole at Stone Harbor by the late Desmond Muirhead.

I don't believe golf needs to a be a complete target game as you outline -- I do like and acknowledge the free flowing types of design that don't provide the straightjacket approach of narrow fairway follwoed by narrow fairway with the perimeter hemmed in by choking rough. Witness my enthusiasm for Wild Horse, Twisted Dune, Rustic Canyon and Barona Creek (when it dries out).

A quirk is an expression within design that allows for imagination and creativity. The question for me IS one of proportionality. If you take a quirk and it becomes the MAIN INGREDIENT of a course I've often found from many course visits that the way in which shotmaking is rewarded can be turned on its head. I'm not an advocate of 100 percent justice (it cannot be achieved because golf is golf and unfair outcomes happen), but I trust you are not promoting the utter vagaries which then become the norm in playing. How then does one measure successs if luck becoms the dominant ingredient?

Mike, a round of golf is the TOTALITY of 18 holes. These "individual" experiences need to be "linked" together in a manner that does test the player to produce the fullest array of shot to succeed. Since golf is a game this inherent aspect needs to be explored by any architect when a course is produced ready fior play. Shots lead to outcomes and outcomes lead to score. Yes, we can totally throw out acore and simply "play" the game for the sheer joy. Hell, I do that as much as the next person.

My point is that quirk should be a side factor that INCREASES the essence in playing the course. When quirk descends into the gimmick, the tricky or even the PC term sporty I believe that type of slippery slope minmizes, not magnifies, the shotmaking challenges that lie at the heart of the game.

Mike, you've informed and educated me a good deal on your take on quirk and the application to how you see the game. We come from different perspectives but isn't it interesting that when we do many of our course reviews our feelings often dovetail. Something to think about. Thanks!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()